October 30, 201411 yr For the record, I hate San Francisco sports. I'm not a fan at all but it is what it is, 3 titles in 5 years.
October 30, 201411 yr For the record, I hate San Francisco sports. I'm not a fan at all but it is what it is, 3 titles in 5 years. I'm with you and I will be the first to say what a great run! 3 World Series in 5 years is awesome and should be considered one of the best accomplishments for a team. But to put them on the same level as teams considered to be dynasties is kind of watering down the dynasty label imo. There should be stricter criteria than simply multiple titles in a mulitple years. Like I said, then why isn't the A's of the 70's or the Cardinals of this decade considered dynasties? Regualr season should account for something. If not, then why have a regular season? Coming in 2nd to last place in your division is not what a Dynasty does imo.
October 30, 201411 yr 3 titles in 5 years is a dynasty. Only bad year in the run was the year Posey was hurt... Agreed.
October 30, 201411 yr 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. This ^ No, they're not a dynasty. They are a very good team who rode a very good pitcher. This year, as a Wild Card team, they were the byproduct of a watered-down product .. until Wild Cards were added, they wouldn't have even made the playoffs (2nd in their Division). Two of the last four seasons, they didn't even qualify for the playoffs. While 3 in 5 seasons is impressive and laudable, they're not a dynasty. Not even close.
October 30, 201411 yr Additionally, look how many clubs haven't been to a world series in decades. It's not as easy as some make it out to be.
October 30, 201411 yr I think something is to be said about knowing how to win when you get there. You watch these Giants and they just expect to win. From the game in Pitt to last night. Just an attitude they play with that you don't see in LA or Washington. I struggle with calling them a dynasty because of what they did in the two off years. But when you consider how they've won the last two and getting past the Cardinals, it's hard not to. The NL needs some new blood. Since 2006, 4 teams have been the only representation of the NL and the Rockies are the only ones to do it once.
October 30, 201411 yr Outside of the Yankees dynasty you have to go back to 1974 and the three in a row for Oakland to find a team with 3 titles in a span of even 10 years. If its only happened twice in 40 years, you have a dynasty...
October 30, 201411 yr Outside of the Yankees dynasty you have to go back to 1974 and the three in a row for Oakland to find a team with 3 titles in a span of even 10 years. If its only happened twice in 40 years, you have a dynasty... Red Sox - 2004, 2007, 2013. I see your point though.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.