Dynasty

MarkOU · Oct 30, 2014

Sure seems like it.

Giants are living large.

da55bums · Oct 30, 2014

MarkOU said:
Sure seems like it.

Giants are living large.

"sure seems like it", seriously? your actually questioning it?

calsnowskier · Oct 30, 2014

3 in 5 is awfully hard to argue against.

Clayton · Oct 30, 2014

Wikipedia definition of sports dynasty:

"A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row"

I tend to agree that they aren't a dynasty. Just the best team in this period. Like the Spurs

redseat · Oct 30, 2014

Clayton said:
Wikipedia definition of sports dynasty:

"A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row"

I tend to agree that they aren't a dynasty. Just the best team in this period. Like the Spurs

I'd say 3 World Series Wins in 5 Years is pretty dominate.

Clayton · Oct 30, 2014

redseat said:
I'd say 3 World Series Wins in 5 Years is pretty dominate.

It is but its not a dynasty by any stretch of the imagination.

They weren't the dominant team entering the playoffs
They won't be the favorites in the NL next year.
The won't be the favorites in the NL West next year
Did they make the playoffs every year in that 5 year stretch?
Did they win their division every year in that 5 year stretch?

Best team. Not dynasty.

You'd have a better argument saying that Bumgarner is the best pitcher ever

sjballer03 · Oct 30, 2014

Clayton said:
It is but its not a dynasty by any stretch of the imagination.

They weren't the dominant team entering the playoffs
They won't be the favorites in the NL next year.
The won't be the favorites in the NL West next year
Did they make the playoffs every year in that 5 year stretch?
Did they win their division every year in that 5 year stretch?

Best team. Not dynasty.

You'd have a better argument saying that Bumgarner is the best pitcher ever

Based on your criteria only the 90s/early 2000s Yankees can claim to be a dynasty. So maybe the Giants are a tier 2 dynasty? :noidea:

Fountain City Blues · Oct 30, 2014

Clayton said:
Wikipedia definition of sports dynasty:

"A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row"

I tend to agree that they aren't a dynasty. Just the best team in this period. Like the Spurs

Which is also why I won't consider the Giants a true dynasty- just makes no sense when you expand the microscope a bit.

Number7 · Oct 30, 2014

Wikipedia lol.

Fountain City Blues · Oct 30, 2014

sjballer03 said:
Based on your criteria only the 90s/early 2000s Yankees can claim to be a dynasty. So maybe the Giants are a tier 2 dynasty?

I would probably agree with Clayton it isn't a true dynasty, in the academic sense. In the colloquial sense that sports fans use though? Probably.

UK Cowboy · Oct 30, 2014

The argument against is that the Giants had the 10th best record in the league this season. They're never gone put and won 105 games and dominated the league. Usually, for a team to be a Dynasty, they have a team that is considered one of all time best, like the 27 Yankees, the 70's Steelers, Russell Celtics, 90's Cowboys, Jordan Bulls, etc. I don't think the Giants have an all time great team yet, but 3 in 5 is a dynasty. And Madison is 25, they may not be done...

Fountain City Blues · Oct 30, 2014

UK Cowboy said:
The argument against is that the Giants had the 10th best record in the league this season. They're never gone put and won 105 games and dominated the league. Usually, for a team to be a Dynasty, they have a team that is considered one of all time best, like the 27 Yankees, the 70's Steelers, Russell Celtics, 90's Cowboys, Jordan Bulls, etc. I don't think the Giants have an all time great team yet, but 3 in 5 is a dynasty. And Madison is 25, they may not be done...

Yep, how on earth is one a true dynasty if they were never dominant? It's a pretty strong argument that pretty much collapses the "Giants= Dynasty" argument rather quickly in the academic sense.

Clayton · Oct 30, 2014

Biennial underdog dynasty?

HammerDown · Oct 30, 2014

Yeah, think I'll pass. :bullshit:

The fact that this is important to Giants fans speaks volumes. And don't forget that they were shoving this "dynasty" nonsense down our throat after the second one.

sjballer03 · Oct 30, 2014

There is A Moose at 3rd said:
Which is also why I won't consider the Giants a true dynasty- just makes no sense when you expand the microscope a bit.

Clayton said:
Biennial underdog dynasty?

Just like the Cardinals, right?

sjballer03 · Oct 30, 2014

HammerDown said:
Yeah, think I'll pass. The fact that this is important to Giants fans speaks volumes. And don't forget that they were shoving this "dynasty" nonsense down our throat after the second one.

Funny you say that when a non-Giants fan was the one that started this thread.

Fountain City Blues · Oct 30, 2014

sjballer03 said:
Just like the Cardinals, right?

Never said anything about the Cardinals.

Well, there was that one time way back when.

HammerDown · Oct 30, 2014

sjballer03 said:
Funny you say that when a non-Giants fan was the one that started this thread.

Highly relevant to the debate. Because the only Giants fans are on SportsHoopla.

sjballer03 · Oct 30, 2014

There is A Moose at 3rd said:
Never said anything about the Cardinals.

Well, there was that one time way back when.

Sorry I meant to quote Clayton, but I guess I quoted one of your posts. I don't have edit privileges anymore cuz of the great Niner poster exodus lol.

Clayton · Oct 30, 2014

sjballer03 said:
Just like the Cardinals, right?

If the Giants didn't exist then maybe. Cards just have a bunch of playoff wins but not really a lot of hardware. Imo, the Cardinals legacy is getting the most out of their teams as of late. I dont think they've had the depth to win a championship in both recent times they ran into the Giants

Dynasty

License to Thrill

Royals -when they do win its a WS RING.

Sarcastic F-wad

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Love Everybody

Active Member

Love Everybody

Happy Father's Day T-Roy

Love Everybody

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Love Everybody

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads