Dynasty

[Robotech]

The Spurs did have championships in 2003, 2005 and 2007 so thats as close of a comparison as I can come to. Both teams had a top coach. One of the years the Spurs didnt win a championship, the Spurs lost in the 2nd round which would be kinda like a MLB team losing in the NLDS. One of the years the Spurs were a play away from the Finals.

The Spurs are/were widely respected and certainly feared. What they did was impressive and they were the favorites at least half of the time even if people thought they were 'boring'.

What the Giants have done is impressive. I won't haggle over terms because its blatantly obvious they aren't a dynasty. They are simply the best and the class of MLB in terms of playoff success and finding ways to win when it matters.

I'm okay with that. These Giants are still a historically great team. Let's just reserve dynasties for teams that win three championships in a row.

 

[cezero]

Hahahahahahahaha!!


You said "die nasty" instead of "dynasty".


How devilishly clever of you!!


How lucky are we? One must usually visit a truck stop or an out of the way Walmart to encounter such refined and urbane wit, but you've brought it right here to this very website.


Bravo, fine sir. Bravo.

u r smart

 

[GNG]

There are 30 teams in the MLB now. If your team wins 3 in 5 years that means you are a dynasty, I don't give a flying fuck what Wikipedia says.

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

That sounds reasonable to me.

DAMN STRAIGHT. Everything I type is reasonable. Read my signature!

 

[dirtboy068]

ITS A DYNASTY. the few of you need to get over yourself.

 

[cezero]

ITS A DYNASTY. the few of you need to get over yourself.

more caps

it makes you more right

 

[GNG]

The SF fans celebrated by destroying property and turning over police cars. How much more damage would they have done if they lost?

 

[StanMarsh51]

The SF fans celebrated by destroying property and turning over police cars. How much more damage would they have done if they lost?

You seriously felt that this was a question that needed to be asked?

Is this 'dumb question' day or something?

 

[Ties5o11]

Ben Lindbergh at Grantland sums it up well:


The Giants have only the seventh-most wins over that five-season span; the two times they didn’t win the World Series, they didn’t make the playoffs. They’re a dynasty for an era in which championship teams don’t have to be dominant, a product of Bud Selig’s baseball. In some ways, they don’t measure up to certain multi-time champions from prior years whose full-season skill was never in doubt.

On the other hand, they’ve enjoyed astonishing postseason success at a time when October features more teams, and more rounds, than ever before. Under the format in place three years ago, the 2014 Giants wouldn’t have made the playoffs.5 And yet, under the playoff format in place now, they had to complete an incredibly steep uphill climb that started with an elimination game and arguably got more difficult from there. In three of the last five years — only the even ones, of course — these Giants have been good enough to get to October. And once there, they’ve outplayed their playoff opponents at every turn. That’s an enviable legacy in any era.

That is technically not true, as they finished with the same number of wins as the Pirates. They would have played Pittsburgh anyways, just as a "tiebreaker" game and not a "wild card" game. Only difference is it would have been two days earlier so not sure if that would have allowed Bum to start?

Dynasty or not, Giants fans aren't complaining right now.

 

[tducey]

I think they are. 3 World titles in 5 yrs. is mighty impressive.