- Thread starter
- #1
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
It is but its not a dynasty by any stretch of the imagination.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
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
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?
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...
Which is also why I won't consider the Giants a true dynasty- just makes no sense when you expand the microscope a bit.
Biennial underdog dynasty?
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.
Just like the Cardinals, right?
Funny you say that when a non-Giants fan was the one that started this thread.
Never said anything about the Cardinals.
Well, there was that one time way back when.
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 GiantsJust like the Cardinals, right?