Dynasty

[sjballer03]

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

My apologies. When I read overreaching statements like that on an online forum, I assumed it was specific to this site.

 

[HammerDown]

My apologies. When I read overreaching statements like that on an online forum, I assumed it was specific to this site.

Understood. No, we have a level-headed, non-sensational, mature bunch of Giants fans here on the Hoop. Nothing at all like most of them.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

100% I think it's a dynasty. Within the scope of today's game, with the turnover and free agency etc. it's different than in the past. Wow great in the 60s/70s teams could win 8 in a row, big deal they didn't have to worry about half the team leaving one season to the next. Once you had a team that was your team for the next decade. To me winning 3 in 5 today is far more impressive than winning 5 in a row in the 60s.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

100% I think it's a dynasty. Within the scope of today's game, with the turnover and free agency etc. it's different than in the past. Wow great in the 60s/70s teams could win 8 in a row, big deal they didn't have to worry about half the team leaving one season to the next. Once you had a team that was your team for the next decade. To me winning 3 in 5 today is far more impressive than winning 5 in a row in the 60s.

I think there is a pretty blatant divide between the argument for the dynasty in the academic sense, and the colloquial sense.

 

[sjballer03]

I just think that when you get down to it, only the Yankees have shown what it means to be a dynasty in the MLB. Maybe it's time to figure out the criteria for the other teams in the past 30 years that have been consistently successful in their own respective periods like the Cards, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Giants, Braves, A's, etc.

 

[Clayton]

I just think that when you get down to it, only the Yankees have shown what it means to be a dynasty in the MLB. Maybe it's time to figure out the criteria for the other teams in the past 30 years that have been consistently successful in their own respective periods like the Cards, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Giants, Braves, A's, etc.

The team has to be legitimately feared or respected as a favorite because they wear laundry of a certain kind and that laundry wins.

I do think the Giants command more respect among actual players than the media and most fans

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I just think that when you get down to it, only the Yankees have shown what it means to be a dynasty in the MLB. Maybe it's time to figure out the criteria for the other teams in the past 30 years that have been consistently successful in their own respective periods like the Cards, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Giants, Braves, A's, etc.

Yeah, you might be right- the academic definition is pretty stingy when applied to MLB teams. It's a interesting topic; though I can't say I have little appetite for it after last night (damn you, game 4).

 

[tabascojet]

dynasties dominate period....they win their division outright and dont miss the playoffs. giants fans should just enjoy the trophies and not sweat the semantics...

 

[sjballer03]

100% I think it's a dynasty. Within the scope of today's game, with the turnover and free agency etc. it's different than in the past. Wow great in the 60s/70s teams could win 8 in a row, big deal they didn't have to worry about half the team leaving one season to the next. Once you had a team that was your team for the next decade. To me winning 3 in 5 today is far more impressive than winning 5 in a row in the 60s.

The Giants have had a decent amount of turnover player wise from 2010 to 2014. What's been consistent is the coaching staff and front office. That has to count for something.

On a side note, Bumgarner is basically one of the few players that have contributed to all three WS titles. It's amazing what this team has done and that surely needs to be recognized historically.

 

[calsnowskier]

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.

????

I heard VERY little dynasty talk after '12.

Of course, if you scour everything written or whispered looking for negativity, I am sure you can find just about anything.


(Like posting pics of players celebrating a NLCS victory and comparing it to a player posing after a mid-July HR)

 

[sjballer03]

dynasties dominate period....they win their division outright and dont miss the playoffs. giants fans should just enjoy the trophies and not sweat the semantics...

We're enjoying it no doubt. The word "dynasty" doesn't have a bearing on my enjoyment, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

[calsnowskier]

The Giants have had a decent amount of turnover player wise from 2010 to 2014. What's been consistent is the coaching staff and front office. That has to count for something.

On a side note, Bumgarner is basically one of the few players that have contributed to all three WS titles. It's amazing what this team has done and that surely needs to be recognized historically.

Only 9 players have all 3 rings, and only 5 of those played significant parts in all 3.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

"I'm the GOAT in San Francisco and that was when I was at college there." -Bill Russell

 

[scoutyjones2]

3 in 5...dynasty

 

[tzill]

3 in 5 is awfully hard to argue against.

The man has three of these...all other arguments are irrelevant.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

The man has three of these...all other arguments are irrelevant.

Except the actual technical definition of a Dynasty, he kind of falls on his face there. Colloquially, the answer is kind of obvious though.

 

[tzill]

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...

I'm sure you meant to put the 1984 Niners in that list. Probably just an oversight on your part.

 

[tzill]

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.

You know, if the season were to end today....

 

[calsnowskier]

Except the actual technical definition of a Dynasty, he kind of falls on his face there. Colloquially, the answer is kind of obvious though.

Except that you got the "actual" definition from Wiki.

Is this the most dominant dynasty in the history of dynasties? Absolutely not. But it absolutely qualifies as a dynasty in the accepted meaning of the word in sports today.

 

[Clayton]

Except that you got the "actual" definition from Wiki.

Is this the most dominant dynasty in the history of dynasties? Absolutely not. But it absolutely qualifies as a dynasty in the accepted meaning of the word in sports today.

No. No it doesn't. Dynasties rule. The Giants survive.

The Giants are champions. The Giants are really, really good. The Giants aren't a dynasty.