Dynasty

[tzill]

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...

Seems like something is missing in this photo...

 

[sjballer03]

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

The word dynasty as it pertains to sports IS colloquial so I don't get what you are trying to say. If you want to get technical then yes, the Giants aren't like the Ming Dynasty.

 

[tzill]

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.

Guys who have been on all three teams:

Affeldt
Bum
Casilla
Lincecum
Lopez
Romo
Buster
Panda

That's 2/3 turnover.

 

[sjballer03]

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.

Just to be sure we're talking about sports right? I didn't know a specific team can rule everyone else. Is this like the Lord of the Rings where one ring rules them all?

 

[williewilliejuan]

It seems more important for Giants detractors to say this isn't a dynasty than it is for Giants fans to say that it is. Personally, I don't care. My favorite team has won three out of the last five World Series. Call it what you will.

 

[calsnowskier]

Just to be sure we're talking about sports right? I didn't know a specific team can rule everyone else. Is this like the Lord of the Rings where one ring rules them all?

No.

THREE rings rule.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

The word dynasty as it pertains to sports IS colloquial so I don't get what you are trying to say. If you want to get technical then yes, the Giants aren't like the Ming Dynasty.

The Wiki based it off of implied derivations, dominance and such, yes. However, I'll concede that much as it would be kind of disingenuous to say it is academic otherwise, then I'll make it quite blunt then if we go with two competing colloquial views: You can't be a dynasty if you miss the playoffs every other year; anything but dominant. I have generally separated it in the past by a few things

1. Some vague level of continuity- doesn't have to be a ton, but it can't be a situation where only one player remains.

2. Dominance over a span of, at minimum, 3 years.

3. Dominance the entirety of said Dynasty (you can't break a dynasty one year via missing the playoffs and then call it a dynasty the next- makes no sense to me)


In any case, this debate is really silly semantics.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

It seems more important for Giants detractors to say this isn't a dynasty than it is for Giants fans to say that it is. Personally, I don't care. My favorite team has won three out of the last five World Series. Call it what you will.

Since when are Clayton, myself, and few others in this thread "Giants Detractors." I merely disagree with the Giants being a dynasty here as I have disagreed on a myriad of topics that were not necessarily popular (and vice versa) in the past.

:confused2:

 

[Groo]

It seems more important for Giants detractors to say this isn't a dynasty than it is for Giants fans to say that it is. Personally, I don't care. My favorite team has won three out of the last five World Series. Call it what you will.

There's no arguing in calling them Champions. That's enough for me.

Every other season works for me.

 

[UK Cowboy]

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

Actually, you are 100% correct. One of the reasons I consider the 90's Cowboys to be one of the greatest teams of all time is there were other great, great teams around when they were winning 3 out of 4. Start with that 94 Niners team(I still think the Cowboys had the better team that year, Coach Wishbone was our undoing). Either way, if not for a Niners team that was all time great and an Owner and HC for Dallas that were Dumb and Dumber, the Cowboys win four straight at least. But if it weren't for that Cowboys team, you could say the same thing about those Niners teams winning 3-4 in a row. And if not for those two all time teams, Buffalo may have won 2-3. And there was the Reggie White-Jerome Brown Eagles, the Vikings, the Oilers. Just a great era of football

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I agree that they are not a dynasty based off every definition and way that a dynasty as been looked at.


But who the hell cares? Sign me up for 3 titles dynasty or not.

 

[msgkings322]

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.

Bumgarner
Posey
Sandoval
Affeldt
Romo
Casilla
Lopez
Cain
Lincecum

 

[msgkings322]

Guys who have been on all three teams:

Affeldt
Bum
Casilla
Lincecum
Lopez
Romo
Buster
Panda

That's 2/3 turnover.

Forgot Cain

 

[msgkings322]

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.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

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.

 

[Robotech]

It depends on how strict you want to be on what you call a dynasty. Under a strict definition, I think that a team has to win at least three in a row to be a dynasty. One is just one, two is a back-to-back, and three is a dynasty. Under a more liberal definition, a team can qualify as a dynasty if they win at least three championships close in time to each other.

 

[Clayton]

It depends on how strict you want to be on what you call a dynasty. Under a strict definition, I think that a team has to win at least three in a row to be a dynasty. One is just one, two is a back-to-back, and three is a dynasty. Under a more liberal definition, a team can qualify as a dynasty if they win at least three championships close in time to each other.

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.

 

[Number7]

Nothing is "blatantly obvious" because of a wikipedia definition.

 

[cezero]

die nasty san fran

 

[williewilliejuan]

die nasty san fran

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.