Define Dynasty

[nymr83]

I split htis off from the hypothetical championship because I didn't want to hijack it with a separate interesting discussion.

The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets -- are now their own dynasty, having won two World Series in five seasons.

Thats a very loose "Dynasty", 2 WS wins in 5 years and no other playoff appearances nearby?

How do you define "Dynasty"?

Factors I'd consider in decreasing order of importance:
1) number of championships and their proximity to each other (and i dont care what else you've done, without at least 2 championships you can't be a "dynasty" in my mind)
2a) number of near-championships in proximity to the championships
2b) number of playoff appearances or good pennant races* also in proximity (this is where the era you played in matters, with the modern post-strike playoffs you need to get in while i wont hold finishing 2nd against you if only 1 team makes the WS from each league)
3) average regular season wins over he course of the dynasty
4) consistency of roster, or at least of "core" players

[Edgy MD]

It's all relative. The Byrds were a dynasty in West Virginia, even if they rarely made a big crack on the national political scene.

Similarly, I think in some cases, league-wide dominance is dynastic, even if a team rarely breaks through for the big one. So the Braves of the 90s, the Dodgers of the 50s, and yes, the Mets of the eighties, count.

Neyer and Epstein thought so, anyhow.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Three World Series wins in a row, unless the team is the Yankees.

[Ceetar]

Dynasty: "During the Dynastic period, the other teams in the division/league formulate specific plans for the team because they know they need to go through them to get a championship."

[Centerfield]

At least 3 championships in five years. (strong showings in the others) There should be at least one year where they obliterated the competition. At some point, people have to say "The ____ again? That's boring. They always win." There should be a lack of a strong rival during that time. (So for instance, the Celtics and Lakers in the 80's would better be defined as a rivalry instead of a dynasty.)

[Edgy MD]

How many teams have pulled off three championships in five years?

Aside from the Yankees, I only seee
[list:10fe1snl][*:10fe1snl]the Swingin' A's from 1970 to 1976, [/*:m:10fe1snl]
[*:10fe1snl]the pre-curse Red Sox from 1911 to 1919, [/*:m:10fe1snl]
[*:10fe1snl]Connie Mack's Elephants from 1909 to 1914[/*:m:10fe1snl][/list:u:10fe1snl],

[dinosaur jesus]

How about three league championships in five years, winning the World Series at least twice? That lets in, for instance, the 1906-1910 Cubs, the 1929-1931 Athletics, and the 1964-1968 Cardinals (and it's a near-miss for the 1926-1931 Cardinals).

[Centerfield]

That's why Dynasties are hard. The Big Red Machine is the obvious challenge here, but only 2 championships? No dynasty by my standards.

[Edgy MD]

The dino jesus standard feels more charitable (naturally) and less Yankee-drunk.

The Yankee dynasty, if we're honest, goes from like 1921 to 1964.

Does the Duck Dynasty thing qualify? There's a standard to meet.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I split htis off from the hypothetical championship because I didn't want to hijack it with a separate interesting discussion. The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets -- are now their own dynasty, having won two World Series in five seasons. Thats a very loose "Dynasty", 2 WS wins in 5 years and no other playoff appearances nearby? How do you define "Dynasty"?

Boy do I feel bad. 'Cause I meant to write: "The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets --- are now sort of their own dynasty ....."

[Vic Sage]

i don't think you can have hard and fast criteria, like x number of WS in y Years. I think its a multi-faceted analysis in which you consider everything, even though some points may be weighed more than others. So sure, multiple championships are important, but a team that wins 1 WS but then loses some of its core players to FAgency, trades and/or injuries (or sold off by Jeff Loria), but somehow manages to pull off a 2nd WS a few years later, while being a 2nd division team before and after, is not necessarily a dynasty, or more of a dynasty than a team that is at or near the top of its league for nearly a decade, with the same foundational core, even if it fails to win more than 1 WS, or even ANY WS, necessarily. Of course the fewer championships a team wins, the more dominant they need to be in the other factors: domination in their division/league (division titles, pennants), duration of their era of domination, the consistency of their core roster over that time, as well as the degree of public perception of the team as one of the dominant teams of the era, are all factors to consider, along with WS victories.

for example, I think the Mets of 1984-1990 (7 years), which was the winningest team of the time, with 90+ wins 6 of those 7 years (100+ wins twice), never finishing lower than 2nd, with 2 division titles, 1 pennant and 1 WS championship (all achieved with the same basic core of players and management), is closer to a "dynasty" than the Twins of that era (6 years, from 87-92), which won 2 WS, but also had 2 sub-.500 teams in that period, finishing 5th/7 and 7th/7 in those seasons, never winning more than 95 games in that period (with only 3 of 6 years with 90+ wins); not to mention that their `87 title team had an entirely different pitching staff (from top to bottom) than the `91 championship team (albeit they still had the same Hrbek/Gagne/Puckett/Gladden hitting core).

[G-Fafif]

After the Devils won their third Stanley Cup in nine seasons (1995, 2000, 2003), dynasty was thrown around quite a bit. Then there was "that's not a dynasty" backlash. WFAN's Jody McDonald and (I think) Sid Rosenberg sat on the air for three hours trying to come up with a word that would better describe what the Devils accomplished and came up empty. That could reflect their linguistic capabilities, but honestly, I don't have a word for it, either.

The Steelers won 4 of 6 Super Bowls and are retroactively considered a dynasty. The 49ers won 4 of 9 Super Bowls and have been labeled a dynasty. Yet in the midst of those runs others won Super Bowls, including the hypermemorable '85 Bears, so I find it difficult to think of those great teams as dynasties because they didn't fully smother their respective eras. I appreciated Neyer including the '85-'88 Mets in his book, and I understood the impulse, but compared to the four consecutive Stanley Cups the Islanders won -- which is when I first heard "dynasty" mentioned on a going basis in contemporary sports (I may not have been listening closely when the Canadiens were doing the same thing just before) -- they're all pikers.

[Vic Sage]

It all depends how high you want to make the bar to qualify.
My impulse is to make it lower, so more teams than the MFYs will qualify, and so the term itself (so associated with that franchise) is watered down nearly to the point of meaninglessness.

[Edgy MD]

I remember someone, maybe even George Brett, being asked in the locker room right after the improbable championship of the 1984 Royals if this was the beginning of a dynasty. He had the good sense to laugh. Not so Randy Johnson, who was asked something similar on the field after the 2001 Diamondbacks championship. With the simulcast feeding the crowd through the scoreboard, he promised, "This will not be the last championship the Diamondbacks win."

I imagine it won't say "Foolish liar" on his Hall of Fame plaque, but still, but the whole notion that the first order of business of a championship is to throw down the gauntlet for next season and brashly call for a new dynasty is silly to the last. The first order of business is to act like a champ, visit the hospitals, help build/restore civic pride, and then to report to camp in shape. History will judge you soon enough, and despite your best efforts, the moment may never come again.

[dinosaur jesus]

Edgy MD wrote: I remember someone, maybe even George Brett, being asked in the locker room right after the improbable championship of the 1984 Royals if this was the beginning of a dynasty. He had the good sense to laugh. Not so Randy Johnson, who was asked something similar on the field after the 2001 Diamondbacks championship. With the simulcast feeding the crowd through the scoreboard, he promised, "This will not be the last championship the Diamondbacks win." I imagine it won't say "Foolish liar" on his Hall of Fame plaque, but still, but the whole notion that the first order of business of a championship is to throw down the gauntlet for next season and brashly call for a new dynasty is silly to the last. The first order of business is to act like a champ, visit the hospitals, help build/restore civic pride, and then to report to camp in shape. History will judge you soon enough, and despite your best efforts, the moment may never come again.

"Nineteen eighty-six, the year of the Mets. Nineteen eighty-seven, the year of the Mets. Nineteen eighty-eight, the year of the Mets." Mookie Wilson, foolish liar.

[RealityChuck]

I have a very restricted definition: a dynasty is a sports team that wins championships over a long period of time with no more than five years between championships, in which that nearly all of the players on the last championship team were not on the first championship team.

Anything else is an excellent team.

That only leaves:

1927-1964 MFY
1996-present MFY
1951-1979 Montreal Canadiens
1957-1986 Boston Celtics

[Ceetar]

RealityChuck wrote: I have a very restricted definition: a dynasty is a sports team that wins championships over a long period of time with no more than five years between championships, in which that nearly all of the players on the last championship team were not on the first championship team. Anything else is an excellent team. That only leaves: 1927-1964 MFY 1996-present MFY 1951-1979 Montreal Canadiens 1957-1986 Boston Celtics

the first one should be 23-62 (nice end year) and the second one violates your five year criteria.

[batmagadanleadoff]

RealityChuck wrote: I have a very restricted definition: a dynasty is a sports team that wins championships over a long period of time with no more than five years between championships, in which that nearly all of the players on the last championship team were not on the first championship team. Anything else is an excellent team. That only leaves: 1927-1964 MFY 1996-present MFY 1951-1979 Montreal Canadiens 1957-1986 Boston Celtics

The Walsh/Siefert Montana/Young 49ers won Super Bowls in:

1981-82
1984-85
1988-89
1989-90
1994-95

and lost the NFC Championship in:

1983-84
1990-91
1992-93
1993-94
1997-98 (Mariucci, Coach)

Dynasty, right?

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Dynasty is three or more championships in a row. Anything else needs a different term. Preferably not juggernaut.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Edgy MD wrote: With the simulcast feeding the crowd through the scoreboard, he promised, "This will not be the last championship the Diamondbacks win."

The Diamondbacks may indeed win another championship. Unless baseball comes to an end, the odds are pretty good that one day it may happen.