[todeen]

Originally Posted by G1911

I grew up in Giants land and a Giants family, so my bias leans slightly to them but….

They really weren’t any kind of a dynasty. They got hot and lucky at the right times. They were a good team, a really good team in 2010 and 2012, but really just rolled the dice correctly in the playoffs and won when they weren’t expected too and weren’t really the best of the season overall. The modern playoff system often makes the best teams lose by giving basically every team that’s decent a competition to see who’s hot for a few weeks. That that team won 3 WS titles, in my eyes, rubber stamps Bochy’s Cooperstown ticket.

In the current system with multiple wild cards and almost half the league making playoffs, it’s going to be very hard to have dynasties like the old days. That may be a good thing.

Originally Posted by mrreality68

I would agree SF Giants is the closest but I do not really consider them a classic dynasty but they were fun to watch

and Astros would not be considered a Dynasty at all at least not yet

I would call them a dynasty. Obviously they were a little soft, they weren't Murderers Row or the Big Red Machine, but they had a core nucleus that was able to perform and produce on the biggest stage with dependability. That is a hard task. Developing a nucleus that can continually produce rarely happens. The Astros have had that, but without the desired results.

What's everybody's take on the current Dodgers team? Are they equivalent to the Astros?

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk