Quote:
Originally Posted by todeen
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
|
Good. Dependable. But one of those seasons they even had a losing record and lost 10 more games than they won before they were the wild card the next year. I don't believe the Giants were even once a favorite for the WS, or seen as a great dynastic force it would be tough to beat. They were a surprise win, each time. Really good team, and the one my bias leans to, but not a dynasty. They didn't dominate.
The current Dodgers, on paper, should be a dynasty. The huge number of playoff teams makes it exceptionally difficult for the team that is the best over the course of a war to keep winning. Dynasties will be unusual as long as the current setup exists.