Greatest Dynasty Since 90s Yankees?

[todeen]

I read an article today on USAToday that called the Astros the greatest dynasty since the 90s Yankees. I felt that was a tall order, and perhaps the Astros are a top 5 consideration. My choice would be the 2010-2014 SF Giants. Their 3 championships far exceed the Astros continued excellence as the #2 team.

Others thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[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.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by todeen

I read an article today on USAToday that called the Astros the greatest dynasty since the 90s Yankees. I felt that was a tall order, and perhaps the Astros are a top 5 consideration. My choice would be the 2010-2014 SF Giants. Their 3 championships far exceed the Astros continued excellence as the #2 team.

Others thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I'd agree with you on the Giants. I believe they're the only dynasty in baseball since the 90s Yankees. I'd call the Astros the almost equivalent of the NFL's Buffalo Bills from 1991-1994 where they got to, and lost, four straight Super Bowls. Nobody even thinks of calling them a dynasty.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by todeen

I read an article today on USAToday that called the Astros the greatest dynasty since the 90s Yankees. I felt that was a tall order, and perhaps the Astros are a top 5 consideration. My choice would be the 2010-2014 SF Giants. Their 3 championships far exceed the Astros continued excellence as the #2 team.

Others thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

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

[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

[packs]

What's so great about the Astros? They've won exactly one World Series. I really don't see how they can be considered a dynasty. The Braves were in the postseason 14 seasons in a row and also won exactly one World Series.

Does anyone refer to the Braves teams of the 90s as a dynasty?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Not a dynasty imo, especially if they don't win this WS!

[packs]

What separates the Astros from the Dodgers? The Dodgers have one championship too and two WS losses.

I just don't understand the premise. Lots of teams throughout the history of baseball have made the playoffs a few years in a row. Lots of teams have won a single World Series during the primes of their players.

Why exactly are the Astros a dynasty?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by packs

What's so great about the Astros? They've won exactly one World Series. I really don't see how they can be considered a dynasty. The Braves were in the postseason 14 seasons in a row and also won exactly one World Series.

Does anyone refer to the Braves teams of the 90s as a dynasty?

The Braves is a good reference. I have always loved that 90s Braves team even though I rooted so hard against them. The Braves and Cardinals sit on a pinnacle of professionalism and respect. They do baseball right. The way I feel about the Braves and Cardinals is not the same way I feel about the Dodgers or Astros.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[G1911]

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.

[mrreality68]

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

I do not consider the Dodgers a Dynasty. They have been a great team for a long time but only a 1 hit wonder as of now

[jingram058]

As someone correctly stated above, they're the baseball version of the Buffalo Bills. Especially so if they lose this WS, and I hope they do. There's nothing to like about the Astros these days, except Dusty Baker.

[rats60]

A Dynasty needs to win as much as it loses over a 5+ year period. The Giants 3 championships in 5 years is the only Dynasty since the 1990s Yankees. The Ultimate Dynasty was 20 championships in 40 years 1923-1962 Yankees.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by rats60

A Dynasty needs to win as much as it loses over a 5+ year period. The Giants 3 championships in 5 years is the only Dynasty since the 1990s Yankees. The Ultimate Dynasty was 20 championships in 40 years 1923-1962 Yankees.

And that was back in the day when finishing on top of your league with the most wins actually mattered.

[isiahfan]

The Giants won 3 to the Astros 2 if I am correct...and didnt have as many total postseason wins....and FWIW many "experts" consider at least 2 of those Giants teams...(and some all 3)...in the top 5 worst all time WS champs.

If you are basing this only off of WS then yes...the Giants. If you are looking at longevity, consistency, fear of facing, etc.....I would take the 90's-00's Braves (How many straight PO appearances?) current Dodgers and Astros way before SF.

[mrreality68]

with this 2nd WS win and the # of times with the ALCS in the last few years it is close. But not yet. IF they win next year I would say yes if not I would say know

[packs]

Does it, though? It's been 5 years since 2017. The Yankees won 4 titles in 5 seasons and lost a 5th. Seems like a pretty big disparity between what are/may be considered dynasties.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by packs

Does it, though? It's been 5 years since 2017. The Yankees won 4 titles in 5 seasons and lost a 5th. Seems like a pretty big disparity between what are/may be considered dynasties.

I agree with you and it depends on how each person defines a dynasty. But if they win next year(and pray they do not) then I think it is based on how most people consider it that would be 3 championships between 2017-23 and all those great other years that they dominated but fell short

[Mjramsey1]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

with this 2nd WS win and the # of times with the ALCS in the last few years it is close. But not yet. IF they win next year I would say yes if not I would say know

It is easy to argue, if a dynasty, the Astros would include an asterisk like Bonds HR record.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Mjramsey1

It is easy to argue, if a dynasty, the Astros would include an asterisk like Bonds HR record.

I think outside the fan base this is a real concern.

While the scandals major players are gone, the shadow lives on. Rumors and innuendo are still rampant and the Castellanos display of pulling up his jersey puts it in a nutshell.

I just don't see the "Dynasty" label being adopted by a majority anytime soon as it is going to take a decade for MLB fans to fade the trash can bongos from collective memories.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I think outside the fan base this is a real concern.

While the scandals major players are gone, the shadow lives on. Rumors and innuendo are still rampant and the Castellanos display of pulling up his jersey puts it in a nutshell.

I just don't see the "Dynasty" label being adopted by a majority anytime soon as it is going to take a decade for MLB fans to fade the trash can bongos from collective memories.

Altuve is still there, Bregman is still there, Yurriel is still there, Maldonaldo is still there............................................. ....

I guess it depends on your definition of "major" players. I get what you're saying though, the management and team employees supposedly behind the operation are supposedly gone as far as we know.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Mjramsey1

It is easy to argue, if a dynasty, the Astros would include an asterisk like Bonds HR record.

I disagree with asterisks. Barry Bonds is the single season home run king. I also believe the cheaters should be in the hall of fame. Or create a 90s/00s wing to hours everybody and have panels discussing the proliferation of steroids.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[campyfan39]

Dodgers would have been one if they had a half decent coach. Roberts is a baffoon who's complete allegiance to analytics has cost the team more times than I can count.

Originally Posted by mrreality68

I do not consider the Dodgers a Dynasty. They have been a great team for a long time but only a 1 hit wonder as of now

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Dodgers would have been one if they had a half decent coach. Roberts is a baffoon who's complete allegiance to analytics has cost the team more times than I can count.

+1 Agree a different manager and they should have been a dynasty. THey had hitting, pitching, star power and good defense.