U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2012, 03:34 PM
 
570 posts, read 1,504,606 times
Reputation: 353

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
When you look at the position players who were in the top dozen in plate appearances for the 2010 and 2012 championships, only Buster Posey and Pablo Sandoval appear on both listings.

Quite a turnover of position players in only 3 seasons, for a repeat championship club.

but many of the pitchers are the same. If the other team scored the total of 6 points in 4 games, you can probably just run any good hitters out there and win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2012, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,231,932 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04kL4nD View Post
LOL @ all this 'dynasty talk'
The last "dynasties" were the Marlins (2 WS in 6 years) and the Twins (2 WS in 4 yeras).

Posey was the only Giant position player who appeared in more than one game in both series, '10 and '12.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 05:07 PM
 
1,807 posts, read 2,889,227 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04kL4nD View Post
LOL @ all this 'dynasty talk'
tell us more about dynasties like the 70's A's you weren't alive to watch
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,877 posts, read 18,557,746 times
Reputation: 18653
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The last "dynasties" were the Marlins (2 WS in 6 years) and the Twins (2 WS in 4 yeras).

Posey was the only Giant position player who appeared in more than one game in both series, '10 and '12.
You forget your own Cardinals who won two World Series in a six year span? ('06, '11)


The Red Sox won two WS in four years, the Yankees four WS in five years and the Blue Jays won back to back Series, '92 and '93.

So, if the minimum is two WS wins in six years, I am confused as to why you identify the above two clubs as dynasties while not the others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,790,963 times
Reputation: 6636
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Like I said, brah, it's over. It was over before the two teams took the field tonight.

But more importantly, in the World Series of City Data baseball forum of knowledge,

Chickenfried 4
filihok 0

SWEEP!!!!
Yes, brah.

You completely and utterly dominated me intellecutally.

Each time I made a prediction about which team would win a specific game, I was incorrect.
Each time I made specific claims as to how a player would perform, I was incorrect.

Oh wait, I didn't actually do any of those things? In that case what the hell are you talking about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Springfield, Ohio
12,199 posts, read 10,411,824 times
Reputation: 11213
If the Giants win it again next year, then it will definitely be considered a dynasty. I've never heard the term used on any teams who win fewer than three championships in a short time span. The only true dyansties in baseball so far have been from the Yankees, Athletics & Red Sox. The Yankees' most recent dynasty is the most impressive, due to the increased difficulty of teams to make it back to the World Series on a regular basis with expanded playoffs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 10:59 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,173,700 times
Reputation: 7005
Saw this comin'....

World Series finishes up with record-low rating - ESPN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 06:21 AM
 
Location: Englewood, Near Eastside Indy
8,340 posts, read 14,095,346 times
Reputation: 5958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Maybe so - but their advertising efforts didn't make me decide to visit a Taco Bell and attempt to eat their "food".
Their efforts worked enough to make you post something about it on a message board.

Advertisers 1
Harrier 0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 07:08 AM
 
4,749 posts, read 3,607,529 times
Reputation: 3225
My own definition of a dynasty is pretty strict. In order for a team's success to qualify as a dynasty, it should win a minimum of three titles in five years, and it should also be competitive (in the NLCS or better yet ,the WS) in the years that it isn't winning titles. The Yankees, for instance, met these criteria in the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, as much as I would like to, I don't think the Cardinals or Red Sox can be put in that same category. Dynasties are, and should be, rare. There are periods of success, but that doesn't qualify as a dynasty. The Braves, even with their one title in 1995, would in some respects be more worthy of being called a dynasty than either the Cardinals or the Red Sox, because even when they didn't win the WS, they were still extremely competitive. Everyone in the NL, that the road to a WS ring, went through Atlanta. The Giants are definitely capable of putting a dynastic run together, but they're not there yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,231,932 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
You forget your own Cardinals who won two World Series in a six year span? ('06, '11)


The Red Sox won two WS in four years, the Yankees four WS in five years and the Blue Jays won back to back Series, '92 and '93.

So, if the minimum is two WS wins in six years, I am confused as to why you identify the above two clubs as dynasties while not the others.
To emphasize that winning multple WS in a short period of time is not an indicator of "dynasty". Sorry I didn't make that more clear to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top