Tweet
Lets the discussion begin! Who wins this World Series?
-
18Houston Astros66.67%12Washington Nationals33.33%6Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis -
I want the Nats to win, but Houston will probably get their second championship.They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. -
If Houston wins again, do we use the word “dynasty”? 2 championships in 3 years with the same core. They made the ALCS in 2018. This wouldn’t be a dynasty in NBA, but strings of championships are tougher in baseball.
And though it doesn’t count toward dynasty talk — They had the AL MVP in 2017, and they’ll have the AL Cy Young this year. Maybe the AL MVP too.
then again, people hesitate to call the 2010-2014 Giants and the 1992-1993 Blue Jays dynasties.
i think Houston takes another one over the NationalsComment
-
I still think of a dynasty as a team that dominated for at least half a decade if not longer (e.g., the John Wooden Bruins, the Jordan Bulls of the 1990s, the Lakers or the Yankees (most notably in the 1950s but really from the 1921 - 1964 & again from 1996 - 2003) with largely the same core group of players. Dynasties today would be the Patriots, Alabama FB team and Golden State Warriors. Because of the disproportionate role of even one superstar player, the NBA is the one major professional sport where it's still relatively easy to have dynasties, which I actually view as a negative.Comment
-
I would add that MLB's current playoff format obviously greatly hinders the creation of dynasties. If it was still just the 2 best teams by record, then I could see several dynasty teams.Comment
-
In general I'd consider a team having a dynasty if they've had 3 or more championships, in a 5- or 6-year window, with a maximum of 1 playoff-less season in between. Back-to-back championships would be pluses, but lack thereof not disqualifying. Long-term dynasties would would be 4 or 5 championships in a 10-year window with a maximum of 2 playoff-less seasons. Roughly.
Across the four big sports, here's who I'd consider "dynasties" from 2000-present:
Yankees 1996-2007
Patriots (NFL) 2001-2007, 2011-present
Spurs (NBA), nearly the entirety of Greg Popovich's full-time tenure (1997-2017). No back-to-backs, but I'd still count them because 5 titles in 6 Finals appearances, made it to the playoffs in 20 straight seasons with only four first-round exits.
Warriors (NBA), 2014-present, though this is probably gonna be the year it ends
Lakers (NBA), 1999-2004, 2007-2012
Red Wings (NHL), 1994-2011
Blackhawks (NHL), 2008-2017They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.Comment
-
One thing evident, very, very difficult to string even two WS in a row.
Since 1970, almost half century.
Oakland 1972-73-74
Cinci-----1975-76
Yanks----1977-78
Toronto--1992-93
Yanks----1998-99-2000Comment
-
Seems like that kinda lines up with what I said about half decades or longer of dominance (which I would define similarly to you). However, I wouldn't consider a dynasty to start until a team wins its first championship. A team that consistently makes the playoffs, but doesn't win a championship is a just a really good team (e.g., the 4-time SB losing Bills). Thus, I wouldn't start the Blackhawks dynasty until 2010.Comment
-
Miami Heat from 2011-2014 was a dynasty. Even if they won only 2 championships — they still made the Finals every year, had the best player in the whole league, created arguably the best trio in NBA history, and just overall dominated. That run had every feel of a dynasty for those who watched.Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post
You have Lakers from 2007-2012. The Heat 2011-2014 was no worse than them.
Warriors dynasty loses points because they added Durant after 2016, in the middle of the dynasty. So it was really 2015 + 2017 & 2018. Like 2 mini-dynasties.Last edited by redban; 10-20-2019, 12:35 PM.Comment
-
Yeah, lots of NBA dynasties due to what I consider is a major flaw with the game. It's nowhere a "team" sport like the other 4 major professional sports. If you don't have a Jordan, LeBron or Bryant, you have very little chance of winning a championship. That's really boring to me.Comment
-
If you don't have one of the top 5 players in the NBA the chances of a championship are slim. The 2004 Pistons are are exception, but they are anomalous.Originally posted by 3rdGenCub View PostComment
-
Yeah I think those super teams like the early 2010s heat or late 2010s warriors are really pointless.
much better in baseball where you cant dominate just by having two superstars.
Still think the Astros are winning it, both have a similar top 7-8 players but astros are just much deeper.
Fg playoff odds have the astros a 70 to 30 favorite another projection i found at fivethirtyeight had the astros a 60% favourite.I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.Comment
-
Nobody regarded Curry, Thompson and Green as superstars until the Warriors actually began winning championships. The Warriors were not like the Lakers, who tried to chase titles by signing Malone and Payton, or the Heat, who added James and Bosh to Wade. They did add Durant, which made a big difference, but they were still a championship team before he arrived.Originally posted by dominik View Post
Can you name 6 players on the Nats who match up to Springer, Altuve, Correa, Bregman, Brantley and Alvarez? Rendon and Soto are in that class, I think that's about it.Still think the Astros are winning it, both have a similar top 7-8 players but astros are just much deeper.
Yeah, don't understand FG's odds. Sixty-forty sounds reasonable, not 70-30.Fg playoff odds have the astros a 70 to 30 favorite another projection i found at fivethirtyeight had the astros a 60% favourite.
Comment
-
On the topic of the thread, I think the Astros should be considered the favorite, but since I'm in a good mood, I'll stop trying to temper my expectations by predicting the opposite of what I want and pick the Nationals to win. I could easily see them pulling it off.
On the topic of whether the Astros are a dynasty and the criterion that the team has the same core players, it's worth pointing out that several of the key veterans on this year's Astros weren't around in 2017: Gerrit Cole, Zack Greinke, Robinson Chirinos, Michael Brantley, and Martin Maldonado are all still looking for their first championships. Only three pitchers from Houston's ALCS roster were part of the 2017 team, those being Justin Verlander, Will Harris, and Brad Peacock. There are enough significant differences between the 2017 and 2019 teams that this year's Astros aren't simply a retread.
It's similar to how the 1992-93 Blue Jays won back-to-back World Series but were two very different teams.Comment
-
On the topic of the thread, I think the Astros should be considered the favorite, but since I'm in a good mood, I'll stop trying to temper my expectations by predicting the opposite of what I want and pick the Nationals to win. I could easily see them pulling it off.
Doing a George Constanza?
Comment
Comment