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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
