What is a Dynasty in the MLB?

This post was triggered by the fact that there are still people who are vehemently against crediting the Giants with being a dynastic team, when they won 3 of 5.  So I decided to approach this topic, from an objective viewpoint, and see if I (and many others) are wrong to call that era a dynasty.

ogc thoughts

Of course, the talk of dynasties stretched from the Celtics of the 50's/60's, Bulls with Jordan, as well as the Yankees since Babe Ruth.  But that's also part of the problem, trying to compare apples to oranges, the NBA is a totally different beast, as well as the Yankees, when they were able to outspend everyone for the top amateur talents available.  So I thought some definition of the methodology would be a good place to start.

Definition and Methodology

First off, obviously, stay within the MLB.  Each sport has their own quirks and circumstances that govern whether a team can be dynastic within the confines of their sport.  In basketball (as well as football and hockey), one dominant player can tip the scale for their team.  Bill Russell, Wilt the Stilt, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Curry in NBA.  Starr, Bradshaw, Montana, Roethlisberger, Manning, Brady in NFL.  Gretsky, Crosby (and others, not as up on their star players) in NHL.  In baseball, not as much, you really need a team of stars and complementary parts, to win.

Second, baseball is significantly different today than it was when the Yankees were "ruining" baseball in the 50's.  There is a draft now.  There are now three divisions in each league, 30 teams in total, vs. 16.  And the money is crazy different, there are now many teams that could spend close enough to what the Yankees spend, to make the difference minimal.

I would say that the biggest difference today with regards to the definition of dynasties in the MLB is the divisional playoff format, which started up in 1969, doubling the participants from 2 to 4, then in 1995, expansion from 4 teams to 8, and then lastly in 2012, when the wild card became a play-in, expanding to 10 teams.

Obviously, if we start from 1995, that would pretty much pre-ordain that the Giants are a modern dynastic team, as only the Yankees and Giants are the only teams to have won at least 3 of 5 from 1995 to today.  So I took a look at the full history of MLB Divisional Playoffs.

Teams That Have Won Multiple Times

Given that we are starting from 1969, there has been 49 World Series champions.

For teams that have won 3 in a row, that provides us 47 champions that could have accomplished this feat.  Here are the teams that have won 3 in a row from 1969 to today:

• A's:  1972, 1973, 1974
• Yankees:  1998, 1999, 2000

That's 2 of 47, or 4.3%.

For teams that have won at least 3 of 5, that provides us 45 champions that could have accomplished this feat.  Here are the teams that have won at least 3 of 5 from 1969 to today:

• A's:  1972, 1973, 1974 (3 of 3)
• Yankees:  1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 (4 of 5)
• Giants:  2010, 2012, 2014 (3 of 5)

That's 3 of 45, 6.7%.

For teams that have won 2 in a row, that provides us 48 champions that could have accomplished this feat.  Here are the teams that have won at least 2 of 3 from 1969 to today:

• A's:  1972-73
• A's:  1973-74
• Reds:  1975-76
• Yankees:  1977-78
• Blue Jays: 1992-93
• Yankee's:  1998-99
• Yankee's:  1999-2000

That's 7 of 48, or 14.6%, which more than double the total.

For teams that have won 2 of 3, that provides us 47 champions that could have accomplished this feat.  Here are the teams that have won at least 2 of 3 from 1969 to today:

• A's:  1972-73
• A's:  1973-74
• Reds:  1975-76
• Blue Jays: 1992-93
• Yankee's:  1998-99
• Yankee's:  1999-2000
• Giants:  2010, 2012
• Giants:  2012, 2014

That's 8 of 47, 17.0%.

Adding teams that won 2 of 4 to the list of 2 of 3 would add these teams:

• Red Sox:  2004, 2007

That's 9 of 46, 19.6%, which is exponentially higher than the teams that had won 3 in 5 (or less).

Analysis

One can chose the parameters to get the result that they want.  If you want to leave the Giants out, one could easily just chose to recognize only those teams that won in consecutive years.  Giants fan obviously would want the standard to be 3 in 5 years, as that would automatically mean that the Giants  are included.  So what should objective standards look like?

Scarcity would seem to be an objective qualifier.  So I examined other sports to see what their norms are.  I know I separated them above, but I still thought it would be instructive to examine how frequent these periods of dominance are.  And amazingly to me, the results are very similar.

For the NFL, there has never been a 3 of 3.  The Cowboys and Pats both have had 3 of 4 Super Bowls, that's only two, very exclusive.  The 49er's had 4 in 9 Super Bowls, 3 of 6 as well, and 3 of 7, so if you include them, that's still only three, still very exclusive.  But once you stretch it out to 2 championships, similar to baseball, there is a huge increase on the number of teams one would include, as there has been 11 teams with at least 2 of 4, 7 with two in a row, out of 52 championships. 

For the NBA, the Celtics are the gold standard for the major professional sports with 8 in a row, 10 of 11, 12 of 18.  They also had 3 of 6 soon after.  The Lakers had two three-peat , once in 1952-54 and another from 2000-2002.  The Bulls did that twice too, 1991-1993 and 1996-1998.  Plus the Lakers won in 1985 and 1987-88.  That's 3 teams, with 4-6 eras, depending on how you want to break them up.  Warriors are next with 3 in 4, 2015 plus 2017-18, and will likely join the above (and if they can win again, they join elite status with Celtics with 4 during their dynasty).  Once you get to 2 wins, again, membership balloons upward, with 13 team eras, where the group won at least 2 together in a few years. 

I was right in my thinking that there would be a lot more dominating teams in the NBA and NFL, but it wasn't as bad as I had thought.  The NBA did have more dominating team eras with 13, than the MLB with 9, but I thought it would be worse (and it would be if you break up the Celtics glorious 18-run into individual eras of dominance, one could break into 3, easily, and potentially a lot more).  The NFL was not as bad as I had thought, as I was aware of a lot of 2-Win teams, but there was not as many as I had feared, with 11 (I broke the 49ers into two eras, one 1982/85, other 89/90;  I also counted Raiders 81/84 and Steelers 06/09 as an era). 

Three is the Magic Number

So for the major sports, 3 seems to be the magic number.  Looking at 3 (or more) wins in a short period is a very exclusive club, basically three members in each of the major sports.  Once you lower the standard to 2 wins in a short period, the membership of teams explode upward:  MLB from 3 to 9, NFL from 3 to 11, NBA from 3 (representing 4-6 different eras of dominance) teams to 13 dominant team eras.  It is relatively common to get 2 championships, but 3 has been exceedingly hard to attain.

So the Giants appear, historically, relative to the MLB and compared to other major professional sports, to have been a dynastic team, winning 3 of 5.  They are not up there with the 3 in 3's, which is even rarer and an exclusive club, but rareness is still there when the Giants are included.  It is once you get down into the two championships that there is a huge explosion in the number of members, and exclusivity should be the key here.  And winning 3 championships within a short period of time is very exclusive, whereas 2 championships exponentially grows the size of the membership. 

And if anyone excludes the Giants, either because they didn't win three in a row, or failed to get into the playoffs in the years in-between, that just shows their bias against the team.  Wining 3 championships in a short period is exceedingly rare, whether you do in consecutively, or with a break or two inside.  Just another way to identify those who are Naysayers, either of the Giants or of Sabean.