Are the San Francisco Giants a Dynasty?

[Bombers]

They have won 3 World Series in 5 years. They did it this year without Matt Cain. Who was their best pitcher. Now Bumgarner is. If they resign the Panda Bear they could repeat.

[jerichoholicninja]

I mentioned them in the sad franchise thread, they've had a lot of recent success but does anyone actually consider them to be a great franchise? Yes, they've won a lot of championships but nothing about them screams greatness. They're not the Yankees, Red Sox, or Cardinals.

[Bombers]

I mentioned them in the sad franchise thread, they've had a lot of recent success but does anyone actually consider them to be a great franchise? Yes, they've won a lot of championships but nothing about them screams greatness. They're not the Yankees, Red Sox, or Cardinals.

Which makes the question, are they a dynasty? They have as many World Series wins as the Red Sox do since 1919. (3) they have the same amount of World Series wins as the Cards do since 1968. (3). Yes the Yankees have 27 Championships. And were one of the best teams ever from their run during 1996 - 2003.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/postseason/mlb_ws.jsp?feature=club_champs

 

But this Giants team has 3 World Series wins over 5 years. In the end the only stat that matters is how many rings do you have? They got 3 over 5 years with no signs of slowing down.

[3and2Fastball]

They have won 3 World Series in 5 years. They did it this year without Matt Cain. Who was their best pitcher. Now Bumgarner is. If they resign the Panda Bear they could repeat.

 

Going by the pattern, they won't repeat but will win it again in 2016

 

I tend to think of "Dynasties" as teams that dominate, like the mid-70's Reds. The Giants aren't that, but they are an extremely impressive franchise, and I believe that Boche has earned his place as one of the All-Time great managers

[AdvantageSchneider]

Yeah, they aren't great other than all the World Series titles.

 

I wish the Brewers could suck as much as the Giants do.

 

Of course they are a dynasty, just like the Spurs are.

[TURBO]

Yes, they've won a lot of championships but nothing about them screams greatness.

 

Ummm, can you give us YOUR definition of greatness if the Giants fall short in your world?

 

3 World Series titles in 5 years IS the definition of greatness, what else can it be?

 

*scratching head*

[torts]

they've done it with a core group of players over the last 5 years, they are a dynasty in my opinion.

[fondybrewfan]

Bumgarner by himself is a frickin dynasty; I don't know about the rest of the team. Giants rode a hot pitcher to a World Series title; its happened before and it will happen again. I don't know if that makes them a dynasty or not but I would rather be them then the Brewers

[Bombers]

Guys with 3 rings:

1. Tim Lincecum

2. Matt Cain

3. Madison Bumgarner - Is just awesome. He is now 4-0 in World Series games with one 5 inning save.

4. Jeremy Affeldt

5. Pablo Sandoval

6. Sergio Romo

7. Javier Lopez LHP

8. Santiago Casilla

9. Buster Posey

 

*Travis Ishikawa won it in 2010 and 2014 (so that's odd)

* Gregor Blanco is the only OF to have more than 1 ring (he has 2) from their 3 world series teams.

 

They basically took 2 guys (Posey & Sandoval) and tied them with some awesome pitching and just plugged and played with the other positons. They certainly seem to always find good players to come in. I just don't see how you can say anything but Dynasty. Especially if they re-sign Sandoval.

[jerichoholicninja]

Yes, they've won a lot of championships but nothing about them screams greatness.

 

Ummm, can you give us YOUR definition of greatness if the Giants fall short in your world?

 

3 World Series titles in 5 years IS the definition of greatness, what else can it be?

 

*scratching head*

 

The Yankees had star power, the Red Sox had history and personalities, the Cardinals had "The Cardinal Way" and TLR. Those franchises are either loved or hated by baseball fans. The Giants, not so much. Outside of SF and LA they don't get fans to exhibit emotion one way or the other. The Giants have two superstar players and a bunch of nobody's. They have no pizazz, they're boring. I guess they are like the Spurs like someone mentioned, which I would agree is a dynasty. Sure, I guess that when talking about a dynasty championships are all that matter, but other than that there is nothing about the Giants that seems special to me. They've made the playoffs only 1 more time that the Brewers have over the last 10 years. They've only won their division 1 more time than the Brewers have in that time span. And here's a not super relevant but still surprising fact, in the last 10 years the Brewers have 821 regular season wins. The Giants have 818.

[monty57]

Sure, I guess that when talking about a dynasty championships are all that matter, but other than that there is nothing about the Giants that seems special to me. They've made the playoffs only 1 more time that the Brewers have over the last 10 years. They've only won their division 1 more time than the Brewers have in that time span. And here's a not super relevant but still surprising fact, in the last 10 years the Brewers have 821 regular season wins. The Giants have 818.

 

That's a bit misleading. From 2005-2007 (years 7-10), they were a low-70's win team. Since then, they've won 3 World Series. However, from 2000-2004 (years 11-15), they won over 90 games every year, winning 100 games in 2003 and making the playoffs three times in that span. From 1997-1999, they won 90, 89, and 86 games, making the playoffs in 1997. They also made the World Series in 1989 and the playoffs in 1987. They took a short breather between two successful runs, but that's the time-frame you used in your comparison, which also cuts off just after the Brewers' run of 67, 68, 56 and 68-win seasons.

 

They have been one of the best franchises in baseball for the last two decades, and the best franchise in baseball for the past five years. Comparing them to the Brewers is pretty comical. Since the Brewers were formed, they have four playoff appearances and one World Series appearance. In that time frame, the Giants have ten playoff appearances, and five World Series appearances, three of which they won. In the history of the franchise (in San Francisco), they have 4713 wins vs 4364 losses (.519 win%). The Brewers are 3437-3720 (.480 win %). The Brewers have had two periods in their history where they were a playoff-caliber team, and neither of them comes anywhere close to the recent success of the San Francisco Giants.

 

If we want to discuss whether they're a dynasty, compare their success to other dynasties (noting that there hasn't always been free agency, which hampers the ability to form a dynasty), not to the Brewers.

 

From 1995-2012, the Yankees only missed the playoffs once, in a year they still won 89 games. They made seven World Series during that time-frame, winning five of them including three in a row and four in five years. That is certainly more dominant than the Giants have been. Is that the barometer of a dynasty, and all else falls short, or can a team still be a dynasty with the success of the Giants? That's really the debate.

[pacopete4]

Everyone has their own definition of a dynasty and I believe that term has to keep evolving. I mean there are way more opportunities to get into the post season now (which the Giants have taken advantage of) but that also means you have to win more series to win it all. It's all how you want to see it. All I know is winning 3 of 5 world series is amazing and very impressive. All I want is one, I don't know what I'd do with three!

[craigharmann]

More of a dynasty than the Cards are. Just my opinion.

[Thurston Fluff]

Bumgarner by himself is a frickin dynasty; I don't know about the rest of the team. Giants rode a hot pitcher to a World Series title; its happened before and it will happen again. I don't know if that makes them a dynasty or not but I would rather be them then the Brewers

 

I don't think they rode a hot pitcher to all three championships.

More of a dynasty than the Cards are. Just my opinion.

 

Agreed. But I can see the argument for the Cards as well. Making the playoffs so consistently counts for something too. I just think winning it all counts more than just making the dance more often.

[Slaket13]

Yes they are. They did something that hasn't been done in almost 70 years in the NL, win 3 titles in 5 years. Its amazing how they do it.

 

I'll be at the parade tomorrow, should be fun.

[JimH5]

I don't use the word dynasty as a part of my regular vocabulary. But I guess they're a dynasty.

 

3 WS titles in 5 years, which, if it ended today, would be enough to send Bruce Bochy and probably Brian Sabean to the Hall of Fame. They are not the Big Red Machine, or the 1950s or turn of this century Yankees, but they have accomplished a feat not often accomplished.

 

That they play on the west coast makes it difficult to follow them on a daily basis. Besides Posey and maybe Bumgarner, they don't have any other players who appear to be on a HOF track, so that doesn't scream Dynasty. . .but they are a three-time champion in an era when that's pretty difficult.

[Invader3K]

They're as much a dynasty as there's been in about the last fifteen years of baseball history.

[vegasbrewcrew1993]

If they aren't a dynasty then no one else is. 3 titles in 5 years is remarkable. Especially impressive IMO since it was done in today's era. Players are more expensive than ever and somehow they've managed to keep everyone together. The Dodgers paid a crap ton of money for their roster and they haven't even made it to the World Series. Goes to show that regular season records don't matter. All you have to do is make it. That very easily could have been the Brewers. Anyways they are more of a dynasty than the Lards. They are a top all-time franchise too. Yankees are obviously first. Second place is between the Athletics and Lards. You can now make an argument that the Giants are ahead of the Red Sox. They are equal in World Series championships at 8. The Giants organization has the second most World Series appearances at 20, trailing only the Yankees ridiculous 40 appearances. Giants have 23 NL pennants to the Red Sox 13. Giants have 8 division titles to the Red Sox 7. The Giants also have the most players in the hall of fame.

[homer]

Seems weird to assign a "dynasty" label to a team that won a world series with a wild card berth. Just for discussion...if a team wins 85 games three years in a row, never wins their division, yet wins the World Series each year are they a dynasty? I suppose they are...just seems odd to me.

[RobDeer 45]

I think it's hard to compare a dynasty from present time to ones before free agency. Dynasties just look so different now. It's not the same guys every year. What SF has pulled off is amazing and I think it's a dynasty. I think it's much harder to do what they've done in present time.

 

Also, I don't think the definition of a dynasty has anything to do with how popular a team is or how much attention they draw. That's something totally different.

[JohnBriggs12]

Bochy is a great manager but Sabean might be an even better GM. He's got a keen eye for talent especially the hard nosed types. Morse was out there for anybody last winter. I always liked Morse. Giants got him for a pittance. Pence remains one of the most underrated players of the past decade. He's durable (hasn't played less than 154 games in any season) and hard nosed. Always liked how he played. Panik was a great use of a late first round pick.

[Bombers]

Seems weird to assign a "dynasty" label to a team that won a world series with a wild card berth. Just for discussion...if a team wins 85 games three years in a row, never wins their division, yet wins the World Series each year are they a dynasty? I suppose they are...just seems odd to me.

This is a good point.

2008 - 72 wins (4th in division)

2009 - 88 wins (5th best record in NL and would have made playoffs in today's format. 3rd place in division.)

In 2010, they won their division by 2 games with 92 wins. (5th best record in baseball, but 2nd best in NL and got a 2 seed)

2011 - 86 wins, no playoffs. (6th best record)

2012 - More of the same, won their division and were a 3 seed with 94 wins. (5th best record in MLB and tied with 2 other teams)

2013 - 76 wins, a losing record and no playoffs.

2014 - 88 wins and landed the 5th seed. (Tied for the 8th best record with 2 other teams.)

 

They really have not dominated the league, they have just dominated the post season. (when they make it) ... Which makes it hard to ignore the 3 World Series wins in 5 years. Especially if they get another one in the next few years. I think by default most align "dynasty" with not only winning your league championship but also winning your division on a consistent basis. (Think mid 90's Cowboys, 90's Bulls, 2000 Patriots, late 90's Yankee's) Not only did those teams rack up titles, but they consistently won their division.

 

The Giants are a bit of an odd ball. In the last 10 years, they have won their division twice, but yet have 3 World Series titles over the past 5 years. I think that's what makes it hard to label them a true Dynasty. But in today's day and age of free agency, one does have to marvel at how they continue to perform well on the big stage. Great for them and their fans as this is a decade for the ages for them.

[jerichoholicninja]

Seems weird to assign a "dynasty" label to a team that won a world series with a wild card berth. Just for discussion...if a team wins 85 games three years in a row, never wins their division, yet wins the World Series each year are they a dynasty? I suppose they are...just seems odd to me.

This is a good point.

2008 - 72 wins (4th in division)

2009 - 88 wins (5th best record in NL and would have made playoffs in today's format. 3rd place in division.)

In 2010, they won their division by 2 games with 92 wins. (5th best record in baseball, but 2nd best in NL and got a 2 seed)

2011 - 86 wins, no playoffs. (6th best record)

2012 - More of the same, won their division and were a 3 seed with 94 wins. (5th best record in MLB and tied with 2 other teams)

2013 - 76 wins, a losing record and no playoffs.

2014 - 88 wins and landed the 5th seed. (Tied for the 8th best record with 2 other teams.)

 

They really have not dominated the league, they have just dominated the post season. (when they make it) ... Which makes it hard to ignore the 3 World Series wins in 5 years. Especially if they get another one in the next few years. I think by default most align "dynasty" with not only winning your league championship but also winning your division on a consistent basis. (Think mid 90's Cowboys, 90's Bulls, 2000 Patriots, late 90's Yankee's) Not only did those teams rack up titles, but they consistently won their division.

 

The Giants are a bit of an odd ball. In the last 10 years, they have won their division twice, but yet have 3 World Series titles over the past 5 years. I think that's what makes it hard to label them a true Dynasty. But in today's day and age of free agency, one does have to marvel at how they continue to perform well on the big stage. Great for them and their fans as this is a decade for the ages for them.

 

This has been part of my thinking for them not being a dynasty. They've never been a dominant team. They've never had the best record in baseball or even the NL. They've only won their division once. They've been a good/solid regular season team that has had the good fortune of winning a bunch of games in the playoffs.

 

Were the Braves that won 11 Division titles in a row and only 1 World Series a dynasty? I don't know but I would put them ahead of these Giants for consideration.

[Invader3K]

The days of a team being "dominant" for several years on end during the regular season and winning multiple World Series are probably over. I don't think that's a bad thing in this day and age. Do we really want to go back to the days of franchises like the mid '90s Yankees?

[jerichoholicninja]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2250369-san-francisco-giants-are-on-an-incredible-run-which-has-us-redefining-dynasty?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cnn-sports-bin&hpt=hp_bn15

 

We aren't the only ones wondering.