The Red Sox Dynasty?
- Thread starter Joshv02
- Start date
The reason I don't consider the current run a "dynasty" is that each of the Series had different rosters. Only Ortiz played for all, and each had huge turnover between WS wins.Joshv02 said:
Maybe not a "dynasty," but boy, if someone had told me 35 years ago (say, right after Yaz popped up) that I'd just have to wait 25 years and the Sox would repay us all with 3 wins in 10 years, life as a sports fan would have been a ton easier.
Niastri said:
I know this is a semantics thing and it's a bit off-topic, but for some people that's the very definition of what makes a dynasty. It's one thing to have a core of players that can win multiple times. To have an organization that can keep winning across personnel shifts is something different.
Niastri said:
It's also a little disingenuous because the 1909-1918 "dynasty" actually didn't start until 1912 - those teams won 4 WS in 6 years.
Since 2002 the Sox have won 3 WS titles, finished first twice and finished second six times. I'd say the current ownership group has created about as close to a dynasty as you can have in MLB. Yes, there has been a lot of turnover on the roster and the team is on their 4th manager and their 3rd GM, if you count interim GM Mike Port, but that's the nature of the beast these days.
And there hasn't been a lot of turnover in the FO/Baseball OPS. Cherington has been with the team since 1999. Jared Porter, the Director of Pro Scouting, since 2004. Tom Tippett, Director of Baseball Info Systems, since 2003. First as a consultant and then an employee starting in 2008. Gus Quattelbaum, Asst Dir of Amateur Scouting, since 2006. Ben Crockett, Director of Player Development, since 2007. All of those guys, except for Tippett, were promoted from within. That Bill James guy has been with the team since 2003.
There will always be turnover in a FO and on a roster, but you need to look further than that. The team is growing its own Baseball Ops people and because the GM, pro scouting, amateur scouting, player development and the manager are all working together, that is what has provided the team with the consistency that has produced the results on the field.
And there hasn't been a lot of turnover in the FO/Baseball OPS. Cherington has been with the team since 1999. Jared Porter, the Director of Pro Scouting, since 2004. Tom Tippett, Director of Baseball Info Systems, since 2003. First as a consultant and then an employee starting in 2008. Gus Quattelbaum, Asst Dir of Amateur Scouting, since 2006. Ben Crockett, Director of Player Development, since 2007. All of those guys, except for Tippett, were promoted from within. That Bill James guy has been with the team since 2003.
There will always be turnover in a FO and on a roster, but you need to look further than that. The team is growing its own Baseball Ops people and because the GM, pro scouting, amateur scouting, player development and the manager are all working together, that is what has provided the team with the consistency that has produced the results on the field.
I think of this as the Golden Age of Red Sox baseball. A dynasty implies rulers of the baseball world, and that simply isn't so. There was another thread that discussed the dynasty idea soon after this World Series win. It's unquestionably a different club since the owners took over, and it'll likely(if not already) be the greatest run of an owner of the team. This is the best we're ever going to have it. 2003 made 2004 that much more amazing. 2007 confirmed the owner's ability to put a team together on their own, 2012 made 2013 that much sweeter. In 50 years I have little doubt we'll look back at this time as an unbelievably amazing time to be a fan, but I don't think on a wider MLB scope that people will look at the Red Sox as a 'dynasty', in the sense of the world.
brs3 said:
Greatest run of ownership? Unquestionably, given that the the 1912-18 teams were owned by three different groups. But the "Golden Age of Red Sox Baseball"? How can this run, as amazing as it is, possibly top 4 WS titles in 7 years, 4 HOFers, 2 100 win seasons, and the opening of Fenway Park? Breaking the curse was huge, no doubt about it. And, thanks to the expansion of the game and the sports and entertainment industry in general, the Sox are now a global brand. But this decade doesn't touch the 1912-18 Sox in terms of on-field success. In terms of off-field success, don't forget that for 50 years there were 2 teams in a town that wasn't big enough for both of them. The reason it was the Braves that moved and not the Sox was largely because of the success the Sox had in their first 18 years of existence (with an assist by Teddy Ballgame).
Both eras have had great teams. Both were different in their make ups and are products of their times. One era is hard to compare to the other as baseball is a far different from what it was at the turn of the century. I think as a fan we are lucky to have had two "Golden Age of Red Sox Baseball". One for each time. Hopeful this one will last another decase or so.
This isn't a dynasty. If they win two more in the next five years or something like that, you can start that conversation.
Orel Miraculous said:
To the extent you can compare eras - and it's very hard to do so, since every facet of the game is different - I think you have it precisely backwards. More specifically, it is so much harder to sustain excellence in the modern ballgame that I don't think there is even a serious discussion over which run is the more impressive feat.
That doesn't make this team a "dynasty" in the traditional sense. Indeed, one of the key differences in the game is the rapid turnover of rosters, because the owners no longer control players from the moment they enter the game to retirement. This is also why it is harder to win multiple titles these days, because the FO is constantly building.
"Dynasty" in sports is almost exclusively a misapplied term in that it's used for relatively short periods of overwhelming dominance by the same core of players (or player/coach in the NFL, or coach in college). Only when you start to see the kind of turnover that a plain-text reading of dynasty implies do we start to debate whether a team 'deserves' the title.
A dynasty requires a consistent framework, turnover within that framework, and sustained dominance. I guess my question is whether you translate 'sustained' more as 'consistent' or 'unbroken'. If the former, I'd say the 3 titles qualify and the other elements are certainly there. Let's call it a dynasty! Are there hats?
A dynasty requires a consistent framework, turnover within that framework, and sustained dominance. I guess my question is whether you translate 'sustained' more as 'consistent' or 'unbroken'. If the former, I'd say the 3 titles qualify and the other elements are certainly there. Let's call it a dynasty! Are there hats?
Since the advent of free agency, only one other team has one 3 WS in a decade. Only a handful of teams have gone to three WS in a decade (in addition to the two obvious ones, the Cards twice, the Dodgers, and the Braves - the Giants just miss the cut -- I could be missing some teams as I'm just eyeballing it....) But, this is the second most championships in a decade, with continued success in between (with the obvious exception of last year). That feels pretty dynastic to me. But that is just quibbling over words - the bottom line is that this is the second most successful decade of baseball in the last nearly 40 years.
3 out of 4 or 5 or something in that area is a dynasty in sports. The Patriots, many Yankees teams, etc. The last 10 years have obviously been great for us Red Sox fans but 0 postseason wins from 2009-2012, the huge collapse, and a 93 loss season isn't a black eye on being a dynasty it's two black eyes maybe even to the point of being blind.
This run doesn't really qualify as a dynasty in my eyes. And you should get the dates of the 4 WS run in 7 seasons correct. It didn't start in 1909.Joshv02 said:
Rough Carrigan said:
I think it was clear that he used the dates he used so the number of years matched.
Seems to me the Red Sox over the last ten years have been the very definition of dynasty. An extended period with a lot of success with a few threads of commonality and a lot of turnover.
Average Reds said:
And, strangely overlooked is the simple fact that in 1912 there were 16 teams, today there are 30. It's a lot more difficult to win multiple titles in a short span when there are nearly twice as many opponents.
Do we really want to consider ourselves a "dynasty" anyway? Isn't that just the kind of talk we formerly reviled from our Yankee brethren?
Dynasty seems a tad strong to me. I like "Golden Age" though. Let us humbly revel in this great time to be a fan of the Boston Red Sox.
Dynasty seems a tad strong to me. I like "Golden Age" though. Let us humbly revel in this great time to be a fan of the Boston Red Sox.
Stanley Steamer said:
Seems to me that every team that wins multiple titles in a relatively short time talks dynasty. Hell, I seem to remember the Rams talking dynasty before they even won a second.
If you want to talk golden age, you couldn't ask for much more from this century. Championships in all four major professional sports, multiple championships in two, and if memory serves, four other trips to teams respective championships. Hell, throw in BC hockey's dominance and you have a lot of success in every sport the region gives a damn about.
This is our Era of Good Feelings - a dynasty is such an overplayed and misused word. However, I understand the thinking behind it as I think that will the current administration, the farm system, and the players we currently have on the 40 man roster, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we won anther 1-2 championships in the next handful of years.
It doesn't feel like a dynasty with the 2012 last place debacle and the 2011 season end swoon. Events like those seem like hitting the reset button on an era even if the aggregate numbers for a period are impressive. I feel like consistency in winning should count for something.
(Point of comparison is the Patriots 1st place run of the last decade plus)
(Point of comparison is the Patriots 1st place run of the last decade plus)
Agreed. To me, a dynasty implies a certainReardons Beard said:
number of titles within a short period of time,
where the titles happen in roughly half as many years as the overall time period covers, with at least 3 total titles. 3 titles in 10 years isn't a dynasty, but 5 in 10 would be by my definition.
It's still a goal to be achieved, but calling 2002-present the Era of Good Feelings works well enough for me.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
The mention of the Patriots' run, 2001-present, makes me think: what's the baseball analogy to having a possibly-greatest-of-all-time quarterback? Probably having 2-3 consistent aces at the top of the rotation. They can't win the games by themselves but they make a more-consistent impact than position players, and make the jobs of everyone else on the roster much easier (fewer high-lev relief innings, etc).
So in that sense, would the Braves' run from 1991-2005 be a baseball dynasty? With Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux for most of the run, they had Bobby Cox for all of it, they won their division every single full-season year (i.e. all but 1994), won 5 pennants and 1 title. Sustained run of excellence, rather than overwhelming dominance and playoff luck for a brief period (e.g. Oakland 1971-1974). We'd probably prefer our fate to theirs, if we knew it in advance, but they created a consistently winning combination just as well if not better than JWH and Co have produced.
So in that sense, would the Braves' run from 1991-2005 be a baseball dynasty? With Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux for most of the run, they had Bobby Cox for all of it, they won their division every single full-season year (i.e. all but 1994), won 5 pennants and 1 title. Sustained run of excellence, rather than overwhelming dominance and playoff luck for a brief period (e.g. Oakland 1971-1974). We'd probably prefer our fate to theirs, if we knew it in advance, but they created a consistently winning combination just as well if not better than JWH and Co have produced.
And, strangely overlooked is the simple fact that in 1912 there were 16 teams, today there are 30. It's a lot more difficult to win multiple titles in a short span when there are nearly twice as many opponents.
At the same time, there are also 8 playoff spots now instead of 2.
It's much different when a record that's the 5th-best in the league can get you into the playoffs, even if there are more rounds, than when a 2nd-place finish just got you out onto the golf course.
More playoff spots doesn't change the fact any one team is inherently less likely to win the title when there are more teams competing. It only changes the fact that the distribution curve of likelihood is flatter and not as top heavy.
First exception dynasty that comes to mind for that bolded criteria is the 50s - early 60s Yankees, a dynasty if there ever was one. They had just one ace, Whitey Ford. Allie Reynolds was also dominating in the early part of that run, but those teams just basically bashed people's head in with Mantle, Berra, etc., with just an average starting pitcher going most games.MentalDisabldLst said:
jacklamabe65 said:
I consider this to be the Golden Era of Boston sports. Since 2001:
Patriots:
- 5 SB appearances
- 3 SB titles
- most wins and winning seasons over that stretch
Red Sox:
- 3 WS titles
- 5 ALCS appearances
Celtics:
- 1 NBA title
- 2 NBA championship appearances
Bruins:
- 1 Stanley Cup
- 2 Stanley Cup finals appearances
That's 8 championships, 12 championship round appearances, and just a whole lot of winning. I don't know that many fan bases will ever have this kind of run of greatness across multiple sports again.
You have to win two in a row, or two out of three to be dynasty. I have heard Esposito say the Bruins should have been a dynsaty but they partied too much, etc. They had 8 years with 4 finals appearances and 2 cups. Team of the decade, etc, is different from dynsaty. there is not always a dynsaty. there is always somebody on top.
Certainly not a "dynasty" but I found myself thinking about this the other night:
- My grandfather never saw the Red Sox win the World Series
- My father never saw the Red Sox win the World Series
- I was 36 before I finally saw the Red Sox win the World Series
- My oldest daughter and my step-daughter have seen the Red Sox win the World Series more times than any other team in their lifetime
- My son has seen the Red Sox win the World Series as many times as any other team
How many of us would have thought 10 years ago that those last two statements would be true.
- My grandfather never saw the Red Sox win the World Series
- My father never saw the Red Sox win the World Series
- I was 36 before I finally saw the Red Sox win the World Series
- My oldest daughter and my step-daughter have seen the Red Sox win the World Series more times than any other team in their lifetime
- My son has seen the Red Sox win the World Series as many times as any other team
How many of us would have thought 10 years ago that those last two statements would be true.
Given that there is a salary cap(and the sox actually care about it), I think being a consistently good organization is about as close to dynasty as you can can get under the current system. To form a dynasty, you need to get a decent size talent gap on the rest of the league or the year-to year variance will get you. Only ways I can think of to do that would be like the 90's MFY and just spend like 50% more than anyone else(and be a bit lucky) or have alot of talent coming out of your farm system. Sorta like if TB had non cheap owners and did a good job retaining players. Basically, any team that sucked for a long time, built up an elite farm collection and then brought them out all at once while doing a respectable job of deciding who to keep and get rid of. A very difficult job. The game its self is so random, it's hard to overcome that with sheer talent.
Hoops is really the best dynasty sport. Smallest number of players makes it easier to get an elite collection of talent together and it's easier to fill in ok talent around them. That, and the better team will almost always win a series eventually. They only thing that works against it is that the top teams have more chances to get upset or meet a bad matchup. It baseball, it's harder to get an elite collection of players that can carry you through the ups and downs of everyone else, just because you need more of them.
Hoops is really the best dynasty sport. Smallest number of players makes it easier to get an elite collection of talent together and it's easier to fill in ok talent around them. That, and the better team will almost always win a series eventually. They only thing that works against it is that the top teams have more chances to get upset or meet a bad matchup. It baseball, it's harder to get an elite collection of players that can carry you through the ups and downs of everyone else, just because you need more of them.
SoxInTheMist said:
You think that's freaky, consider this. If the Yankees don't do something that it doesn't look like they'll be able to do, you may have college graduates in 2018 living in a world where the Red Sox primary rival is the Tampa Bay Rays.
A lot of the implicit definitions for what a sports dynasty would be that are being bandied about this thread have little if any relationship to the actual established definition of the word "dynasty."
The "contemporary" version of this discussion came up in the early aughts when teams that won two championships in a row started yelling "Threepeat!" When it was asked what came next, some people came up with "Dynasty," which was funny, but launched a discussion I recall in the wake of the Patriots' third Super Bowl win. I forget who, but I remember one writer (It may have been Bob Ryan) pointing out that, really, in historical terms a dynasty is success across changes in leadership. So while there are organizations that have had nice runs of success, if you want to talk dynasty, you're talking the Celtics, the Yankees, the 49ers and the Canadiens.
Some may disagree, but I think it's useful to have a term that differentiates that sort of achievement. As per Abs's post above, I am also quite heartened that the Red Sox seem to be trying to put together an organization that develops its own talent from within both on the field and in the FO that could potentially foster that sort of achievement.
The "contemporary" version of this discussion came up in the early aughts when teams that won two championships in a row started yelling "Threepeat!" When it was asked what came next, some people came up with "Dynasty," which was funny, but launched a discussion I recall in the wake of the Patriots' third Super Bowl win. I forget who, but I remember one writer (It may have been Bob Ryan) pointing out that, really, in historical terms a dynasty is success across changes in leadership. So while there are organizations that have had nice runs of success, if you want to talk dynasty, you're talking the Celtics, the Yankees, the 49ers and the Canadiens.
Some may disagree, but I think it's useful to have a term that differentiates that sort of achievement. As per Abs's post above, I am also quite heartened that the Red Sox seem to be trying to put together an organization that develops its own talent from within both on the field and in the FO that could potentially foster that sort of achievement.
Last 40 years only 3 teams have won 3 World Series in a ten year span. 50 years = 4 qualifiers
So if your definition tends towards something looking for the rare teams to dominate over a specific period of time, then yes, this is a Dynasty.
So if your definition tends towards something looking for the rare teams to dominate over a specific period of time, then yes, this is a Dynasty.
The WS wins by the uniform is more difficult now because of that turnover. To me it makes it a greater achievement though I'd take the victories regardless.Niastri said:
I'm loving the fact that teams want to be like the Red Sox now, not some other ALE team who I will not mention at this time -who are not now and have never been... coached by one Mike Ditka.
JimBoSox9 said:
Yup. Personally my definition is one where the sons of Ortiz, Pedroia, Lester and Cherington continue the run, followed by their sons, and so on. Bare minimum is three generations. [And don't come at me with that "Xin Dynasty" bullshit.]
I just like to think of the Red Sox as a well run baseball team. I will let others argue about dynasty as long as they keep winning.
Bump. I heard John Farrell speak tonight at the baseball banquet for the UVA baseball team. He confirmed that story I read somewhere about the 25 men who broke into 5 groups of 5 after the Marathon bombing to visit sick children in 5 different hospitals.
One story I never heard before: While in Cleveland right after the bombing, a bunch of players jumped into a cab to go to dinner. The cabbie drove a little too fast for Pedroia's comfort. He asked the driver if he knew who he was driving and he didn't know. In mid-April, Pedroia told the cabbie that he was driving the 2013 World Champion Red Sox.
One story I never heard before: While in Cleveland right after the bombing, a bunch of players jumped into a cab to go to dinner. The cabbie drove a little too fast for Pedroia's comfort. He asked the driver if he knew who he was driving and he didn't know. In mid-April, Pedroia told the cabbie that he was driving the 2013 World Champion Red Sox.
mt8thsw9th said:
Pedroia's a goddamn psychic, don't you get it? We need to pay attention to any cabbies reporting a similar conversation in April 2014!
The Boomer said:
I would bet a large amount that Pedroia also told cabbies they would be the 2012 World Champion Red Sox in April 2012, that they would be the 2011 World Champion Red Sox in April 2011, that they would be the 2010 World Champion Red Sox in April 2010, and so on. And that he fully believed it each time, too.
