1909-1918: 4 WS.Niastri said:This will create the next Red Sox dynasty, the first since 1918.
2004-2013: 3 WS.
Enjoy the current dynasty.
1909-1918: 4 WS.Niastri said:This will create the next Red Sox dynasty, the first since 1918.
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:1909-1918: 4 WS.
2004-2013: 3 WS.
Enjoy the current dynasty.
Niastri said: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.
Niastri said: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.
brs3 said: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.
brs3 said: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.
Orel Miraculous 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).
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:1912-1918: 4 WS.
2004-2013: 3 WS.
Enjoy the current dynasty.
Rough Carrigan said: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.
Average Reds 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.
Stanley Steamer said: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.
Agreed. To me, a dynasty implies a certainReardons Beard said:This isn't a dynasty. If they win two more in the next five years or something like that, you can start that conversation.
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: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.
jacklamabe65 said: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.
SoxInTheMist said: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.
Two out of three is a dynasty? I've only ever heard that from Knick fans.reggiecleveland said: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.
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: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.
JimBoSox9 said:"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).
Lose Remerswaal said: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.
kieckeredinthehead 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.
The Boomer said: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.
Okay, this helps the dynasty argument in what way?The Boomer said: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.
mt8thsw9th said:Okay, this helps the dynasty argument in what way?
The Boomer said: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.
What's your point?iayork 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.