Noodling on the idea of a Dynasty
Ya hit what ya aim at, Dept.


Q.  How important is this idea of a "Dynasty"?  Should we even argue about it?

A.  In one sense, it's the only thing that Dr. D thinks about, when he thinks about sports.

I don't especially care* whether the Mariners get Royals-lucky next year and win a World Series.  My vision, the thing I hope for, is to become the Tom Brady Patriots or the Tim Duncan Spurs.  You've got a couple rings already, and next year you're one of the 3-4 teams that nobody wants to play, and let's see where we're going in history.

For me, it's not about riding one little wave until it hits the beach.  It's about gathering a tsunami and washing over the sport.  That's just me.  The current Seahawks, that's what you hope for in sports.  I've been watching since 1976, and this is what I've been waiting for.  If it occurs once in 30 years, great.  That's my tradeoff.


Q.  Should the Mariners be ashamed that they've never been to the World Series, much less been a "dynasty"?

A.  All 8 original NL teams have had dynasties.  All NL franchises, except the Big Red Machine, have had 2 or more dynasties.  The Giants have now had 5, and they're sittin' on one.

Yeah.  Over the course of 100 years, you ought to hit your Dynasty once or twice.  If you don't, there's something wrong.


But there have been 14 expansion teams since 1961 ... only the Mets and Angels, then the Royals and Blue Jays, have had dynastic periods.  (We're speaking pretty loosely if we call the Angels a dynasty, but the 2002-2009 was a period of very rich success and one glittery ring.)

Ten expansion teams with nothing approaching a dynasty:

  • Mariners
  • Brewers
  • Expos/Nationals
  • Padres
  • Rockies
  • DBacks
  • Marlins
  • Rays
  • Astros
  • Senators/Rangers

Of the then teams above, the D-Backs and Rangers are the only ones to show any interest in winning Three World Series.  Maybe the Brewers, whose GM is now a relevant issue.


At this thread, Tango has a discussion as to how Payroll correlates with Wins (it's about .70, meaning that 70% of wins is explained by roster salary size).  The strong correlation is that much more impressive considering that a good portion of every roster is taken up by cheap young players (which doesn't correlate to payroll much at all).

As far as teams "beating the trend," Tango clusters them this way (as of late 2011):

  • Oakland Athletics 
  • Minnesota Twins 
  • St. Louis Cardinals 
  • Florida Marlins 
  • Los Angeles Angels 
  • Atlanta Braves 
  • Philadelphia Phillies
  • Boston Red Sox
  • San Francisco Giants 
  • Chicago White Sox 
  • Toronto Blue Jays 
  • Texas Rangers 
  • Tampa Bay Rays 
  • Cleveland Indians 
  • San Diego Padres 
  • Los Angeles Dodgers 
  • Milwaukee Brewers 
  • Arizona Diamondbacks 
  • Cincinnati Reds 
  • Houston Astros 
  • Colorado Rockies 
  • New York Yankees
  • Washington Nationals
  • Chicago Cubs 
  • Detroit Tigers 
  • Pittsburgh Pirates 
  • Seattle Mariners 
  • New York Mets 
  • Kansas City Royals 
  • Baltimore Orioles

There's something real simple that jumps out at me, those bottom 7.  The owners.  For at least 4-5 of them, winning the World Series is a very dubious goal.  Failing to aim for the top, they also miss on mediocrity.  There's a reason the Sergeant wants to bounce a quarter on your bed.


Dr D


Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.


  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.