At first I thought, 3 World Series Championships in 5 years, no question: YES. As a Royals fan that does not want to be bitter I jumped to that conclusion even faster. But then I have seen a few columns with this question. I wondered, why is this even a question, of course they are a dynasty. So I looked at the other two [non championship years]. They missed the playoffs in each of those years and it wasn’t close. Last year their record was 76-86 and they finished 16 games back in the NL West. Now I could give the nod to a “3 in 5 years” team as a dynasty, but not when they were not contenders the other two years. Two of the sports dynasties in my lifetime that come to mind [both teams I strongly dislike BTW] are the 1996-2000 New York Yankees and the 1990-98 Chicago Bulls.
The Yankees:
They won 4 World Series in 5 years. The off year they made the playoffs. The year after they lost on a walk off hit in game 7 of the World Series and they made the playoffs 6 more years in a row after that, making it to another World Series. So a total of 13 seasons in a row making the playoffs. And if you expand it a little more to 2009. They went to 7 World Series in 14 seasons, winning 5 of them.
The Bulls:
They won 6 NBA Finals in 8 years. Each of the two years between made it to the playoffs without Michael Jordan. And the two seasons before their first title they made it to the Eastern Conference Finals.
As a bonus I’ll point out the 1991-2005 Atlanta Braves. They won 14-15 Division titles including 11 in a row. The one non-division title was the strike-shortened 1994 season. They went to 5 World Series but only won the 1995 championship. I would call that a dynasty.
So now I say: No, the 2010-2014 Giants are not a dynasty. To make that statement you would put them in the company of truly dominate franchises to which they do not compare.
Are the Giants a dynasty or just another really good team?
james k light 