What defines a "dynasty"?

[Bryce Newman]

Yeah I guess there is that. He's actually over a PPG in the playoffs which is unheard of as a defenseman. Could have played in more playoff games than just 95, but still has that insane Conn Smythe year. He was just always a guy that made me nervous if we were playing against him. Just so deadly of a guy to jump in the rush or even lead the rush.

He's 2nd all-time in points per game in the playoffs behind Bobby Orr and ahead of Paul Coffey, who is 3rd all-time. Crazy! Probably not many people even realize that. Those 3 guys are the only Defensemen in history to average over a point per game in the playoffs.

I'll never forget Harry Neale commenting on Leetch during the 1996 World Cup. This was right after Canada had scored in Game 3 of the final to go up 2-1. When there was a break in the action Neale said: "I would put a man right out there on Leetch for the rest of the game. He is the one player who can show up on the rush and the winger should be so close to him that he could tell you what Leetch had for lunch."

As it was, Leetch took the shot that Hull deflected in for the tying goal.

Funny how Neale mentioned Leetch. He didn't say that you'd better watch Hull. Or Modano. Or Lafontaine. Or Amonte. Or Leclair. It was Leetch of all players...............and a defenseman.

He was so good in that World Cup. A game breaker. Him and Richter made me proud that Tournament. A real shame the Rangers were such a crapshow the last 7 or 8 years of his career. Another elite Defenseman would have asked for a trade after a couple of bad seasons, but Leetch was loyal to a fault. He should have retired as a Ranger but Sather traded him to Toronto for garbage and on his birthday no less. (I'll never forgive Sather for that) Still doesn't change the fact he was the greatest Ranger of all-time! Even Messier said so himself.

 

[blogofmike]

In Basketball the Spurs are considered a dynasty with 3 in 5(2003,05,07).

I like to define it as

A) 3+ championships, where...
B) your championships are 50% + 1 of total championships in your dynasty span, with...
C) 1 successful title defense (i.e. 1 back-to-back)

To me, the 90s Cowboys make it, and the 00s Spurs don't.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Be it right or wrong, Ill always think of the 2016-17 Penguins as a dynasty. Winning back to back and being very close to three is the ceiling for team accomplishments in this era

 

[Big Phil]

Be it right or wrong, Ill always think of the 2016-17 Penguins as a dynasty. Winning back to back and being very close to three is the ceiling for team accomplishments in this era

I thought if they got three in a row they'd be in, but where were they really close to three? They lost in the 2nd round to the Caps. Basically they did what the 1993 Pens and 1999 Wings did. Win two in a row and then lose in the 2nd round. That's 9 series wins in a row. Good, but still short of a dynasty. Memorable team for sure though.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I thought if they got three in a row they'd be in, but where were they really close to three? They lost in the 2nd round to the Caps. Basically they did what the 1993 Pens and 1999 Wings did. Win two in a row and then lose in the 2nd round. That's 9 series wins in a row. Good, but still short of a dynasty. Memorable team for sure though.

Well they only lost to that years cup champs in 6, and they had the series at 1-0, and 2-2, along with game 6 being won in overtime. Its not that hard to imagine them pulling off the threepeat with an extra bounce or five.

I agree on the Pens & Wings comparison, although maybe my definition is just too soft as Id consider them as mini-dynasties too.

 

[Hockeyholic]

In Basketball the Spurs are considered a dynasty with 3 in 5(2003,05,07).

I wouldn't consider them a dynasty.

Got to win at least back to back.

They are in the next tier though.

50's: Habs, Browns, Celtics, & Yankees
60's: Leafs, Habs, & Packers
70's: Habs, Steelers, and A's.
80's: Lakers, Isles, Oilers, and possibly the 49ers.
90's: Cowboys, Bulls, & Yankees
00's: Patriots & Lakers
10's: Warriors

I'm probably missing some baseball or basketball team from the 60's. I don't know.

 

[thegoldenyear]

Dick Irvin Jr. always maintained the “consecutive” element was the thing.

Traditional dictionary definitions dig “succession of rulers,” “sequence of rulers” and “powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.”

Wrangling sports into the definition creates a “prolonged run of successful seasons.” Clearly that’s where we’re headed in this thread and the dozens that’ve preceded it. 3/4, 4/5, 4/6, 5/7...they’re all good.

In satisfying both the literal definition and the sports world modification, there really needs to be a descriptor to separate the three four-straight and five-straight runs from the lesser strings.

That includes the ‘50s and ‘70s Habs runs, regardless of six-team circuits or rival league talent siphons: they played the hand they were dealt perfectly.

Thinking of the back-to-back ‘80s runs for a moment. The Islanders hammering back at Pittsburgh, down two with six minutes left in R1 ‘82 to preserve, is a monolithic event that separates them from Edmonton’s failure to even-up with Calgary after an own-goal in R2 ‘86. There is a huge distinction between never losing and losing once.

And hey, the ‘82 Islanders romped to the President’s Trophy - same as the ‘86 Oilers - but only New York came back to win from down in their deciding game with a two-Cup reign on the ropes. One team blinked when it knew exactly the immortality it had in its sights. (But really, regular season excellence, man - if Tampa b2b’s this year, are we gonna start loading the ‘18-‘19 regular season into their canon? Regular season finishes are window dressing suitable for breaking otherwise deadlocked arguments, but not for lifting teams who lost once or twice in their run into a higher tier.)

Platinum? 4/4, 5/5
Gold? 3/4, 4/5, 4/6, 5/7
Silver? B2Bs who won a nearby third?

Some theories teeter on the edge of participation ribbon inclusiveness, but all nine of the runs listed upthread are terrific for their time and can’t be discounted in the here and now. The bigger question going forward is how a sprawling league of 30-odd teams elevates runs like Detroit ‘97-‘02 and Chicago ‘10-‘15. Doesn’t the NFL confer dynasty status now on B2Bs...or is it three in a small window?

 

[Ducks in a row]

3 cups in 4 years at worst for what I consider one.

 

[Big Phil]

Well they only lost to that years cup champs in 6, and they had the series at 1-0, and 2-2, along with game 6 being won in overtime. Its not that hard to imagine them pulling off the threepeat with an extra bounce or five.

I agree on the Pens & Wings comparison, although maybe my definition is just too soft as Id consider them as mini-dynasties too.

No, it wouldn't surprise me if they had pulled it off. That spring Crosby and Guentzel were on fire. Actually, they had a lead in the 3rd period in Game 5 when the series was tied 2-2. If they pull it off against Washington then Tampa is a tough task next, but I think they take them out. Then you have a Vegas/Pittsburgh final and I am sure Fleury would have been poised for that.

I wouldn't consider them a dynasty.

Got to win at least back to back.

They are in the next tier though.

50's: Habs, Browns, Celtics, & Yankees
60's: Leafs, Habs, & Packers
70's: Habs, Steelers, and A's.
80's: Lakers, Isles, Oilers, and possibly the 49ers.
90's: Cowboys, Bulls, & Yankees
00's: Patriots & Lakers
10's: Warriors

I'm probably missing some baseball or basketball team from the 60's. I don't know.

Celtics went well into the 1960s as well with those 8 in a row. And then more as well. I might even say Yankees of the 1960s also. Made 5 straight World Series from 1960 to 1964. Won two in a row in 1961 and 1962. That 1961 team is one of the best ever. Lost a heartbreaker in 1960 where they outscored the Pirates 55-27. Got swept in 1963 and then lost a tight 7 game series to the Cardinals in 1964. Since there was so much emphasis on winning pennants back then you might have to put them in there. Even though they lost 3 of those World Series unlike the 1950s counterparts who won most of them, as well as the Ruth/Gehrig and Gehrig/DiMaggio teams.

I agree, no dynasty in hockey since the Oilers. The longest of the 4 major sports.

I actually think the Patriots of the 2010s who won three out of 5 and then had a Super Bowl loss and an AFC championship loss in there were closer to a dynasty than the Hawks or the Red Wings have been. In fact, in the NFL they pretty much classify those Patriots teams in the last 5 years as a dynasty, right or not.