The Texas Rangers: Baseball’s next dynasty?
Posted by Andy on October 14, 2011
If the Rangers advance to the 2011 World Series, that will be back-to-back appearances for that club in the Fall Classic.
Quick--name the last team to appear in consecutive World Series.
Those of you who remember recent playoff history will recall that the Phillies appeared in both the 2008 and 2009 World Series. The last time a single team repeated before then was in 2000 and 2001, when the Yankees made it each time. The Yanks also played in the Series in 1999 and 1998. Before that, it was the Braves in 1995 and 1996, and before that the Blue Jays in 1992 and 1993.
While the AL West hasn't been a particularly strong division in the last couple of years, the Rangers have nevertheless had to go through some excellent teams to represent the AL in the championship series.
October 14th, 2011 at 8:57 am
I've never heard of a team being called a dynasty until they three-peat, so to me we'd have to wait another year to see if Texas can be an AL dynasty. Although, if a team wins three championships in a 5 year span or something, non-consecutively, I'd still consider them a dynasty too.
How are the Rangers when it comes to locked up players? Are they keepin' a lot of their important ones for another couple seasons or are they going to face a free agency exodus in a year or two?
October 14th, 2011 at 9:15 am
There's a report this morning on ESPN indicating that the Rangers plan on pursuing Sabathia if he opts out.
October 14th, 2011 at 9:27 am
The Rangers are a relatively old bunch (~ 29 years on average), so they'd need some pretty shrewd management to return to the WS in the next few years.
Still, good job by Jon Daniels so far. I've been underrating the Rangers for two years running.
October 14th, 2011 at 9:34 am
@1...how about actually "winning" a World Series first before the "D" word is used?
October 14th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Five times in 20 years. That's not such a rarity in my view.
October 14th, 2011 at 9:41 am
I never said it was a rarity. It's true, though, that those teams are all remembered as being either dynasties or mini-dynasties.
October 14th, 2011 at 10:10 am
@3 Jacob I wouldn't characterize the Rangers as being particularly old. Their oldest position player this year was Michael Young who was 34. Starting pitchers were all between 24-31 and their closer was 23. I don't follow the Rangers closely but the one area where it looks like they could use some improvement is their bullpen.
October 14th, 2011 at 10:19 am
@4 DaveZ: Right on. I was going to say the same thing.
October 14th, 2011 at 10:25 am
The Tigers have posted this blog to their virtual bulletin board! 🙂
October 14th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Dynasty? How about the Sawx from 1919 to 2003? - Sorry, I had to go there.
If Bud Selig is going to expand the playoffs to 5 teams, the whole concept of dynasty becomes rarer and a greater statistical oddity. Believe it or not, I don't think that is good for the sport since baseball fans often need to either literally "hate" or "love" a dynasty...like the Yankees of 1949 - 1964 or 1996-2003. I mean, look at all the controversy (and discussion/debate) the exorbitant payrolls of teams like NY Boston and Phila cause.
Tell me you weren't thrilled when Mo gave up that cheap single to Lugo in 2003.... even after arch-villain Schilling gave up the bomb to Soriano and had the look of a 9 year old after somebody kicked his dog. It was all great theatre
October 14th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Whoa there!
Really?
Getting to the WS--even consecutively--hardly constitutes a Dynasty. That word becomes increasingly over-used.
Let them win one WS, then if they get to the WS again, ask the question.
October 14th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Uh, no.
If you start calling a team that hasn't won a World Series in 50 years - indeed, ever - a dynasty, then pretty much every team in baseball is a dynasty and the term becomes meaningless. The '92-'93 Blue Jays won the World Series back-to-back (something the Rangers are about as likely to do as I am to get a date with Cindy Crawford), and no one, as far as I know, has ever referred to them as a dynasty. A dynasty in sports is a team that maintains a high level of success for a long period of time. The Rangers have maintained a fairly high level of success for a little over a year.
October 14th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Dynasty? Really? I'm a Ranger fan since '72 and this dynasty talk is a big reach. First off, as others have said, getting to the WS is one thing, winning one or more is something else, so I think that discussing them even in terms of a potential dynasty is very premature. This team doesn't have the pitching to be a dynasty, as evidenced by their starters' performance thus far in the ALCS. In fact, they'll be lucky to get to the WS this year given how they've performed.
October 14th, 2011 at 11:07 am
The Jays "dynasty", if there was one, was 1985-1993. Playoffs in '85, '89, '91, '92, '93. Fell short in remarkable fashion in '87. Other years finish 2nd three times, 3rd once. During that entire time, they were a model franchise, built the last "old school" stadium, lead the league in attendance and payroll some years. I'm a fan, but does it count as a dynasty? Some at the time said it did.
And the Rangers have a great shot at one WS this year, and as clear a path to the playoffs next year as anyone in their division. So the chances are probably...1/4 this year, 1/12 next year, so 1/48? That's a pretty good shot at a Cindy Crawford date...the dynasty talk for them is because of the newfound riches for the team from TV. They have a clear path to outspend division rivals, and already have a very good team. They could be a Braves-style dynasty.
But the more playoff teams, the less it seems important to make the palyoffs, and the harder it is to win them. Dynasties will have to be judged on a sliding curve. The recent Yankee run 10-15 years ago is likely the most concentrated run of championships any of us will see again, barring drastic changes.
October 14th, 2011 at 11:17 am
A dynasty means passing the throne from one generation to at least one more. Win a few years in a row and you're a dominant team. Replace your aging core players while still winning and you're a dynasty. That's the logical extension of the non-baseball word into baseball, and it's what it meant in baseball until the devaluing started. I guess Andy's usage is just one more predictable step in the devaluing of the word.
October 14th, 2011 at 11:46 am
I would also hesitate to use the "D" word until there are multiple pennants
and multiple world titles within a short time frame.
However, It does appear that Texas is poised to have contined success,
at least within their division.
Having only four teams in their division is a big advantage. It becomes
bigger with the realization that two of those teams are the A's and
Mariner's.
Only the Angels offer competition, and I think the Rangers have a really
good chance to defend the division.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
We all have different standards for "dynasty."
I don't agree with the multiple WS titles requirement. For example, I rate as dynasties the following teams with only 1 WS title:
-- McGraw-Mathewson Giants of 1903-17 (lost 4 of 5 WS);
-- Dodgers of 1946-56 (lost 5 of 6 WS);
-- Braves of 1991-2005 (lost 4 of 5 WS).
And what about the 1995-2001 Indians? No WS titles, but 6 division titles in 7 years, 2 pennants, and they definitely meet the "generational" standard proposed by D.Avins.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
The Royals of 1976-85 is another dynasty in my book, despite just 1 WS title.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
@14/ Aweb, others -
I think we need to actually define what a "sports dynasty" is, to have a reasonable discussion; otherwise we are mostly talking past each other.
All right, I will start:
1) multiple championships over a short period of team
2) a championship AND being highly competitive over a long period of time
Ok, that's kind of a cop-out, I need to define "short" and "long":
1) two championships over four years, or three championships over six years
2) a championship AND being highly competitive over eight years
There's no one specific answer that's going to satisfy everyone - I am looking for criterion that include the Atlanta Braves (who won "only" one WS, but made the playoffs 14 straight years), but exclude the Florida Marlins (who won the WS in 1997 and 2003, but didn't do much else in between those years).
Well, we could go to the dictionary for help - except that it doesn't apply to sports, as you get variations on "a succession of rulers who are members of the same family". So I guess we're on our own.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
The current Phillies, 5 straight division titles, 2 pennants and a winner looks a lot better than these Rangers
October 14th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
@Dvd Avins: That's interesting. I've always thought of a team that wins 3 in 5 years or something a dynasty. But you're actually saying it has to last a lot longer so that the majority of the faces and names that win the last one are different from the first.
Again, that's really interesting because I've always thought that having mostly the same players was one of the key things that connected one championship team to another in order to call it a dynasty.
But anyway, going by your definition, I doubt there will ever be a true dynasty in baseball again. There will be AL or NL dynasties or divisional dynasties, but we're never going to see a team win like 7 WSC in 12 years or something. The playoffs are too much like a tournament for that to ever happen.
In fact, I doubt that any team will ever come as close to doing that as the Yanks did from 1996-2004. And that's reallly where it ends. I mean if you go 8 seasons between WSC (I'm talking 2000-2009) I don't think you can say that the dynasty continued, even if some of the names are the same.
But if they had won in 2001, 2003, and 2004 or even in 2 of those 3 (which they could/should have) then that would have fit your definition. Pretty amazing when you consider the crapshoot nature of MLB playoffs in the WC era.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
The point of my post is to wonder if 3-4 years from now if we'll discuss the Rangers as a dynasty. If they make the World Series this year and go on to win a championship in 2011, 2012, or 2013, it will start looking that way. Of course these are BIG ifs, but far more likely than any of us getting a date with Cindy Crawford.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
John-
IMO the teams you mention are dynasties within their league.
But, I do believe that "dynasty", should be reserved for those
winning multiple titles.
I don't see any reason to devalue it, when we have numerous
dynasties throughout baseball history. Some of which are...
Chicago Cubs 1906-1910...2 WS 4 Pennants.
Philadelphia A's 1910-1914...3 WS 4 Pennants.
Boston RedSox 1912-18...4 WS
NY Giants 1921-24... 2 WS 4 Pennants.
NY Yankees 1921-1964... 29 Pennants and 20 WS
Philadelphia A's 1929-31...3 Pennants 2 WS.
St. Louis Cardinals 1942-46...4 Pennants 3 WS.
LA Dodgers 1963-66...3 Pennants 2 WS
Baltimore O's 1966-71...4Pennants 2 WS
Oakland A's 1971-75 3 Pennants 3 WS
Cinci Reds 1970-1976...4 Pennants 2 WS
NY Yankees 1976-81... 4 Pennants 2 WS
Toronto Blue Jays 1992-93...2 Pennants 2 WS
NY Yankees 1996-03...6 Pennants 4 WS
Boston RedSox 2004-07...2 Pennants 2 WS
I personally feel that the Blue Jays and Sox are the least of these
dyansties because they only encompassed 2 seasons.
Again, just my opinion, but it seems that any other team would
be a league dynasty while these are major league dynasties.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
@21-
Agree 100% what you said about the Yankees.
With a little luck the Yankees could have won 7 WS in 9 years.
That was a great pitch Mo made to Luis Gonzales in game 7.
Sometimes a batter gets lucky.
In 03 the Yankees would have needed a bit more luck, but it is
hard to imagine them losing a game seven at home if they
had been able to beat beer drinking Beckett.
As for 04, there is no doubt the Yankees beat St. Louis if they
had been able to win game four or five. Had multiple opportunities
to win both I recall.
Finally, with the extended playoff rounds we are unlikely to see this
kind of nine year run again.
Frankly, sometimes I just think about what the Yankees did in these
years, and even though it happened, I still can't believe it. Especially
when reflecting on the last seven seasons, which just prooves all over
how remarkable 96-04 was.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Back-to-back is not a dynasty. It's back-to-back. You need three titles in a row, I think; or four-in-five; or to be incredibly competitive for a stretch with multiple titles between. The 90's Jays and '00's Red Sox don't get there. The others at least have the necessary league championships.
The Braves did get all those NL flags, so even with only one WS they're debatably in... though I would say no. The whole point of a dynasty is to RULE, not to merely be very good for very long.
This is really beginning to sound like all our Hall of Fame arguments, no? The 91-05 Braves are somewhere between Harold Baines and Steady Eddie Murray. So, they're Hall-of-Fame-ish, but not in the clear like the several Yankee squads or the Big Red Machine.
October 14th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
phillies 07-14: div titles every season, 5 pennants, 3 ws titles
red sox 12-16: 5 div titles, 4 pennants, 2 ws
these are your next two dynasties.
October 14th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Well, I think we're all talking about different things.
Strictly speaking, there is only one dynasty in baseball, the one that has lasted from 1920, or 1921, or 1923, depending upon where you start, to the present. That franchise has been successful in every decade, winning the pennant in every decade and the World Series in every decade but one, won a World Series fewer than 2 years ago and remains a dominant team.
But if you want to break it down to include what could be termed "mini-dynasties" (which is really an oxymoron) or "limited dynasties" (e.g., the Braves of the '90s as an NL '90s dynasty), then I think one could do so without too much devaluation.
Thus, for example, the Royals were an AL West dynasty from 1976-1985 because they won 6 division titles, 2 pennants and 1 World Series. Ditto for the Jays from 1985-1993.
The Dodgers from 1947-1966 were even more impressive, winning 10 NL pennants and 4 World Series. They also came close, memorably losing, two other times in '51 and '62. I think they qualify as a limited NL dynasty. In fact, that Dodgers team was the most dominant NL team of the last 70 years.
But they pale in comparison to the Yankees, so I guess I am back to square one.
There is only one dynasty in baseball, and it is the pinstriped one.
October 14th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
One huge difference between dynasties nowadies and dynasties 50/ 75/ 100 years ago - with 30 teams and (more importantly) 3 rounds of playoffs, it's MUCH harder to win one championship, let alone multiple championships in a short period of time. I think this has to be factored in.
If the Yankees of 1947 to 1964 had to play in post-season games in order to get to the World Series, NO WAY do they play in 15 World Series, and win 10 World Series, in 18 years.
@27/ I wouldn't call the Yankees of {1920 - present} one single dynasty, but rather a series of "mini-dynasties", as you put it:
1920-1924
1926-1934
1936-1943
1947-1953
1955-1964
1976-1981
1995-2006
2009-present
the above could be divided up even further
October 14th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Dynasty: "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time."
It's a very subjective standard. But two years doesn't seem to be a "considerable time" to me.
For me, a "considerable time" in baseball is five years--about half of the peak years of really good players, I think. Two WS appearances is not enough if the team did nothing the other three years. But two series appearances and a couple of league championship appearances or first place finishes, that starts to sound like maintaining a position over a "considerable time"; i.e., the position of a team that is winning titles and championships.
That said, I like the way #27 Todd thinks: There's only the NYY.
The 1969-1974 Orioles might qualify. Three world series appearances and five division wins in six years is pretty damn good. And you might even say 1966-1974. Four world series, and two other playoff appearances. Six out years out of nine in the post season is impressive. Especially considering that part of that time was before MLB had divisions.
The 1970's Reds.
And I don't see how you can leave out Atlanta's 14 first place finishes from 1991 through 2005.
Jeez, I'm too busy at work to spend time doing this. Have fun.
October 14th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
The only dynasty in the last quarter century was the Yankees from 1996-2003.
October 14th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
@30 -- you, sir, are correct.
my two cents -- if we have to pick a current team that comes the closest to the D word, the phillies get my vote.
October 14th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Here's the complete list of franchises that have won 3+ World Series in a row:
Athletics, 1972-74 (3)
Yankees, 1936-39 (4), 1949-53 (5), 1998-2000 (3)
Here's the complete list of franchises that have won 4+ pennants in a row:
Giants, 1921-24 (4)
Yankees, 1936-39 (4), 1949-53 (5), 1955-58 (4), 1960-64 (5), 1998-2001 (4)
The *exactly*-3-consecutive-pennants list is somewhat longer, but still it doesn't happen every week or anything: happened 3 times in the 1900s, 1 in the 1910s, 2 in the 1920s, 1 from 1929 to 1931, 2 in the 1940s, 0 in the 1950s and 1960s, 1 in the 1970s, and 0 in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.
I think these lists could possibly fit right in in this conversation.
P.S.: These lists are constructed by memory; it's possible I might have missed someone somewhere.
October 14th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
@28
Perhaps 1947-1964 could be considered one dynasty. In that 18-year time period the Yankees won 15 pennants and 10 WS. In 1948 they finished third in a 3-way race being eliminated on the next to last day of the season. In 1954 they finished 2nd with 103 victories, 8 GB the Indians who won a then-record 111 games. 1959 was their only so-so year finishing 3rd, 15 GB.
October 14th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Mulitple playoff runs / division titles is fine but there must be at LEAST one title mixed in for the "D" word to be applied. And the WildCard doesn't count and any team that has ceremonies where they unveil a WildCard banner should be fined by MLB.
October 14th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
the Brewers advertised during the 2009 season as "Your 2008 Wildcard Champions".
Ummm.... champions of what?
October 14th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Doug, there are 16 teams in the NL, and 3 division winners, so I guess they were the champions of the 13 also rans.
October 14th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
@26 Jason: What have you been smoking? Both the Phillies and Red Sox are headed for decline the next few years.
October 16th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Dynasty? Indeed!
October 16th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
At the very least, they are the second "new" team to win back to back...Toronto was the first.
Fifty seasons after the first expansion was completed, there has never been a world series between two "new" teams. How has this gone on so long? Fully half the teams in the NL are "new". The potential TV market size of the "new" teams is huge--Miami, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Diego and Washington are some of the biggest metro areas in the country. I know there is a lot of competition from NFL and NCAA etc but some of these teams should be rolling in dough. Toronto isn't a small town either and has no NFL or NCAA. And of course, there have always been the Mets and Angels.
They came close in 1986. That was when both the Mets and Astros made the playoffs and the Angels came "one strike away." There hasn't been a serious close call since then.
Why?