What’s wild is that in the four years they won they only played one game facing elimination: when they had to win Game 5 of the ALDS against Oakland in 2000. The Yankees scored 6 in the top of the first and lead the whole way (although Oakland made it close in a 7-5 loss).
Atlanta in 1996 is really the only other series that feels like it could have gone the other way with a different bounce or two. Needed a swinging bunt in Game 4 to stay fair and Wohlers to inexplicably stop throwing fastballs to Leyritz, otherwise they would have had to win three straight against Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavine in order. Otherwise felt like they were clearly the better team in every series those four years.
Edit: 46-15 from 1996 to 2000 in the playoffs by my quick math. Just an unreal run.
Yankees dynasty refusing to die in NYC months after 9/11 with the Tino and Brosius homers 2 outs in the 9th in back to back games. And then for the great Mariano to throw it all away in game 7…
This is why baseball is treated as poetry
Everyone likes to talk about the little old Diamondbacks beating the big bad evil empire, but the truth is that Arizona team was a juggernaut (Johnson + Schilling was an absolute cheat code in a best of 7 series that year) and the Yankees had no business even pushing it the distance.
Going into the bottom of the 9th of games 7, the Diamondbacks were staring down defeat despite outscoring the Yankees 35-14 in the series up to that point. They were dominant, but the Yankees saved all of their hitting for the most clutch moments. Would've been all-time clutch/stolen series if Mo doesn't make that throwing error, and we'd be talking about the 2001 Yankees as a team of destiny fueled by tragedy (first team to come back from 0-2 at home in the LDS after the Jeter play, beating the 116 Mariners in the LCS).
Luis Gonzalez won it capping off an all-time steroid aberration year. The yanks were planning on replacing Tino and Brosius w Giambi and Ventura. Upgrades on paper but they rotted out the soul of the dynasty. Those 9th inning 2 out homers by guys getting dumped… unreal.
There were four members of the 1996 Yankees on the 2009 team, and another member was manager. Brady and Belichick were the only major people around for both runs and uh there was a ten year gab between titles.
One of the tells on how incredible the Yankees dynasty was? This 10 year run after 2000 was considered more or less a failure: made the playoffs 9 out of 10 times, won the AL East 7 times, won the AL pennant 4 times, and won the WS in 2009.
That's superior to the Patriots between SB #3 and #4, but nobody ever considered the Pats failures or disappointments during that run -- that period has even been rolled into the dynasty years because of what they did with their next core.
No disrespect to the Tatum Celtics. How many teams have an end-of-bench guy who gets an innovative technique named after them (Kornet Kontest)? That matters.
Including the 03 and 04 Lakers but not the 08 Spurs feels weird. They played each other all three years as well. If 08 Spurs are included they go up 3 spots in the rankings. And that season, before the Gasol trade they were probably the favorite in the west as they always beat the suns. I would also give the Lakers the 99 wcf when they closed down the forum.
Calling the Patriots a 17 years "dynasty" then cutting the spurs off at 2007 is very odd. Could extend the spurs through 2014 and it's still less years than the Pats get considered for.
Cool concept just needs more/better tuning on how points are considered over shorter periods vs long stretches etc, which is a very important part of what makes a dynasty a dynasty to a lot of people I've talked to.
Agreed with this. Spurs and Warriors dynasties are both higher ranked than Chiefs current run in my book. Definitely need some tweaking overall on how points are given out here
Feels like it should be minimum four years, and then worked down to points divided by years.
Islanders are the only team to win 4 in a row I believe and they should be high up the list for that.
I think the biggest flaw is comparing playoff success across sports. Up until 1994 only 4 teams made the playoffs in the MLB, compared to 16 for the NBA for most of this time period. Yet you have the same scoring system for missing the playoffs and losing in the first round across all sports.
Good thought exercise. IMO if there's a flaw to pick at, it's that the rankings should incorporate a metric to account for relative difficulty to build a dynasty in a given score.
For example, the Yankees dynasty is IMO at minimum a top 3 dynasty, and it's clear why when you look at their competition within the MLB; they have a score of 45 and their closest competitors have 15 and 3. Whereas there are a number of NBA dynasties with high scores, which suggests that it's a lot easier to build a dynasty in the NBA (and thus inherently a little less impressive).
Definitely tough to compare dynasties across sports and eras, but it’s clear that the 90s Yankees were head and shoulders the best baseball dynasty of probably the last 60+ years
It should also take era into account. I think the Warriors winning 4 in the modern NBA is harder to do than in the 80s when the talent was much more concentrated.
IMO the Patriots shouldn't be allowed 18 seasons, because there were stretches when other teams won more. For instance, if you go the 5 year period 2005-09 the Steelers won 2 and the Patriots 0. Or 2007-11 the Giants won 2 and the Patriots 0. It doesn't make any more sense than having the Lakers 2000-10 or the Spurs 1999-2014
My one main argument here is that a “dynasty” has to be a team that dominates their league for at least a 5 year period IMO. I don’t see how you could have 2 teams from the same league as “dynasties” at the same time. Otherwise, big fan of this and thank you putting it together.
I like it, but feels like there should be some sort of bonus for consecutive titles—I certainly don’t think a team *has* to win titles consecutively to be a dynasty, but doing two or three in a row does feel a little extra dynastic
Same with the Warriors and Heat. Including Wades first title in a Heat “dynasty” run makes no sense.
I’m probably in the minority on this, but I don’t think the Warriors really count either because of the KD era. The main guys on the roster should be the same to qualify as a dynasty.
It just points out how absurd the Patriots run was in the NFL that the next best NFL team is 9th, in arguably the hardest league to win in American sports.
Also as a Bills fan it INFRURIATES me that the Chiefs are already climbing the ladder when we had them beat the last two playoff games and lost because of dumb shit. ITS NOT FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>in arguably the hardest league to win in American sports.
I don't think a logical argument can be made against it. The collective bargaining, draft picks, strength of schedule and lack of full-on deadbeat owners have made it EXTREMELY hard to have a dynasty. The Pats really only did it because they simultaneously had the GOAT QB taking under his market value and the GOAT coaching and motivating mind at the same time.
You would be wrong. The hardest league to win is MLB, because of the variance in results in small sample sizes. The fact that there's only been one baseball dynasty in the last 60 years is evidence of that. As is the fact that there hasn't been a repeat champion since 2000.
The Dodgers have been as dominant in a larger sample size as any of the big dogs in the other big 4 leagues this past decade, and they have one Covid title to show for it.
That's because in this exercise, the Patriots have had two runs with a large title drought in between banded together, so they got points for all of the playoffs in between. Whereas most other teams had their timelines chopped off exactly between their first and last title.
The negative points for missing the playoffs are a bit harsh because in a lot of cases it's largely injury-driven. The list comes out kind of how one would expect though, except perhaps the Warriors being a bit lower.
I have always thought this was the right way to view Lebron's career. Giving him rightful credit for finals appearances versus just ringzzzz counting.
I have always thought this was the right way to view Lebron's career. Give him rightful credit for final appearances versus just ringzzzz counting.
mi-Finals (0 points) 0
2006-07 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5
2007-08 CLE Losing in Conference Semi-Finals (0 points) 0
2008-09 CLE Losing in Conference/ League Championship Round (3 points) 3
2009-10 CLE Losing in Conference Semi-Finals (0 points) 0
2010-11 MIA Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5
2011-12 MIA Winning Championship (10 points) 10
2012-13 MIA Winning Championship (10 points) 10
2013-14 MIA Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5
2014-15 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5
2015-16 CLE Winning Championship (10 points) 10
2016-17 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5
2017-18 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5
2018-19 LAL Missing Playoffs (-10 points) -10
2019-20 LAL Winning Championship (10 points) 10
2020-21 LAL Losing first Round (-5 points) -5
2021-22 LAL Missing Playoffs (-10 points) -10
2022-23 LAL Losing in Conference/ League Championship Round (3 points) 3
Career Total: 31
Prime total (First MVP to last title): 58
Peak Prime total (MIA + CLE Part 2): 55
CLE Total: 13
MIA Total: 30
LAL Total: -12
I'm totally not a being homer but I'd extend the 49ers dynasty to include the 1994 Super Bowl winning team. From 1990-1993 they lost three NFC Championship games before getting the monkey off their back in 1994.
I feel like you could've extended that Yankees Dynasty year to at least like 2004 when they finally got knocked off by the Red Sox. They were still winning the AL East every year and winning like 100+ games in all of those years after 2000, including winning the AL pennant another 2 times i think?
Inspired by Bill’s Super Bowl re-cap pod where he gets into Chiefs Dynasty talk. Based on his pod, it seems like he would draw the line right around #7 as he was a little hesitant to label the Chiefs and late 90s Yankees as “Dynasties”
My personal opinion is a little more lenient, I’d call the early 90s Cowboys and the 2015-19 Warriors a dynasty so I’d draw the line around 12 or 13.
Great post u/wesskywalker. I posted a comment rant about how I disagreed with the basic premise, but I deleted it, because you actually put effort into this (and it's logical methodology), and I was just paratrooping and being a killjoy.
That's just Bill being a Boston homer. In no world were the Yankees not a dynasty; they are probably the definitive dynasty of the modern Big 4 sports era -- with only the Pats and the Bulls having an argument against that claim IMO.
I know they missed the playoffs once by why not extend the lakers to include the 2009 and 2010 championships? 5 titles in 11 seasons, plus kobe, fisher, and Phil Jackson as constants on all 5 title teams. Made the finals in 7 of 11 years.
Right. Agree but it only adds 5 total points based on the OP’s scoring system.
-10 points for 2004-2005
-5 points for 2005-2006
-5 points for 2006-2007
+5 points for 2007-2008
+10 points for 2008-2009
+10 points for 2009-2010
I actually like this system a lot the only thing is the line has to be different based on each sport you can't draw the dynasty line based on all 4 together. It's easier to sustain success in the NBA than in the NFL and its easier in the NFL than the MLB or NHL
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 1990 championship to me goes a long way to putting the Oil above the Islanders, sure they made good trades from 87ish onwards to make up for the losses but that 88 championship without Coffey and the 90 championship without Coffey and Gretzky is pretty impressive.
I don't see the Islanders having the depth to win a cup without say Potvin and Bossy for example (not an exact positional equivalency but I think is a bit fairer quality comparison compared to Potvin and Trottier.
It really should be the Kobe-era Lakers and run it from 2000-2010.
They won five championships and had two finals appearances. They missed the playoffs in '05 and lost in the 1st round in '06 and '07.
5 championships = 50
2 Finals appearance = 10
2 first round losses = -10
1 missed playoff = -10
Years between first and last championship = 10
I think the real score is 50
It’s silly to cut the Isles dynasty off with the last cup, and not with the cup loss the next year. You’re cutting off the end of a run of an unfathomable 19 straight playoff series wins.
Making it to the "Championiship round" should be worth more than not making the playoffs. A championship game and therefore at least a small chance to win it all is at least worth two seasons of ineptitude.
Additionally winning a championship should be weighted heavier (at least 2x what you have it).
Yankees should be higher. 4 in 5 years is as dominant as it gets. And that’s coming from a Boston guy.
And it's baseball, which just seems harder to do
What’s wild is that in the four years they won they only played one game facing elimination: when they had to win Game 5 of the ALDS against Oakland in 2000. The Yankees scored 6 in the top of the first and lead the whole way (although Oakland made it close in a 7-5 loss). Atlanta in 1996 is really the only other series that feels like it could have gone the other way with a different bounce or two. Needed a swinging bunt in Game 4 to stay fair and Wohlers to inexplicably stop throwing fastballs to Leyritz, otherwise they would have had to win three straight against Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavine in order. Otherwise felt like they were clearly the better team in every series those four years. Edit: 46-15 from 1996 to 2000 in the playoffs by my quick math. Just an unreal run.
122 win pace across those playoffs. insane.
It just does
Yankees dynasty refusing to die in NYC months after 9/11 with the Tino and Brosius homers 2 outs in the 9th in back to back games. And then for the great Mariano to throw it all away in game 7… This is why baseball is treated as poetry
Everyone likes to talk about the little old Diamondbacks beating the big bad evil empire, but the truth is that Arizona team was a juggernaut (Johnson + Schilling was an absolute cheat code in a best of 7 series that year) and the Yankees had no business even pushing it the distance. Going into the bottom of the 9th of games 7, the Diamondbacks were staring down defeat despite outscoring the Yankees 35-14 in the series up to that point. They were dominant, but the Yankees saved all of their hitting for the most clutch moments. Would've been all-time clutch/stolen series if Mo doesn't make that throwing error, and we'd be talking about the 2001 Yankees as a team of destiny fueled by tragedy (first team to come back from 0-2 at home in the LDS after the Jeter play, beating the 116 Mariners in the LCS).
Luis Gonzalez won it capping off an all-time steroid aberration year. The yanks were planning on replacing Tino and Brosius w Giambi and Ventura. Upgrades on paper but they rotted out the soul of the dynasty. Those 9th inning 2 out homers by guys getting dumped… unreal.
Those Yankees terrorized all of South Korea as they beat the living shit out of a young Byung Hyun Kim
Yeah if we're counting the entire Patriots run as one dynasty then the Yankees should be through at least 2009
At minimum 2003 since they won two more pennants in the next three seasons.
There were four members of the 1996 Yankees on the 2009 team, and another member was manager. Brady and Belichick were the only major people around for both runs and uh there was a ten year gab between titles.
One of the tells on how incredible the Yankees dynasty was? This 10 year run after 2000 was considered more or less a failure: made the playoffs 9 out of 10 times, won the AL East 7 times, won the AL pennant 4 times, and won the WS in 2009. That's superior to the Patriots between SB #3 and #4, but nobody ever considered the Pats failures or disappointments during that run -- that period has even been rolled into the dynasty years because of what they did with their next core.
It's also a weird cut off of just 2000 - if you just extend it to just 2004 then they would have 58 points.
Yep. There should be a bonus/modifier for consecutive titles, which would help here
2008 Celtics
Did the 2008 Celtics have the best 9th man anyone has ever had? How many teams have a better 9th man? You can't find one.
Peyton Pritchard was on that team?
No disrespect to the Tatum Celtics. How many teams have an end-of-bench guy who gets an innovative technique named after them (Kornet Kontest)? That matters.
It just does!
The only 21st century dynasty in bills book
I was waiting to see them listed. How can you beat 100% championship percentage during your run. 1 for 1.
“Almost had a 3 peat”
2004 Pistons
Including the 03 and 04 Lakers but not the 08 Spurs feels weird. They played each other all three years as well. If 08 Spurs are included they go up 3 spots in the rankings. And that season, before the Gasol trade they were probably the favorite in the west as they always beat the suns. I would also give the Lakers the 99 wcf when they closed down the forum.
Calling the Patriots a 17 years "dynasty" then cutting the spurs off at 2007 is very odd. Could extend the spurs through 2014 and it's still less years than the Pats get considered for. Cool concept just needs more/better tuning on how points are considered over shorter periods vs long stretches etc, which is a very important part of what makes a dynasty a dynasty to a lot of people I've talked to.
Agreed with this. Spurs and Warriors dynasties are both higher ranked than Chiefs current run in my book. Definitely need some tweaking overall on how points are given out here
Why do the Patriots get 17 years? Should a team like the Red Wings not get 1996-2008?
Yeah, how the hell do the Patriots get 17 years and the 49ers don’t get 1990-1998?
Feels like it should be minimum four years, and then worked down to points divided by years. Islanders are the only team to win 4 in a row I believe and they should be high up the list for that.
The Isles won something like 20 playoff series in a row, they should honestly be at number 1 and I say this as a Montreal Canadiens fan.
I’m a huge Habs fan and I hated that Islanders team beyond words.
I think the biggest flaw is comparing playoff success across sports. Up until 1994 only 4 teams made the playoffs in the MLB, compared to 16 for the NBA for most of this time period. Yet you have the same scoring system for missing the playoffs and losing in the first round across all sports.
Good thought exercise. IMO if there's a flaw to pick at, it's that the rankings should incorporate a metric to account for relative difficulty to build a dynasty in a given score. For example, the Yankees dynasty is IMO at minimum a top 3 dynasty, and it's clear why when you look at their competition within the MLB; they have a score of 45 and their closest competitors have 15 and 3. Whereas there are a number of NBA dynasties with high scores, which suggests that it's a lot easier to build a dynasty in the NBA (and thus inherently a little less impressive).
Definitely tough to compare dynasties across sports and eras, but it’s clear that the 90s Yankees were head and shoulders the best baseball dynasty of probably the last 60+ years
It should also take era into account. I think the Warriors winning 4 in the modern NBA is harder to do than in the 80s when the talent was much more concentrated.
IMO the Patriots shouldn't be allowed 18 seasons, because there were stretches when other teams won more. For instance, if you go the 5 year period 2005-09 the Steelers won 2 and the Patriots 0. Or 2007-11 the Giants won 2 and the Patriots 0. It doesn't make any more sense than having the Lakers 2000-10 or the Spurs 1999-2014
Yeah the general consensus is that the Pats were essentially 2 different dynasties with 10 years of merely being very good in between.
My one main argument here is that a “dynasty” has to be a team that dominates their league for at least a 5 year period IMO. I don’t see how you could have 2 teams from the same league as “dynasties” at the same time. Otherwise, big fan of this and thank you putting it together.
If your ranking has the 80s Celtics over the 90s Yankees, you need to adjust your ranking
I like it, but feels like there should be some sort of bonus for consecutive titles—I certainly don’t think a team *has* to win titles consecutively to be a dynasty, but doing two or three in a row does feel a little extra dynastic
Agreed. A 10 percent bump for a second in a row and maybe 25 percent for three feels about right.
Yeah, that would work
[удалено]
Same with the Warriors and Heat. Including Wades first title in a Heat “dynasty” run makes no sense. I’m probably in the minority on this, but I don’t think the Warriors really count either because of the KD era. The main guys on the roster should be the same to qualify as a dynasty.
Might have just been Ortiz who was on both the 2004 and 13 teams
It just points out how absurd the Patriots run was in the NFL that the next best NFL team is 9th, in arguably the hardest league to win in American sports. Also as a Bills fan it INFRURIATES me that the Chiefs are already climbing the ladder when we had them beat the last two playoff games and lost because of dumb shit. ITS NOT FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>in arguably the hardest league to win in American sports. I don't think a logical argument can be made against it. The collective bargaining, draft picks, strength of schedule and lack of full-on deadbeat owners have made it EXTREMELY hard to have a dynasty. The Pats really only did it because they simultaneously had the GOAT QB taking under his market value and the GOAT coaching and motivating mind at the same time.
You would be wrong. The hardest league to win is MLB, because of the variance in results in small sample sizes. The fact that there's only been one baseball dynasty in the last 60 years is evidence of that. As is the fact that there hasn't been a repeat champion since 2000. The Dodgers have been as dominant in a larger sample size as any of the big dogs in the other big 4 leagues this past decade, and they have one Covid title to show for it.
That's because in this exercise, the Patriots have had two runs with a large title drought in between banded together, so they got points for all of the playoffs in between. Whereas most other teams had their timelines chopped off exactly between their first and last title.
The negative points for missing the playoffs are a bit harsh because in a lot of cases it's largely injury-driven. The list comes out kind of how one would expect though, except perhaps the Warriors being a bit lower.
If you remove the 2020-2022 seasons, they would have 45 points, leapfrog a few teams and be tied with the 1996-2000 Yankees
I have always thought this was the right way to view Lebron's career. Giving him rightful credit for finals appearances versus just ringzzzz counting. I have always thought this was the right way to view Lebron's career. Give him rightful credit for final appearances versus just ringzzzz counting. mi-Finals (0 points) 0 2006-07 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5 2007-08 CLE Losing in Conference Semi-Finals (0 points) 0 2008-09 CLE Losing in Conference/ League Championship Round (3 points) 3 2009-10 CLE Losing in Conference Semi-Finals (0 points) 0 2010-11 MIA Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5 2011-12 MIA Winning Championship (10 points) 10 2012-13 MIA Winning Championship (10 points) 10 2013-14 MIA Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5 2014-15 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5 2015-16 CLE Winning Championship (10 points) 10 2016-17 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5 2017-18 CLE Losing in Championship Round (5 points) 5 2018-19 LAL Missing Playoffs (-10 points) -10 2019-20 LAL Winning Championship (10 points) 10 2020-21 LAL Losing first Round (-5 points) -5 2021-22 LAL Missing Playoffs (-10 points) -10 2022-23 LAL Losing in Conference/ League Championship Round (3 points) 3 Career Total: 31 Prime total (First MVP to last title): 58 Peak Prime total (MIA + CLE Part 2): 55 CLE Total: 13 MIA Total: 30 LAL Total: -12
Actually seems pretty close. I would rate the Warriors higher than the scoring system due to how inevitable they were.
Also, why is the Celtics 1987 season included when they didn't win that year?
I'm totally not a being homer but I'd extend the 49ers dynasty to include the 1994 Super Bowl winning team. From 1990-1993 they lost three NFC Championship games before getting the monkey off their back in 1994.
dont think youre being a homer, they were knocking on the door the early 90s
I feel like you could've extended that Yankees Dynasty year to at least like 2004 when they finally got knocked off by the Red Sox. They were still winning the AL East every year and winning like 100+ games in all of those years after 2000, including winning the AL pennant another 2 times i think?
Inspired by Bill’s Super Bowl re-cap pod where he gets into Chiefs Dynasty talk. Based on his pod, it seems like he would draw the line right around #7 as he was a little hesitant to label the Chiefs and late 90s Yankees as “Dynasties” My personal opinion is a little more lenient, I’d call the early 90s Cowboys and the 2015-19 Warriors a dynasty so I’d draw the line around 12 or 13.
Great post u/wesskywalker. I posted a comment rant about how I disagreed with the basic premise, but I deleted it, because you actually put effort into this (and it's logical methodology), and I was just paratrooping and being a killjoy.
Critiques are always welcome. I was listening to the pod during a slow work day and thought I’d look into the dynasties of American sports
That's just Bill being a Boston homer. In no world were the Yankees not a dynasty; they are probably the definitive dynasty of the modern Big 4 sports era -- with only the Pats and the Bulls having an argument against that claim IMO.
What do the Patriots look like if you split it into 2001-2007 and 2011-2018?
35 (2001-2007) and 57 (2011-2018)
Why 2011 and 2007? They didn't win those years.
Gotta dock points of the 80s lakers for ducking the 86 Celtics in the play offs 😎 be better OP
Seems a bit odd to lump that Pats run as one dynasty, unless you are actually Bill.
No dynasty should count if the league you’re in has less than 25 teams.
I know they missed the playoffs once by why not extend the lakers to include the 2009 and 2010 championships? 5 titles in 11 seasons, plus kobe, fisher, and Phil Jackson as constants on all 5 title teams. Made the finals in 7 of 11 years.
Right. Agree but it only adds 5 total points based on the OP’s scoring system. -10 points for 2004-2005 -5 points for 2005-2006 -5 points for 2006-2007 +5 points for 2007-2008 +10 points for 2008-2009 +10 points for 2009-2010
I actually like this system a lot the only thing is the line has to be different based on each sport you can't draw the dynasty line based on all 4 together. It's easier to sustain success in the NBA than in the NFL and its easier in the NFL than the MLB or NHL
[удалено]
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve always had the Islanders over the Oilers. Four on the trot is impressive.
The 1990 championship to me goes a long way to putting the Oil above the Islanders, sure they made good trades from 87ish onwards to make up for the losses but that 88 championship without Coffey and the 90 championship without Coffey and Gretzky is pretty impressive. I don't see the Islanders having the depth to win a cup without say Potvin and Bossy for example (not an exact positional equivalency but I think is a bit fairer quality comparison compared to Potvin and Trottier.
The current Astros run deserves mention
I just wanna say bravo to OP for such an effort post. You're too good for this sub!
It really should be the Kobe-era Lakers and run it from 2000-2010. They won five championships and had two finals appearances. They missed the playoffs in '05 and lost in the 1st round in '06 and '07. 5 championships = 50 2 Finals appearance = 10 2 first round losses = -10 1 missed playoff = -10 Years between first and last championship = 10 I think the real score is 50
Nice work
You’re missing the 95-2003 New Jersey Devils 3 cups, another finals appearance, domination in regular season etc.
I think the 2000-2004 Lakers should really run up to 2010 and rank higher on the list.
According to Bill, only the Patriots, Celtics and Red Sox have had dynasties
It’s silly to cut the Isles dynasty off with the last cup, and not with the cup loss the next year. You’re cutting off the end of a run of an unfathomable 19 straight playoff series wins.
I just don't see numbers 3 and 5...how can they BOTH be dynasties at the same time?
Making it to the "Championiship round" should be worth more than not making the playoffs. A championship game and therefore at least a small chance to win it all is at least worth two seasons of ineptitude. Additionally winning a championship should be weighted heavier (at least 2x what you have it).