Fishplatter

Why is it so hard to be the next Braves/Colts/Bills/Patriots/Yankees/Warriors?

Recommended Posts

Dynasties, championships, long streaks of winning division titles, consecutive World Series appearances.  

 

Why is it so hard to do? 

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in addition to the skills it takes to build and run a team from a GM perspective, it requires a lot of luck.

 

My off-the-cuff, uneducated reaction:

 

Patriots got lucky with the best QB in history in the 6th round of the draft, and already had a good coach/GM.  The salary cap makes it infinitely harder to be a dynasty without a Tom Brady, and there just aren't more than one.

 

Braves made a great signing (Maddux), a great trade (Smoltz), and got lucky by having a home-grown HOFer (Glavine) there, to go along with great GMing.

 

Bills?  The AFC was a minor league back then.  It's a great accomplishnent to win any league 4 straight times, but they don't belong in the discussion.

 

Yankees = money and the advantage that most great players want to play for them.  It's not just money - definitely some good player development too - but having money to buy your way out of mistakes makes it easier.  That gap has closed in recent years.

 

Warriors - luck.  Not sure anyone expected that Curry would be a generational talent and that guys like Iguadala would thrive in their roles around him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much what BBTV said. It's a combination of the right coach in the right system with the right players at the right time, and even then, you need huge amounts of luck. Look at how a team like the 2011 Cardinals won it all: just getting to the playoffs required crazy scenarios involving weird plays, bad calls, teams that had huge statistically shots at making the playoffs not getting there. Look at a team like the 1988 Dodgers, a team that on paper shouldn't have even made the World Series, but somehow did. It came down to sheer willpower and then a legendary World Series home run.

 

What's most important is stability. A team hiring a new coach every few seasons isn't going to win anytime soon. Remember when the Raiders went through something like 7 coaches in 8 seasons? That's insane. Teams like the Patriots and Spurs have stability, they've got a coach and a front office that can seemingly take any group of players and mold them into a team.

 

Also, a specific note for the Yankees: barring their 90s dynasty, many of their championships came in the days before free agency and what I would consider a far less competitive league. With free agents able to sell their talents to any team that wants them, it is harder and harder to keep dynasties together. The Yanks have largely become "just another good team" as of the 2010s, and I think it's because free agency has gradually allowed the league as a whole to even out in terms of talent (in addition to many other teams having giant payrolls).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free agency hasn't changed anything for the Yankees.  Maybe the luxury tax is having an impact, but I think that so many other teams are becoming so wealthy with their RSNs and other sources of revenue that the Yankees aren't head-and-shoulders above anyone anymore.

 

As for stability, yeah - that's obviously key - but it takes that combo of luck and smart moves to get that stability - it's not just about an owner taking his hands off for the stake of continuity.  If Rich Kotite was the Patriots coach when they drafted Brady, it's highly unlikely they'd have the stability they've enjoyed despite the biggest stroke of luck the world has ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the Patriots, one major key to their consistent success is also the fact Brady is completely unselfish and can afford to took massive paycuts for the team (since his wife brings in more than him). 

How much cap space do QB usually take up? Hell, just look at what happened with Russell Wilson recently. 

 

I don't you'll find that many QB in the kind of situation (with the dame unselfish attitude) as Brady. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t most QBs do that, though?  At least the ones good enough to get a second or third contract?  The Packers did that with Favre more than once, and the contract they negotiated with Aaron Rodgers last fall opened up a ton of cap space.

 

Hell, I seem to recall the Bears re-working Khalil Mack’s contract to free up cap space.  Glad for the Patriots that Brady does it too, but I don’t think that’s anything particularly selfless or even uncommon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warriors dynasty was enabled by the following:

 

- Curry signing his pre-championship deal the year after an ankle injury. He was underpaid almost immediately.

- Great drafting: Klay, Curry, Draymond, Bell, Looney

- Great coaching with Steve Kerr's movement offense

- Kevin Love for Klay was there for them and Jerry West said no

- The cap jump in 2016, combined with Curry's under-value contract, allowed enough room for Durant to sign

- For some reason, Draymond isn't assessed techs every game

- Great playoff opponent luck (Catastrophic injuries to the Cavs in 2015, missing the 69-win Spurs in 2016, Zaza took out Kawhi in 2017, Chris Paul's injury in 2018)

 

You can replicate some of those factors for other teams. But certainly not all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

The Warriors dynasty was enabled by the following:

 

- Curry signing his pre-championship deal the year after an ankle injury. He was underpaid almost immediately.

- Great drafting: Klay, Curry, Draymond, Bell, Looney

- Great coaching with Steve Kerr's movement offense

- Kevin Love for Klay was there for them and Jerry West said no

- The cap jump in 2016, combined with Curry's under-value contract, allowed enough room for Durant to sign

- For some reason, Draymond isn't assessed techs every game

- Great playoff opponent luck (Catastrophic injuries to the Cavs in 2015, missing the 69-win Spurs in 2016, Zaza took out Kawhi in 2017, Chris Paul's injury in 2018)

 

You can replicate some of those factors for other teams. But certainly not all.

 

 

Just to add the Rockets missing 27 straight 3's in game 7 of the 2018 WCF. Who does that? !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 9:38 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

Warriors - luck.  Not sure anyone expected that Curry would be a generational talent and that guys like Iguadala would thrive in their roles around him.

A few years back when the Celtics were starting to re-tool, fans kept calling sports talk radio to say that they should build the team through the draft "like the Warriors did."  I don't think they realize that would mean missing the playoffs 16 times in 18 years and then drafting two of the best outside shooters in NBA history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Wings said:

 

Just to add the Rockets missing 27 straight 3's in game 7 of the 2018 WCF. Who does that? !!!!

Not a team with Chris Paul healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hat Boy said:

A few years back when the Celtics were starting to re-tool, fans kept calling sports talk radio to say that they should build the team through the draft "like the Warriors did."  I don't think they realize that would mean missing the playoffs 16 times in 18 years and then drafting two of the best outside shooters in NBA history.

 

The Warriors got a generational player with the 7th pick.  In the NBA, that's almost like the Patriots getting Tom Brady in the 6th round.

 

Luck - even as a supplement - is the biggest factor.  Not even the smartest, shrewdest GM can build a dynasty just with brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to point out how ironic it is that of the six dynasties listed in the thread title, only two of them would be considered as such today.  And at least one has become synonymous with losing.

 

After all, sometimes the question really is its own answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience has been that it's tough to reach a goal that 29 other people are also trying to reach, and only one person can achieve it. For the most part, it doesn't work out.

 

Luck, timing and outside perception can have just as much an effect on things, as skill and preparation under the right circumstances. I would imagine sports are much the same.

 

Reduce the number of teams, and you'll likely have a lot more dynasties.

 

I know it was a lot easier for the Yankees to win the AL Pennant when they only had to beat seven teams, and two of them (St. Louis and Washington) are all but guaranteed to be a non-factor before the season even beings.

 

A good chunk of the Celtics titles came in years where there were fewer than ten teams in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgers are getting close. back to back WS appearances, losing both. good chance at a third as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

 

A good chunk of the Celtics titles came in years where there were fewer than ten teams in the league. 

 

Also, some other factors helped them win 11 in 13:

 

1. Red Auerbach's drafting skill: He drafted people like Tom Heinsohn, K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Satch Sanders that contributed a lot to their dynasty.

2. Luck in acquistion: He was able to get Bill Russell in 1956 despite not having a first-round pick (a territorial selection used on Tom Heinsohn). He also was lucky to end up with Bob Cousy despite passing on him.

3. Luck with opponents (on and off the court): The Royals losing Maurice Stokes in 1958 took a future roadblock out of Boston's way (Cincy would eventually add Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas with territorial picks, and they along with Stokes and Jack Twyman could have been hell for Boston in the 60's). Also, the Lakers should have defeated them in 62 and 69, and the Sixers should have defeated them in 68.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to pretend that you said the Red Wings and Spurs instead of the Colts and Bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bills have Africa’s greatest sports dynasty of all time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.