Greatest Major League Sports Dynasties in the USA

[moonslav59]

I got hooked onto some website named newarena.com that lists the top sports dynasties. I did not agree with their choices, at all.

The selected:
1) SF 49'ers '81-'94 (5 championships in 14 years)
2) New England Patriots '01- '18 (6 in 18 yrs)
3) NY Yankees '47-'62 (10 in 15 years)
4) Chicago Bulls '00-'09 (6 in 8 yrs)
5) Pittsburgh Steeler '74-'79 (4 in 6 years)
6) LA Lakers '80-'88 (5 in 9 yrs)
7) Edmonton Oilers '84-'90 ( 5 in 7)
8) SA Spurs '99-'14 (5 in 16)
9) NY Yankees '96-'00 (4 in 5)
10) Boston Celtics '57-'69 (11-13)
11) LA Lakers '00-'02 (3 in 3)
12) Green Bay Packers '61-'67 (5 in 7)
13) Boston Celtics '81-'86 (3 in 6)
14) Oakland A's '72-'74 (3 in 3)
15) NY Islanders '80-'83 (4 in 4)
16) Cincinnati Reds '75-'76 (2 of 2)
17) Montreal Canadians '65-'79 (10 of 15)
18) Detroit Red Wings '97-'08 (4 in 12)
19) LeBron (WTF?) '12-'16 (3 in 5) (Why not Brady, then?)
20) Dallas Cowboys '92-'95 (3 in 4)
21) Chicago Blackhawks '10-'15 (3 in 6)
22) SF Giants '10-'14 (3 in 5)

My List (as you can tell, I rely mostly on rings):
1) Celtics (11 in 13) and I'm not even a Celtics fan
2) Yankees (10 in 15)
3) Canadians (10 in 15)
4) Bulls (6 in 8)
5) Packers (5 in 7)
6) Edmonton (5-7)
7) Yankees (4 in 5)
8) Steelers (4 in 6)
9) Islanders (4 in 4)
10) Lakers 5 in 9
11) Patriots 6 in 18
12) 49'ers 5 in 15
13) Spurs 5 in 16
T14) Lakers 3 in 3, A's 3 in 3, Yankees 3 in 3
17) Cowboys 3 in 4
18) Red Sox (4 in 15) Homer pick.

[Bellhorn04]

That article must have been written years ago, because it only credits the Patriots with 5 titles.

Their ranking of the Celtics 11 in 13 is pretty absurd, alright.

[moonslav59]

That article must have been written years ago, because it only credits the Patriots with 5 titles.

Their ranking of the Celtics 11 in 13 is pretty absurd, alright.

I went back and edited. I'm not sure if others need editing.

Yes, the list seems to value more recent dynasties more highly. I can understand thinking the leagues were smaller, back then, so easier to repeat as champs, but to out the Celtics 13th when they clearly belong at #1 was crazy. Also, calling LeBron a dynasty and not Brady or Reggie or ... is also puzzling.

[Jasonbay44]

Isn’t dynasty supposed to refer to a single team? I get Lebron is great but how is he is own dynasty on two teams? And why would it stop there? As an individual has been on an absurd run for 20 years and has 4 rings during that time.

Warriors should probably be up there, 4 rings since 2015, and it could’ve been 5 if Durant and Klay didn’t tear their ACLs in the finals.

[moonslav59]

Isn’t dynasty supposed to refer to a single team? I get Lebron is great but how is he is own dynasty on two teams? And why would it stop there? As an individual has been on an absurd run for 20 years and has 4 rings during that time.

Warriors should probably be up there, 4 rings since 2015, and it could’ve been 5 if Durant and Klay didn’t tear their ACLs in the finals.

Agreed, the list was a joke.

Of all the players to choose, why LeBron? Russell, Brady, Jordan...

Was it because of multiple teams? How about Brady, Jabbar, Reggie...?

[mvp 78]

Cleveland Browns 2015-17

[notin]

I went back and edited. I'm not sure if others need editing.

Yes, the list seems to value more recent dynasties more highly. I can understand thinking the leagues were smaller, back then, so easier to repeat as champs, but to out the Celtics 13th when they clearly belong at #1 was crazy. Also, calling LeBron a dynasty and not Brady or Reggie or ... is also puzzling.

The whole thing about calling an individual player a dynasty is stupid. Unles it’s in an individual sport. I could see Tiger or Tyson as better choices than LeBron…

[notin]

Isn’t dynasty supposed to refer to a single team? I get Lebron is great but how is he is own dynasty on two teams? And why would it stop there? As an individual has been on an absurd run for 20 years and has 4 rings during that time.

Warriors should probably be up there, 4 rings since 2015, and it could’ve been 5 if Durant and Klay didn’t tear their ACLs in the finals.

My thoughts on why LeBron was added - to create a controversy resulting in web traffic and clicks. It was a plan to foster further discussion. Like when ESPN did their top 100 athletes of the 20th century and included Secretariat…

[Bellhorn04]

My thoughts on why LeBron was added - to create a controversy resulting in web traffic and clicks. It was a plan to foster further discussion. Like when ESPN did their top 100 athletes of the 20th century and included Secretariat…

"newarena.com" isn't exactly The Athletic. The content appears to be all listicles.

[moonslav59]

"newarena.com" isn't exactly The Athletic. The content appears to be all listicles.

It certainly looks like one of those click bait web sites, but I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion on which were the best and in what order.

I have to think, as much as I dislike the Celtics, it has to start with them as number 1. I can't see any logical debate, other than a claim that the league was smaller and easier to win, but 11 in 13 is too good to deny them their rightful place.

The number two slot is more up for debate. One could argue the Bulls winning 6 of 8 in a bigger and tougher league passing the Yanks and Canadians (10 in 15.) I'm partial to the Packers of the 60's, as I lived there and watched them win some of their 5 in 7, but 3 of those championships were pre Super Bowl.

I see a drop off after 5 or 6, but certainly that is debatable.

If the Sox made it 5 in 16, where would they be placed? 13th/14th?

[notin]

"newarena.com" isn't exactly The Athletic. The content appears to be all listicles.

Do they have message boards under every listicle?

[moonslav59]

I was kind of curious how others would rank the top 5 or 10 dynasties.

[Bellhorn04]

I was kind of curious how others would rank the top 5 or 10 dynasties.

Good luck getting a big response from us deadbeats.

[moonslav59]

Good luck getting a big response from us deadbeats.

I figure, all New Englanders will (rightfully) put Celtics #1 and probably over rank the Pats dynasty spread out over 18 years.

[Bellhorn04]

To me, the numbers speak for themselves.

The SA Spurs' 5 in 16 is not a dynasty, any more than the Red Sox's 4 in 15.

That's what you call a "really nice run". But not a dynasty.

There are only a few real dynasties.