Octopus Overlords

Dynasty is going to be a word that we're going to hear quite often in the next thirteen days. It's a word that is casually tossed about by those who partake in sporting discussions.

I would like to quantify the word dynasty in the context of the four major professional north american team sports (NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL).

I have a methodology in mind. That is not up for debate (feel free to discuss it, however). The reason for this post is that I need a bit of help from followers of these four sports (especially those with a bit of understanding of both the history of the sport and those who've got good references in their bookmarks). I would like to restrict my data collection to the period where the sport has "basically" stabilized with regard to rules and technique. For instance, I'm going to restrict myself to the NHL post 1920, as that's about when the league had "figured itself out." (Note, they got rid of the rover position in 1911, and the "modern era" of the "Original Six" didn't come about until WWII (1941-2), but still 1920 is right about when a modern observer could have transported themself back in time and not have felt too out of place with the league or the game as it was played on the ice.) I was thinking of using 1905 for MLB, and 1950 for both the NBA and the NFL. Fans with a historical understanding of those two sports, please feel free to correct those initial starting dates as you think appropriate.

Additionally, I'm looking for two lists (that cover the appropriate time span) for each sport: The winner of the championship for that year (rather easy to come by), and the number of teams that participated in the league for each season (this one will be tougher, and therefore more appreciated by yours truly).

Methodology
1. Teams either won the championship or they didn't. There is no middle ground. A team that lost in the final game of the championship gets no more "dynasty points" than a team that didn't even make the playoffs that season.
2. Champions earn a number of dynasty points proportional to the number of opponents in the league for that season. (The Red Wings winning the 1954-5 Stanley Cup would earn them 5 points compared to the Patriots winning the 2003 Super Bowl earning them 31 points.)
3. To be considered a dynasty, teams must win multiple championships. Only teams with multiple championships will be considered.
4. Relocating teams starts the dynasty counter over again (sorry '55 Dodgers/ '59 Dodgers fans -- I do this mostly for my own sanity).

Scoring
1. Champions earn a number of Champion Points based on the total number of teams in the league that season, minus one.
2. Dynasty Points over a period of time are equal to the sum of the team's Champion Points over that period, multiplied by the average number of Champion Points earned over that same period.

I plan on (work-permitting, of course) releasing Dyansty scores for one sport each day over the next week or so. I'm counting on other interested parties to provide the two lists I requested above. Based on how quickly I receive links to those lists, I will release the order of the sports. Tentatively, I plan on doing the NHL first (today or tomorrow -- I already have the two lists I need for this sport), followed by the NBA, MLB, and finishing with the NFL. In the end we will end up with metrics that work across-the-various-sports and we will have a quantitative metric to compare the various dynasties.

Expectations, of course, are for the Canadiens, Yankees, Pirates, Oilers, Islanders, Celtics, Lakers, 49ers, and Cowboys to finish high on the list. But I'm thinking we may end up with some nice surprises (which is why I'm undertaking this task).

So, link a homeboy up with the championships and number of teams by season for the MLB, NFL, and NBA, and I'll come back with some interesting numbers, okay?

~Neal

The Meal wrote:2. Champions earn a number of dynasty points proportional to the number of opponents in the league for that season. (The Red Wings winning the 1954-5 Stanley Cup would earn them 5 points compared to the Patriots winning the 2003 Super Bowl earning them 31 points.)

I think this is unfair because one could argue that with 31 teams you have a much more diluted talent base and it may be easier for dominant teams to win year after year. In the original 6 NHL era, every team had hall of famers just about playing every night. There was no room for mediocrity and it might have actually been harder to win.

Also, here are some good sites:

Hockey DB

Pro-Football Reference

Baseball Reference

Basketball Reference

And remember, 2 & 1/2 cups does not make a dynasty!!!

I'm going to let this guy address the supposed "diluted talent" farce for the NHL.

And I've just completed the NHL numbers. Interesting stuff.

~Neal

Sorry about that link not applying. I get a bit depressed when folks bitch about the lack of talent in today's NHL (similar to RM9's annoyance with casual NFL fans, I'm sure).

Anyway, my system definitely skews things to the modern era, but when we're talking "dynasties," clearly it's more impressive to build a team that wins year-in-and-year-out considering the amount of competition.

So with the understanding that my methodology skews things to the modern era, and with an understanding that I removed all subset time spans that scored lower values than some overall set of scores, here's the NHL's top 10 dynasties according to my methodology:

Rank, Dynasty Points, Team, Time Span (Cup years, not Season Years)
1. 1600 NYI 80-83
2. 1429 EDM 84-90
3. 1141 MTL 68-79
4. 1075 MTL 65-79
5. 1040 DET 97-02
6. 963 MTL 56-79
7. 841 PIT 91-92
8. 784 NJD 00-03
9. 729 NJD 95-03
10. 712 MTL 76-'86

Is the Islanders' four-straight-year dominance in a 21-team league more impressive than the Candien's 8 cups in 12 years (with an average of 15.4 teams in the league over this span)? That seems pretty debatable. Should I weigh longevity heavier? Depends on whether you think a single fundamental core lineup is a lesser Dynasty than one where the core players change over a decade's span. Is it the sweater that's the dynasty or the specific players comprising of the team which is Dynastic?

I'll stick to my current scoring method if for no other reason that it is untweaked from expectations.

Thanks for the links, Trent. I haven't clicked on them yet, but I know from experience that its difficult to track down the historic number of teams in a league broken up by season. Here's my NHL reference:
http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nh ... story.html

~Neal

Too many shenanigans with the NFL between the NFC and AFC, so I restricted myself to the Super Bowl era only.

Data complied from here:
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/history/yearly-full

Top ten NFL dyanasties (Rank, Dynasty Points, Team, Years)
1. 1803 PIT 74-79
2. 1722 DAL 92-95
3. 1682 DEN 97-98
4. 1458 SF 88-89
5. 1302 SF 81-94
6. 1250 MIA 72-73
7. 1240* NE 01-03
8. 1105 GB 66-67
9. 656 WAS 82-91
10. 583 NYG 86-90

~Neal
[*]#7 on that list could jump to #1 on the list with a Dynasty Point total of 2116 in a couple of weeks...

Hey Neal are you a member of the High IQ society?! My brother is, and while we tease him about it, he's one smart mo-fo. Damn man, some of the stuff you post goes way, way, over my head. (I could just be that ignorant and dumb though...) heheh

Tang. Tang is the best Dynasty.

deadzone wrote:Hey Neal are you a member of the High IQ society?! My brother is, and while we tease him about it, he's one smart mo-fo. Damn man, some of the stuff you post goes way, way, over my head. (I could just be that ignorant and dumb though...) heheh

That's pretty funny. I'd hate to think I came across this way. I constantly make fun of folks who only say stuff to pump up their own importance in front of other people (and believe me, I work with *plenty* of people like this!). Joining a "high IQ club" sounds like one of the worst tortures a person could inflict upon me.

I just think about things differently or more intensely (a mind as if it were on rails!) than other people. And sometimes I do weird stuff with math.

Good to see you posting again, too. These boards could use a *much* healthier dose of the DZ.

~Neal

And remember, 2 & 1/2 cups does not make a dynasty!!!

Apparently it does!!! According to Meal...

1. 1600 NYI 80-83
2. 1429 EDM 84-90
3. 1141 MTL 68-79
4. 1075 MTL 65-79
5. 1040 DET 97-02
6. 963 MTL 56-79
7. 841 PIT 91-92
8. 784 NJD 00-03
9. 729 NJD 95-03
10. 712 MTL 76-'86

How does 2 years of Penguins make this list? Next thing you know, Trent will weasel in a 'Matteau Dynatsy' that lasts one year.

The Devils dynasty will continue when hockey does!! It's like the Ming Dynasty!


On a more serious note - It's might be tough to top the Celtics '57-'69.

Devil wrote:The Devils dynasty will continue when hockey does!! It's like the Ming Dynasty!

But what are they going to do with Captain Concussion retiring?

Also, IMHO, back-to-back championships alone does not count as a dynasty.

Trent Steel wrote:Also, IMHO, back-to-back championships alone does not count as a dynasty.

I'm with both of you guys on that one. I didn't explictly remove that from my options (requiring three or more championships), so leaving it in shows how the results are skewed/could be improved were I to apply some different mathematics. I'm still of two minds on the longevity vs. consistency issue, too.

~Neal

Devil wrote:On a more serious note - It's might be tough to top the Celtics '57-'69.

You could also throw 81-86 out there I guess, though it doesn't match up with the Lakers (LA or Minneapolis) or Bulls. The '57-'69 is definitely the best basketball one though.

The Meal wrote:[*]#7 on that list could jump to #1 on the list with a Dynasty Point total of 2116 in a couple of weeks...

Thereby invalidating your methodology.

Seriously - if the Pats win in 2 weeks, they are definately to be considered a dynasty. The problem is that year in and year out - they are facing weaker competition than the old school powerhouses.

The Cowboys of the early 1990s was a more impressive run to me because they had constant competition from the 49ers and the Packers.

The Pats have no such challenger in their conference.

A team's dominance in the NFL isn't determined simply by examining who won the SB in a given year.

Consider this data, using the Cowboys of the 92-95 vintage. 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, same as the Pats would accomplish if they win in 2 weeks.

The Cowboys won four straight NFC East crowns. Over the period of their dominance, they compiled a 59-16 (playoffs and regular season) record. They compiled a 10-1 playoff record against two powerhouse opponents (compiling a 5-1 record against the 49ers and Packers - teams that would win 2 Superbowls bracketing the Cowboys SB victories). In compiling their 10-1 playoff run, they made it to all 4 NFC Championship games. Losing one to a team with multiple first-ballot Hall-of-Famers (Young, Rice).

In their 10 playoff victories, they outscored their opponents by an AVERAGE of 18 points. That's insane.

To compare the Pats, the most glaring problem is that the Pats missed the playoffs entirely during one of the seasons of their run. The Cowboys made the playoffs all four seasons, and made it to the Conference championship all four seasons.

The Pats have so far compiled a 56-16 record over the span, with an 8 - 0 record in the playoffs so far. Another main difference is that there has been no dynastic competition for the Pats yet. The Cowboys played alongside the 49ers and the Packers. The Pats have no serious challenger.

In their 8 playoff wins, they Pats have won by an average of 7.5 points. Four of their 8 wins were decided by a field goal. The Cowboys won by at least 10 points in all 10 of their wins.

To summarize, in order to compare dynasties - you need a better way to measure a team's dominance than simply how many teams were in the league when they won their championships. You need to consider what they did in years that they didn't go to the Championship game. You need to consider to what extent they dominated their competition both in the regular season and in the playoffs.

The Patriots will absolutely be considered a dynasty should they win in two weeks. But that win decides whether they are a dynasty or not. Not whether or not they go from 7 to 1 on the "All-Time Dynasty" list.

If they win, I would be comfortable with them at 7 without doing the analysis. But there is no way the vault to the top of the list. That's crazy talk.

Also, consider this. For four YEARS, the Cowboys outscored their opponents by an average of 10 points, game in and game out (note that the margin of victory increased against playoff caliber opponents - it almost DOUBLED).

Over a similar time period, the Pats averaged less than 7 points per game more than they allowed - and until this year, that margin went DOWN against playoff caliber opponents.

And we haven't compared the Pats to the Steelers team of the 70s yet. But they don't even hold up against the last NFL dynasty.

Trent Steel wrote:Also, IMHO, back-to-back championships alone does not count as a dynasty.

Agreed, at least not in the NFL. That's why Denver shouldn't be on that list.

RunningMn9 wrote:To summarize, in order to compare dynasties - you need a better way to measure a team's dominance than simply how many teams were in the league when they won their championships.

The data is definitely bearing this out. I'm uncomfortable with both the NHL and NFL lists, for differing reasons.

I started here as I figured this data would be both easy to obtain, and easy to dump into excel to play with. Were I to try and incorporate more data (W-L records, playoff behaviors, etc.) I'd lose cross-talk between comparisons between sports, and likely I'd lose my job spending way too much time on it. We'll see if I bother with the NBA/MLB.

~Neal

Hehe thanks meal. Glad I found you guys I really am. How about a dynasty of Suckiness? My New Orleans Saints most definitly foot the bill in that regard.

BTW - High IQ Society... Real place on the internet that my brother joined but I didn't mean it as a cut-down towards you Neal. Regardless, you aren't a "pompass ass" like my brother can be sometimes. I was not surprised at all to learn about him joining this club online...

Here's the nerd link! http://www.highiqsociety.com/

Kelric wrote:

Devil wrote:On a more serious note - It's might be tough to top the Celtics '57-'69.

You could also throw 81-86 out there I guess, though it doesn't match up with the Lakers (LA or Minneapolis) or Bulls. The '57-'69 is definitely the best basketball one though.

The one problem for those Celtics in this calculation is the number of teams in the league at the time (8 with 9 and 10 towards the end).

"The Cowboys of the early 1990s was a more impressive run to me because they had constant competition from the 49ers and the Packers. "

There are other high powerd teams in the NFL today. You have Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Denver, Minnesota, Green Bay, and others. I'd also say that to do what the Pats have done (will do) is MORE impressive than what Dallas did since the Pats are dealing with salary cap an unrestricted free agency. Dallas didn't have to deal with that until 95 (I believe the cap and UFA came about in 93).

I would agree that a dynasty is a lot more than just winning the super bowl. Look at the 90-93 Bills. 4 years in a row as AFC Champs (and super bowl chumps) and that means they were no better than the Chargers during that time?

Dallas' win margin does mean something as well but I can't believe that it isn't tougher to win today in the era of free agency, salary cap, and cinderella worst to first teams than it was before the cap and UFA came about. I'm not sure that you can put numbers to it but you know that pittsburgh dynasty of the 70's wouldn't have been so impressive if Swann, Green, or Harris had gone to Cleveland via free agency.

There are other high powerd teams in the NFL today. You have Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Denver, Minnesota, Green Bay, and others.

You're joking, right?

Philly, Minnesota and Green Bay don't count. How many times have the Pats had to face them in the playoffs? 0.

The Colts, Steelers and Broncos of today are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less impressive than the 49ers and Packers teams that contended with the Cowboys for NFC supremacy during that run. The Colts offense is impressive, but their defense is horrendous. The Broncos have Jake Plummer. And the Steelers have a rookie QB that buckled under the playoff pressure.

Hardly the caliber of a Steve Young/Jerry Rice led 49ers team (which won the SB in 1994) or the Brett Favre/Reggie White led Packers (which won the SB in 1996). The Cowboys played 6 games against those two teams - winning 5 of them.

And they won those 5 games with an average margin of victory of 14.8 points. That was against the legitimate Super Bowl caliber teams in their own conference. We all know what they did to the best the AFC had to offer those three years.

Pats average SB margin of victory - 3 points. The Cowboys? 21.3 points.

THAT is dominance. When your average margin of victory almost doubles as the level of your competition increases, THAT is dominance.

I'd also say that to do what the Pats have done (will do) is MORE impressive than what Dallas did since the Pats are dealing with salary cap an unrestricted free agency.

They're also dealing with not making the playoffs in 2002. That's should be an AUTOMATIC disqualification from the comparison. You're comparing a team that completely dominated it's competition for four years, with a team that beat it's competition for 3 of 4 years.

It's more impressive to me from an organizational standpoint that the Pats were able to hold this team together in this era. But we're talking about which is the more dynastic of the dynasties. And I'm sorry - that's the team that had more playoff wins, and the team whose dominance over their opponents INCREASED when the going got tough in the playoffs.

The Cowboys were beating complete teams. Not teams with rookie QBs and teams without defenses.

That's the difference between now and then, and it's one of the reasons that I'm on the fence with this team. Virtually every team in the NFL has to carry a flaw these days. In the early 1990's, that simply wasn't the case.

In other words, the level of excellence and dominance that the Cowboys achieved was most certainly higher than that of this Patriots team. But there are aspects of what this Pats team has done that are DAMN impressive.

I would agree that a dynasty is a lot more than just winning the super bowl. Look at the 90-93 Bills. 4 years in a row as AFC Champs (and super bowl chumps) and that means they were no better than the Chargers during that time?

Certainly that comparison is silly. But despite all of the things that team accomplished - they weren't a dynasty.

Dallas' win margin does mean something as well but I can't believe that it isn't tougher to win today in the era of free agency, salary cap, and cinderella worst to first teams than it was before the cap and UFA came about.

I will accept that it was easier back then to maintain your status as a perrenial playoff contender (unless you were the Giants or Redskins), but once playoff arrived - the level of the competition was much higher than it is today.

I'm not sure that you can put numbers to it but you know that pittsburgh dynasty of the 70's wouldn't have been so impressive if Swann, Green, or Harris had gone to Cleveland via free agency.

I agree. But Swann, Green and Harris didn't go to Cleveland - which allowed that team to be far more dominant for far longer than the Pats of today are.

The reason for the dominance doesn't make them less dominant. Although it does make the measure of the Pats dominance more impressive.

But in all seriousness, when 50% of your playoff wins (including both Super Bowls) is a field goal - one has to be a little judicial in the use of the word "dominant".

Look at what the Pats are doing this year. Average margin of victory is 15.5 points in playoff games. And look at how we are talking about how badly they are dominating the competition. That's just this year. Last year their average margin of victory was 5.3 points. The year before that, 0 (they missed the playoffs). The year before that, 4.3 points.

The Pats "dominated" with average margins of victory of 4.3, 0, 5.3 and 15.5 points in the parity league.

The Cowboys "dominated" with average margins of victory of 23.0, 14.7, 26.0, and 13.3. And they did it while competing with two other dynastic teams (each of which won a Super Bowl on their own).

I mean - we can agree that a 20-17 victory is less dominating than a 52-17 victory...right?

Missing the playoffs in 2002 should automatically disqualify them from the top 5.

Hey Meal,

Can you run the same over the Australian Rules Football results?

Results are here - http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/vfl_part_1.htm

Expected results would be Collingwood 25-30, Melbourne 55-60 and Brisbane 2001-2003

Thanks in advance.

Youre bringing things into my argument that simply aren't there. I'm saying that the Pats ability to win with the salary cap and UFA are more impressive than Dallas' margin of victory.

Philly, Minn, and GB do count because they are teams that other teams need to get past to win the super bowl. Winning the super bowl is part of the criteria for a dynasty. If any of those teams beat the Pats in the SB, they wouldn't be considered on Meal's list.

I'm not saying Dallas didn't statistically dominate more. I'm saying that NWE's is more impressive because of how difficult it is to hold a team together today. Yet, there are still teams that do it. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Denver are all power house teams. Over the past three years, Denver has ranked in the top 10 in points scored and total yardage on offense and defense (they did rank 15th in defensive points allowed in 02). Take a look at GB's rankings in 92 and 93.

Bruce, a quick look at that site tells me that it'd take a lot of effort for me to get the data in an easy-to-use format. If you created the data in tabular form: Year | Champion | # of Teams in the League, then I can guarantee you that I'd run it through and verify your hypothesis.

~Neal

Tom Brady is the Dynasty of the new millenium.

Youre bringing things into my argument that simply aren't there. I'm saying that the Pats ability to win with the salary cap and UFA are more impressive than Dallas' margin of victory.

And I'm saying that winning half your playoff games by 3 points, including both of your Super Bowls is less DOMINATING than beating the bejesus out of a much higher quality of opponents over a longer period of time.

In fact, after doing some more research, I'm inclined to disqualify the 2001 team from consideration as part of the dynasty. That team was a cinderella story that barely squeaked through. Their largest margin of victory over a playoff opponent that year? 7 points. Their average margin of victory over playoff teams was 4.2 points.

In an interesting twist to that - over a four year period, the Cowboys won 23 games against playoff teams. Their smallest margin of victory? 7 points. Once. They broke double digit leads in 21 of those games.

The Pats, over the same period, won 22 games against playoff teams. The margin of victory was 7 or less in 11 of those contests. Breaking double digits only 10 times over 4 years.

On the flip side, when the Pats have lost to playoff opponents, it's never been closer than 7 points. They've lost 8 games, by an average of 13 points a pop. The Cowboys lost 9 games during that stretch, but 6 of those were by 7 points or less (they lost 4 by a FG).

The kind of dominance that the Cowboys showed for 4 years is more impressive than what the Pats have done the past two years.

Oh, which reminds me why I want to strike 2001 from their dynasty-hood consideration. First there is missing the playoffs altogether in 2002 - but more importantly, against playoff teams, they were a very average 7-7. Since then, they've been a staggering 15-1 against playoff teams (although less convincingly then the Cowboys margin of victory against playoff opponents).

If they beat the Eagles, they move into the dynasty category. But they would have to win one more SB in the next two years to be considered the "best ever".

Which I know you weren't arguing. Dominating the NFL for four years at the level the Cowboys did, is the most impressive NFL-related feat I've seen since the Bills went to four straight Super Bowls. I don't think any team has topped that yet. Certainly not a team that couldn't manage to get in the playoffs during it's four year run (regardless of salary cap issues).

Philly, Minn, and GB do count because they are teams that other teams need to get past to win the super bowl. Winning the super bowl is part of the criteria for a dynasty. If any of those teams beat the Pats in the SB, they wouldn't be considered on Meal's list.

No, they don't count. You can't say that there are really tough teams in the other conference (even though NO ONE would consider the Vikings or Packers "tough" in the early 90s 49ers or mid-90s Packers "tough" vein). The Patriots have NEVER had to get past any of those teams in the playoffs.

The Cowboys routinely had to get past the 49ers and Packers. Both Super Bowl caliber teams in their own right (with the trophies to back them up). Where are the Super Bowl trophies for the Packers, Vikings and Eagles over the 2000-2004 stretch?

I'm not saying Dallas didn't statistically dominate more. I'm saying that NWE's is more impressive because of how difficult it is to hold a team together today.

I don't think that it's all that hard to hold a team together today. As teams adjust to free agency and the salary cap, they learn how to play the system. NE figured it out faster than the rest.

You get enough veterans hungry enough to win, willing to play for less money to win. Problem solved.

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Denver are all power house teams.

I'll grant the Eagles for now. The rest could only be considered "powerhouse" if you just starting watching the NFL in 1998.

Over the past three years, Denver has ranked in the top 10 in points scored and total yardage on offense and defense (they did rank 15th in defensive points allowed in 02). Take a look at GB's rankings in 92 and 93.

GB's rise to prominance came in 94 and 95, overlapping with the 49ers by a year (who were a powerhouse for 92, 93 and 94). Both were LIGHTYEARS better than the current "powerhouse teams" you listed.

The Steelers allowed 250-some odd points this year - the lowest in the league. In 1992, the 49ers allowed only 236. And ranked 3rd. And they ranked #1 in points scored. Something the Steelers did NOT do.

The NFC over the latter part of the 1980s through the mid-90s was EASILY orderS of magnitude better than what either conference can muster today in terms of the number and magnitude of quality teams competing for the championship.

Note: I despise the Cowboys of 92-95 even more than I despise the Patriots. But that team was f-ing re-bobdammed-diculous.

Seriously - if the Pats win in 2 weeks, they are definately to be considered a dynasty. The problem is that year in and year out - they are facing weaker competition than the old school powerhouses.

Shocking!!!! RM9 came in here to invalidate the Pats!!!

Fast forward to '09: The Pats are on their 7th Super Bowl but it doesn't count becuase they never had to play anyone who was any good during the whole 9 year span. They weren't like the 4 year loser-Bills and Jim Kelly, Otto Graham was better than Hank Poteat, and Peyton Manning was so good that nobody cared about the Super Bowl during that time anyway. Besides, Tom Brady's 6 Super Bowl MVP awards were a joke and they shouldn't count anyway because he only got to play when Drew got hurt.

Meanwhile in Buffalo. GM Tom Donahoe has spent every year drafting, signing and releasing offensive players. Price to Evans, Bledsoe to Losmam and Henry to McGahee was only the beginning. Meanwhile the new Bills radio announcing trio of Gash, Milloy and Bledsoe are up-beat about the '10 season because even though they haven't made the playoffs in 10 years the organization is more of a "Family" than in New England and that's really all that matters.

Go Bills!!!
[/quote]

Devil wrote:Shocking!!!! RM9 came in here to invalidate the Pats!!!

Not quite. I came in to make sure Meal wasn't coming up with an assanine scheme to rank dynasties in various sports using inappropriate criteria. And not a moment too soon it seems.

Any system that rates the Pats higher than the 92-95 Cowboys is wrong. It's as simple as that.

Like the Penguins on his list?

LOVE you're new sig even though it's not quite accurate. It's 1.5 MVPs for Mr. October. He shared one with the other guy Brady knocked out of the playoffs last year. Regular season, baby!!! That's all that matters!

I might get to update mine in two weeks!! I'll make a little change now, though...

Devil wrote:Like the Penguins on his list?

I'm in no position to challenge Neal on hockey. I stuck to the football list. He had at least two teams that didn't belong (97-98 Broncos and 01-03 Patriots).

Bruce, I got your Footie data analyzed, and clearly there is something wrong with this initial formula of mine. Thanks so much for putting things in that format for me.

1. 675 BRIS 2001-03
2. 504 MELB 55-60
3. 484 COL 27-30
4. 465 MELB 39-64
5. 441 HAW 76-91
6. 436 COL 27-36
7. 392 HAW 71-91
8. 316 CARL 68-95
9. 242 RICH 67-74
10. 218 ESS 46-50
11. 216 RICH 67-80
12. 215 ESS 42-50
13. 208 CARL 06-08
14. 185 CARL 06-15
15. 130 FITZ 1898-1922
16. 104 ESS 1897-1924
17. 59 COL 02-10

(Forgive any screwey abbreviations -- my lack of knowledge of your league forced me to make my own -- hopefully nothing impossible to figure out, of course).

So as I said, there are some things in this list I simply don't like. While the Brisbane Lions seemed like a recent dominant team, putting them at the head of the list based on their three championships in three years (in a 16-team league) would seem to pale compared to some of the earlier accomplishments (Melbourne's five wins in six years at the end of the 50's for example). Additionally, ranked #4, we see a "dynasty" that lasted for 26 years? Sure, there were 10 championships in those 26 years, but is that really a single dynasty? (Similarly with Carlton's 8 championships in the 28 years between 1968 and 1995.)

One thing I did make sure of, Bruce, is that a team needed three championships to even make it into my calculator. Based on my NHL and NFL data, it was clear that the formula overemphasized back-to-back victories in the modern (i.e., high number of opponents in the league) era, which throws things off-kilter.

That gives me an idea, however. One repeated factor over and over again (in all three leagues analyzed, which have three very different championship distributions), is that a higher-number-of opponents is getting a dynasty more emphasis than it may deserve. My next stab at the formula would modify my scoring such that:

1. Champions earn a number of Champion Points based on the number of teams in the league that season minus one, and
2. Dynasty Points over a given period, would be equal to the sum of the Champion Points over that period, multiplied by the square root of the average number of Champion Points over that period.

Were I to use this second method, the top teams would definitely shift in order -- giving more precedence to those teams who stayed on top for a longer span, and reducing the importance of "flash in the pan" dyanasties. I'm not sure that's what we'd want to accomplish (again, getting back to my question as to whether a Dynasty is a collection of specific players, or a team's management that is capable of modifying the make up of its team such that it stays on top for a prolongued duration).

Anyway, here are the lists with the modified (new) scoring structure:

1. 226 MELB 39-64
2. 193 HAW 71-91
3. 174 BRIS 2001-03
4. 172 CARL 68-95
5. 170 COL 27-36
6. 167 MELB 55-60
7. 109 RICH 67-80
8. 97 ESS 42-50
9. 89 CARL 06-15
10. 86 FITZ 1898-1922
11. 85 ESS 46-50
12. 75 ESS 1897-1924
13. 37 COL 02-10

(The lists will be shorter as I pare out any lower-scoring periods that completely overlap within a higher-scoring period for a team. This isn't completely fair, as I already peformed a chop of this nature with the other scoring method, which may mean that I've chopped out higher scoring dynasties for this new scoring method. I'm being lazy here, but hopefully forgivably lazy.)

1. 404 MTL 53-86
2. 378 EDM 84-90
3. 358 NYI 80-83
4. 287 DET 97-02
5. 243 NJD 95-03
6. 55 TOR 42-51
7. 37 DET 50-55
8. 37 TOR 62-67

Again, it's clear that this new method really emphasizes the nature of the team over the long span of years as opposed to the individuals who may have dominated over a shorter span.

NFL:
1. 441 NE* 01-04
2. 433 PIT 74-79
3. 419 SF 81-94
4. 378 DAL 92-95
5. 275 NE 01-03
6. 231 WAS 82-91

NE* is of course what things'd look like were they to win on Feb 6th. Other than the NE 01-03, I arbitrarily removed the spans that only included two victories (although the new formula does a nice job of knocking those teams down anyway, as you can see by the NE 01-03 ranking). Unfortunately when I originally compiled this data, I didn't bother with the "long term" dynasties (GB's early SB wins combined with their 1996 victory; and especially DAL's dominance through the eras in '71, '77, '92, '93, and '95). Were I to crunch those numbers, I think we'd see GB still pretty low on the list, but DAL catapult to the top.

Clearly, there is no amount of manipulation to my data that would diminish NE's three SB wins over four years in this age of parity, high numbers of opponents, and free agency.

~Neal

One thing that I wouldn't necessarily agree with you, RM9, is how to evaluate margin of victory. I'd be very subjective about who I evaluated MOV against. For instance, I concur that their MOV against the NFC powerhouses is quite relevant, but the same cannot be said (again, imo) of the AFC teams they beat in the SB. I mean, god love those Bills, but the AFC was pretty damn average back then (the '90 Bills I do consider a much stronger team). As a Steeler fan, I only wish that they were the caliber of the NFC contenders in '95.

So while I don't know how you calculated those average margins of victory (whether they include those SB's). Thoughts?

Not that big of a Sox fan so that Yankees/Sox thing is more of a shot at Kelric.

You see, I admire winning team like the Patriots and Yankees. Maybe you're jealous?

RunningMn9 wrote:Note: I despise the Cowboys of 92-95 even more than I despise the Patriots. But that team was f-ing re-bobdammed-diculous.

When you send 4 offensive linemen to the probowl...twice, and three members of that line, two other times...and every lineman made the probowl...that's the foundation for an insane team. Then with a dominant defense and a perennial probowl runningback and quarterback. Sick. And I hate to admit that (Redskins fan...blech), but it's true.

And EH3k I seriously can't believe you called the Steelers Powerhouses. 15-1 this year, awesome, amazing season. 6-10 last year. Since 1999, that powerhouse team had 2 6-10 seasons, a 7-9 season and a 9-7 season. Powerhouses in 7 years don't have almost half of those losing seasons.

Joe Gibbs, and I'd argue the 1981-1991 Redskins were powerhouses, had ONE losing season, 7-9. One 8-8 season and then the other 8 seasons were 10-6 or more frequently, better, winning 3 superbowls and participating in 4 (yes, that means losing one...stupid Raiders).

Or the 49ers of that era; from 1981-1998 they didn't win double figures ONCE, in the strike season of 1982. Seriously, look up those seasons...that's an incredible run.

Linda Evans .......... naked ......... in her younger days.

The Preacher wrote:One thing that I wouldn't necessarily agree with you, RM9, is how to evaluate margin of victory. I'd be very subjective about who I evaluated MOV against. For instance, I concur that their MOV against the NFC powerhouses is quite relevant, but the same cannot be said (again, imo) of the AFC teams they beat in the SB. I mean, god love those Bills, but the AFC was pretty damn average back then (the '90 Bills I do consider a much stronger team). As a Steeler fan, I only wish that they were the caliber of the NFC contenders in '95.

So while I don't know how you calculated those average margins of victory (whether they include those SB's). Thoughts?

As I said earlier, even if you only count their playoff games against the NFC powerhouses, it's STILL 15 ppg. The 92 Bills team I would discount. They were a wildcard team that made it. The 93 team had skills. The 91 team was the best of the bunch, but got obliterated by what is probably one of the (if not THE) best offensive line in history - the 91 Hogs.

But I don't think that it's a stretch to say that even the Bills 88-93 team is probably better overall than any team in the NFL right now. So I count them in with the 49ers and Packers as teams that the Cowboys dominated. The problem was that over the 1990-1993 era, as good as the Bills were - there were at least 3 teams better than them (all in the NFC).

The Pats are the best in the NFL now - but parity has reduced the quality of the top teams (IMO).

It's like the difference between being the best college team in the country and the best NFL team in the country.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Philly, Minn, and GB do count because they are teams that other teams need to get past to win the super bowl. Winning the super bowl is part of the criteria for a dynasty. If any of those teams beat the Pats in the SB, they wouldn't be considered on Meal's list.

No, they don't count. You can't say that there are really tough teams in the other conference (even though NO ONE would consider the Vikings or Packers "tough" in the early 90s 49ers or mid-90s Packers "tough" vein). The Patriots have NEVER had to get past any of those teams in the playoffs.

The Vikings definitely cannot be considered "tough" as far as this Patriots run is concerned. They didn't even make the playoffs in 2001 and 2003 when the Patriots won their Super Bowls. They didn't make it in 2002 either, but neither did the Patriots. They also were 8-8 this year and made the playoffs only because the NFC was extremely weak.

Vikings....tough. That makes me laugh. (And I'm a Vikings fan!)

Devil wrote:Not that big of a Sox fan so that Yankees/Sox thing is more of a shot at Kelric.

You see, I admire winning team like the Patriots and Yankees. Maybe you're jealous?

Frontrunner.

Sorry I'm late back to this, but yesterday was Australia Day and so I had to spend the day with beers and BBQs.

More than 20 years is too long for a dynasty, unless success is continuous.

Thinking about what the common factor for the Aussie Rules lists it is a bit more ethereal than I can get my head around. Collingwood 27-30 was under coach Jock McHale with Gordon Coventry as their leading player. Melbourne 55-60 was coached by Norm Smith with Ron Barrassi as the captain and star. The current Brisbane side are coached by Leigh Matthews with Michael Voss as their super star captain. So it would seem that a dynasty is formed by a coach-franchise player(s) combination. Easy.

But a bit further down the list is Hawthorn of the 80s and early 90s. This team was coached by 2 different men, John Kennedy and Alan Jeans. Their marquis players were Leigh Matthews (the same one who coaches the Lions now), Dermott Brereton, Gary Ayres, Jason Dunstall among others. It doesn't follow the same pattern as the others, though.

This was the other team I expected to see in the second tier of results so there seems to be some value in your formula. But like you surmise, number of teams isn't what you are looking for. I suspect this comes from trying to create equity in the NHL that doesn't necessarily need to be there.