With the Chiefs winning their third Super Bowl in five years, there’s been some talk about if this makes them a dynasty. So, I thought it might be useful to look at the teams that have when multiple championships while I’ve been a conscious sports fan and consider how they stack up. This will also serve as a distraction from discussion of the election which I am not anticipating enjoying.
Who we’ll consider
I’ll look at all NHL, NBA, NFL, and MLB teams that won two or more championships in a five year period since 1980, when I turned 5 years old. Once a team has gone five years without a championship, that will start the clock for another dynasty consideration. (this sounds like a programming interview question)
I will rely on my own memory over research in discussing the impressions about things like whether a player was a superstar, but not for specific statistical claims.
The categories
Rings
Pretty obvious — how many championships did this team win. Did they do so consecutively? Winning four straight championships is a lot more impressive than winning 2 in 5 years. (20 points)
Non-championship Years
In the years when the team didn’t win the championship, were they competitive? Were there close calls? Were they derailed by injuries? (10 points)
Peak Performance
What was the best season this team had? Was it of historical significance? Did this team have any other notable accomplishments, like a long winning streak or scoring or defensive record? (10 points)
Star Power
Great teams have great players. I am interested in how many star players a team had, and/or great seasons individual players had historic seasons? (10 points)
Coaching / Innovation
Did this team innovate any new strategies that were adopted by the rest of the league? Were they considered to be a well-coached team? Did they adapt to the competition? (5 points)
Legacy
How was the franchise perceived before this run of success, and how was it perceived afterward? Did the coach or star players go on to success after this run? (5 points)
The Competition
It is true that it is a characteristic of great teams that they put significant separation between themselves and their competition. But it is also the case that some of the most impressive runs of success were compiled in a league that wasn’t fully mature, where half the teams had little hope of competition, and some were teetering on the edge of existence.
It’s difficult to imagine a current NBA team dominating the league the way the 1960s Celtics did, and that’s not purely a function of their excellence. (5 points)
Achilles Heel
Did this team have a significant weakness that other teams were unable to exploit? Or were they balanced in each phase of the game? (5 points)
Bias Check
I think there is only one team that I rooted for that will meet the criteria. But there are obviously teams and players that I have fonder memories of than others. I’ll update accordingly (+/- 5 points)
Other Notes
Some analyses like these like to consider whether a team’s success would translate into other eras. I’m not terribly interested in that, both because it is nearly impossible to measure, and that a characteristic of a great team is that it helps define the era in which it competes.
I’ll aim to look at one team a week. I may add some other looks at teams that just missed the criteria or from earlier eras.
Enjoy!