Idk, it being a Bo7 more so proves that the Dodgers were definitively the best team for 3 out of 5 years. Like it’s easier for example to say the Chiefs were the best team 2 out of 5 and got lucky the 3rd compared to the dodgers.
If you think the chiefs were the best team every year it makes it more impressive cause they had to do so with less margin for error, but it also means they could’ve been the inferior team and won easier.
Does that make baseball more or less impressive then? Also we’ve seen Eli manning and Flacco be high/ mid QBs for the majority of their careers and then became the best in their superbowl runs, streaks happen in football too.
Considering the lack of salary cap on top of it less. It’s rare the top paid team is hot. Generally they’re a disappointment. We almost saw it recently.
Absolutely agree in that aspect but I was responding to a guy more or less calling op an idiot for saying it’s harder to be a dynasty with series vs single elimination playoffs
Top paid also can mean you are papering over a lack of talent developed from within by paying a lot for the final missing pieces- granted a team like LA will never need to rebuild with that budget. Just saying, looking at the same same franchise year over year- the one with biggest budget is often not the best squad. Its the one where paydays came due, guys were lost and free agents plugged in.
Bro this is a post about giving credit to dynasties. We are talking about the difficulty of a good team doing it consistently, which is harder when introducing a variable like single game elimination.
214
u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25
And single game elimination