As science transitions from the age of lone geniuses to an era of collaborative teams, the question of whether large teams can sustain the creativity of individuals and continue driving innovation has become increasingly important. Our previous research first revealed a negative relationship between team size and the Disruption Index-a network-based metric of innovation-by analyzing 65 million projects across papers, patents, and software over half a century. This work has sparked lively debates within the scientific community about the robustness of the Disruption Index in capturing the impact of team size on innovation. Here, we present additional evidence that the negative link between team size and disruption holds, even when accounting for factors such as reference length, citation impact, and historical time. We further show how a narrow 5-year window for measuring disruption can misrepresent this relationship as positive, underestimating the long-term disruptive potential of small teams. Like "sleeping beauties," small teams need a decade or more to see their transformative contributions to science.