Hey Dodgers Fans

536,802 Views | 4398 Replies | Last: 16 days ago by bonsallbear
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

tequila4kapp said:


As for the other main theme in the latter part of this thread...the Giant's accomplishment means a gazillion times more. Who gives a flying #$(* about regular season records? It is about winning rings.
Nobody is making any claims about the value of a WS being inferior to sustained organization success whereby it presents annual opportunities to compete for a WS.

Analytically, and from an organizational structure perspective, it is "harder" to have the best team every year (but lose in a short series thereafter every year) than it is to go 3 for 3 in postseasons in even years over 5 years (now 9 years).

In other words, you build a team that can be successful over 162 games, you don't (and to some degree can't) aim to win a few short series. Why? One, you can't win a WS without making the postseason, which requires being successful over a long period of time. Second, because statistical trends are more volatile in small sample sizes (5 and 7 game series), thus "building to win in the post season" is somewhat nonsensical. You build the best team you can. Comparing 5 games to 162 is figuratively like rolling a dice.

Again, nobody -- fans or organizations -- finds regular season success as the pinnacle of the sport Dodgers have more payroll and resources than any team in their division.
Year in and year out the Dodgers have the highest payroll and more resources available to them than any team in their division. They should win every year. The Yankees or Red Sox would do the same thing in the AL east if one or the other was in a different division. Given the playing field isn't level, it isn't that great of an accomplishment.




Your post was so dumb and misleading, this should be posted again...

And the Giants don't have a high payroll?? Shouldn't they expected too to win every year?

Payroll Rank the last 3 years:
2019: SF #5, LA #4
2018: SF #2, LA #3
2017: SF #4, LA #1
LA has not won because of their payroll. That is absolutely a fact. They have won because of astute talent management at the big league level (Hey, Farhan!) and brilliant scouting/signing of young talent. They have the deepest talent pool in the game. Where their resources come into play is not signing free agents (a stupid, short term fix) but rather paying their own guys who come up through the ranks and prove themselves in the majors.

I recently read an article about Farhan Zaidi that discussed his model of franchise building. It is basically the same blueprint used by LA. Within a couple years - 2021/22, SF should be contending again. The farm system is loaded with guys at the A level and Bart and Ramos should be ready to make their debut late next season.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

tequila4kapp said:


As for the other main theme in the latter part of this thread...the Giant's accomplishment means a gazillion times more. Who gives a flying #$(* about regular season records? It is about winning rings.
Nobody is making any claims about the value of a WS being inferior to sustained organization success whereby it presents annual opportunities to compete for a WS.

Analytically, and from an organizational structure perspective, it is "harder" to have the best team every year (but lose in a short series thereafter every year) than it is to go 3 for 3 in postseasons in even years over 5 years (now 9 years).

In other words, you build a team that can be successful over 162 games, you don't (and to some degree can't) aim to win a few short series. Why? One, you can't win a WS without making the postseason, which requires being successful over a long period of time. Second, because statistical trends are more volatile in small sample sizes (5 and 7 game series), thus "building to win in the post season" is somewhat nonsensical. You build the best team you can. Comparing 5 games to 162 is figuratively like rolling a dice.

Again, nobody -- fans or organizations -- finds regular season success as the pinnacle of the sport Dodgers have more payroll and resources than any team in their division.
Year in and year out the Dodgers have the highest payroll and more resources available to them than any team in their division. They should win every year. The Yankees or Red Sox would do the same thing in the AL east if one or the other was in a different division. Given the playing field isn't level, it isn't that great of an accomplishment.




Your post was so dumb and misleading, this should be posted again...

And the Giants don't have a high payroll?? Shouldn't they expected too to win every year?

Payroll Rank the last 3 years:
2019: SF #5, LA #4
2018: SF #2, LA #3
2017: SF #4, LA #1


You should know that t4k is a Dodger fan.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd argue that the Dodgers organization biggest strength is its prospect development system. That's allowed them to have more homegrown players on the roster than any team in baseball, plus a strong future pipeline of future MLB players, including several top 100 prospects. When these guys get called uo, they're ready to play at the MLB level. Verdugo, May, Gonsolin, Smith, Lux are all examples of that jjst in the last year. Strong internal talent development allows them to avoid the overpays (and uncertainty) that come with most free agent contracts which in turn, keeps payroll down and provides flexibility on extensions.

By and large, the Dodgers MLB free agent evaluations and signings have been unimpressive. They're succeeding with the players that come through the system. There are a lot of elements required to develop that kind of system ranging from S&C, nutrition, learning multiple positions, a lot of advanced technology on swing/throwing mechanics, etc. Tough to replicate that overnight but If anyone can, it's Zaidi.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheSouseFamily said:

I'd argue that the Dodgers organization biggest strength is its prospect development system. That's allowed them to have more homegrown players on the roster than any team in baseball, plus a strong future pipeline of future MLB players, including several top 100 prospects. That allows them to avoid the overpays (and uncertainty) that come with most free agent contracts which in turn, keeps payroll down and provides flexibility on extensions.

By and large, the Dodgers MLB free agent evaluations and signings have been unimpressive. They're succeeding with the players that come through the system. There are a lot of elements required to develop that kind of system ranging from S&C, nutrition, learning multiple positions, a lot of advanced technology on swing/throwing mechanics, etc. Tough to replicate that overnight but If anyone can, it's Zaidi.


Off the top of my head: Muncy. Taylor. Hill. Turner.

1/3 of the starting lineup and a good starter. Most teams would kill to nail that many free agents/trades.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Actually, has anybody done less with more than the Giants the past 4 years?

Isn't it a pretty amazing feat to pay all that money for such little production?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

oski003 said:

tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

tequila4kapp said:


As for the other main theme in the latter part of this thread...the Giant's accomplishment means a gazillion times more. Who gives a flying #$(* about regular season records? It is about winning rings.
Nobody is making any claims about the value of a WS being inferior to sustained organization success whereby it presents annual opportunities to compete for a WS.

Analytically, and from an organizational structure perspective, it is "harder" to have the best team every year (but lose in a short series thereafter every year) than it is to go 3 for 3 in postseasons in even years over 5 years (now 9 years).

In other words, you build a team that can be successful over 162 games, you don't (and to some degree can't) aim to win a few short series. Why? One, you can't win a WS without making the postseason, which requires being successful over a long period of time. Second, because statistical trends are more volatile in small sample sizes (5 and 7 game series), thus "building to win in the post season" is somewhat nonsensical. You build the best team you can. Comparing 5 games to 162 is figuratively like rolling a dice.

Again, nobody -- fans or organizations -- finds regular season success as the pinnacle of the sport Dodgers have more payroll and resources than any team in their division.
Year in and year out the Dodgers have the highest payroll and more resources available to them than any team in their division. They should win every year. The Yankees or Red Sox would do the same thing in the AL east if one or the other was in a different division. Given the playing field isn't level, it isn't that great of an accomplishment.




Your post was so dumb and misleading, this should be posted again...

And the Giants don't have a high payroll?? Shouldn't they expected too to win every year?

Payroll Rank the last 3 years:
2019: SF #5, LA #4
2018: SF #2, LA #3
2017: SF #4, LA #1
LA has not won because of their payroll. That is absolutely a fact. They have won because of astute talent management at the big league level (Hey, Farhan!) and brilliant scouting/signing of young talent. They have the deepest talent pool in the game. Where their resources come into play is not signing free agents (a stupid, short term fix) but rather paying their own guys who come up through the ranks and prove themselves in the majors.

I recently read an article about Farhan Zaidi that discussed his model of franchise building. It is basically the same blueprint used by LA. Within a couple years - 2021/22, SF should be contending again. The farm system is loaded with guys at the A level and Bart and Ramos should be ready to make their debut late next season.
the Dodgers hit the jackpot on a lot of prospects.

That's hard to duplicate for anybody
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

71Bear said:

oski003 said:

tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

tequila4kapp said:


As for the other main theme in the latter part of this thread...the Giant's accomplishment means a gazillion times more. Who gives a flying #$(* about regular season records? It is about winning rings.
Nobody is making any claims about the value of a WS being inferior to sustained organization success whereby it presents annual opportunities to compete for a WS.

Analytically, and from an organizational structure perspective, it is "harder" to have the best team every year (but lose in a short series thereafter every year) than it is to go 3 for 3 in postseasons in even years over 5 years (now 9 years).

In other words, you build a team that can be successful over 162 games, you don't (and to some degree can't) aim to win a few short series. Why? One, you can't win a WS without making the postseason, which requires being successful over a long period of time. Second, because statistical trends are more volatile in small sample sizes (5 and 7 game series), thus "building to win in the post season" is somewhat nonsensical. You build the best team you can. Comparing 5 games to 162 is figuratively like rolling a dice.

Again, nobody -- fans or organizations -- finds regular season success as the pinnacle of the sport Dodgers have more payroll and resources than any team in their division.
Year in and year out the Dodgers have the highest payroll and more resources available to them than any team in their division. They should win every year. The Yankees or Red Sox would do the same thing in the AL east if one or the other was in a different division. Given the playing field isn't level, it isn't that great of an accomplishment.




Your post was so dumb and misleading, this should be posted again...

And the Giants don't have a high payroll?? Shouldn't they expected too to win every year?

Payroll Rank the last 3 years:
2019: SF #5, LA #4
2018: SF #2, LA #3
2017: SF #4, LA #1
LA has not won because of their payroll. That is absolutely a fact. They have won because of astute talent management at the big league level (Hey, Farhan!) and brilliant scouting/signing of young talent. They have the deepest talent pool in the game. Where their resources come into play is not signing free agents (a stupid, short term fix) but rather paying their own guys who come up through the ranks and prove themselves in the majors.

I recently read an article about Farhan Zaidi that discussed his model of franchise building. It is basically the same blueprint used by LA. Within a couple years - 2021/22, SF should be contending again. The farm system is loaded with guys at the A level and Bart and Ramos should be ready to make their debut late next season.
the Dodgers hit the jackpot on a lot of prospects.

That's hard to duplicate for anybody
It isn't if you put money, time and effort into the process. The Giants have their own bounty of highly regarded young prospects (just a bit younger than LA's). Yep, the Dodgers are the gold standard but Zaidi is putting together an impressive program in SF.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

oski003 said:

tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

tequila4kapp said:


As for the other main theme in the latter part of this thread...the Giant's accomplishment means a gazillion times more. Who gives a flying #$(* about regular season records? It is about winning rings.
Nobody is making any claims about the value of a WS being inferior to sustained organization success whereby it presents annual opportunities to compete for a WS.

Analytically, and from an organizational structure perspective, it is "harder" to have the best team every year (but lose in a short series thereafter every year) than it is to go 3 for 3 in postseasons in even years over 5 years (now 9 years).

In other words, you build a team that can be successful over 162 games, you don't (and to some degree can't) aim to win a few short series. Why? One, you can't win a WS without making the postseason, which requires being successful over a long period of time. Second, because statistical trends are more volatile in small sample sizes (5 and 7 game series), thus "building to win in the post season" is somewhat nonsensical. You build the best team you can. Comparing 5 games to 162 is figuratively like rolling a dice.

Again, nobody -- fans or organizations -- finds regular season success as the pinnacle of the sport Dodgers have more payroll and resources than any team in their division.
Year in and year out the Dodgers have the highest payroll and more resources available to them than any team in their division. They should win every year. The Yankees or Red Sox would do the same thing in the AL east if one or the other was in a different division. Given the playing field isn't level, it isn't that great of an accomplishment.




Your post was so dumb and misleading, this should be posted again...

And the Giants don't have a high payroll?? Shouldn't they expected too to win every year?

Payroll Rank the last 3 years:
2019: SF #5, LA #4
2018: SF #2, LA #3
2017: SF #4, LA #1


You should know that t4k is a Dodger fan.


And blueblood is a Cal fan...
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

71Bear said:

oski003 said:

tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

tequila4kapp said:


As for the other main theme in the latter part of this thread...the Giant's accomplishment means a gazillion times more. Who gives a flying #$(* about regular season records? It is about winning rings.
Nobody is making any claims about the value of a WS being inferior to sustained organization success whereby it presents annual opportunities to compete for a WS.

Analytically, and from an organizational structure perspective, it is "harder" to have the best team every year (but lose in a short series thereafter every year) than it is to go 3 for 3 in postseasons in even years over 5 years (now 9 years).

In other words, you build a team that can be successful over 162 games, you don't (and to some degree can't) aim to win a few short series. Why? One, you can't win a WS without making the postseason, which requires being successful over a long period of time. Second, because statistical trends are more volatile in small sample sizes (5 and 7 game series), thus "building to win in the post season" is somewhat nonsensical. You build the best team you can. Comparing 5 games to 162 is figuratively like rolling a dice.

Again, nobody -- fans or organizations -- finds regular season success as the pinnacle of the sport Dodgers have more payroll and resources than any team in their division.
Year in and year out the Dodgers have the highest payroll and more resources available to them than any team in their division. They should win every year. The Yankees or Red Sox would do the same thing in the AL east if one or the other was in a different division. Given the playing field isn't level, it isn't that great of an accomplishment.




Your post was so dumb and misleading, this should be posted again...

And the Giants don't have a high payroll?? Shouldn't they expected too to win every year?

Payroll Rank the last 3 years:
2019: SF #5, LA #4
2018: SF #2, LA #3
2017: SF #4, LA #1
LA has not won because of their payroll. That is absolutely a fact. They have won because of astute talent management at the big league level (Hey, Farhan!) and brilliant scouting/signing of young talent. They have the deepest talent pool in the game. Where their resources come into play is not signing free agents (a stupid, short term fix) but rather paying their own guys who come up through the ranks and prove themselves in the majors.

I recently read an article about Farhan Zaidi that discussed his model of franchise building. It is basically the same blueprint used by LA. Within a couple years - 2021/22, SF should be contending again. The farm system is loaded with guys at the A level and Bart and Ramos should be ready to make their debut late next season.
the Dodgers hit the jackpot on a lot of prospects.

That's hard to duplicate for anybody
They have, but they have also made mistakes like trading Yordan Alvarez away.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's really hard to put Yordan Alvarez down as a mistake when he never even was part of the Dodgers minor league system. In fact, there are rumors that the trade was pre-arranged from the get-go because the Astros didn't have the international signing pool money to sign him (or something to that effect). That seems to make some sense to me; after all, why would they trade someone they literally just signed?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheSouseFamily said:

It's really hard to put Yordan Alvarez down as a mistake when he never even was part of the Dodgers minor league system. In fact, there are rumors that the trade was pre-arranged from the get-go because the Astros didn't have the international signing pool money to sign him (or something to that effect). That seems to make some sense to me; after all, why would they trade someone they literally just signed?
Possibly true, but they were under no obligation to trade him. They obviously underestimated his ability and thought that flipping him would be a win for the organization. It is still early, but that seems to have been a mistake.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

TheSouseFamily said:

It's really hard to put Yordan Alvarez down as a mistake when he never even was part of the Dodgers minor league system. In fact, there are rumors that the trade was pre-arranged from the get-go because the Astros didn't have the international signing pool money to sign him (or something to that effect). That seems to make some sense to me; after all, why would they trade someone they literally just signed?
Possibly true, but they were under no obligation to trade him. They obviously underestimated his ability and thought that flipping him would be a win for the organization. It is still early, but that seems to have been a mistake.

Considering what they got for him (Josh Fields) produced 1.9 WAR over 2.5 seasons and now appears to be out of the league, and Yordan put up 3.7 WAR in half a season this year alone, I don't think it's early, nor does it seem to be a mistake - that's a bad miss.
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bonsallbear said:

Does dodger management have the courage to fire Roberts? NO
There is one thing that I love about this thread, which I wish had been locked long ago. That Dodger fans keep it alive I think has created a curse whereby the title of the thread keeps being more true (from a postseason view, Vogelsong is better than Kershaw) every year and that the Dodgers blow another great regular season.

If you really want your team to win, stop keeping this thread alive and the baseball gods might even smile on you some day. They eventually got tired of peeing on the Giants.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pigskin Pete said:

bonsallbear said:

Does dodger management have the courage to fire Roberts? NO
There is one thing that I love about this thread, which I wish had been locked long ago. That Dodger fans keep it alive I think has created a curse whereby the title of the thread keeps being more true (from a postseason view, Vogelsong is better than Kershaw) every year and that the Dodgers blow another great regular season.

If you really want your team to win, stop keeping this thread alive and the baseball gods might even smile on you some day. They eventually got tired of peeing on the Giants.
Are you kidding? This is the best thread posted at this site in the 20+ years I have participated on the site. Heck, now that SF has bottomed out and begun their return to the top, it would be a shame to delete the thread. Fun stuff!
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

bonsallbear said:

Does dodger management have the courage to fire Roberts? NO
There is one thing that I love about this thread, which I wish had been locked long ago. That Dodger fans keep it alive I think has created a curse whereby the title of the thread keeps being more true (from a postseason view, Vogelsong is better than Kershaw) every year and that the Dodgers blow another great regular season.

If you really want your team to win, stop keeping this thread alive and the baseball gods might even smile on you some day. They eventually got tired of peeing on the Giants.
Are you kidding? This is the best thread posted at this site in the 20+ years I have participated on the site. Heck, now that SF has bottomed out and begun their return to the top, it was be a shame to delete the thread. Fun stuff!
Who wins a title next? SF or LA?
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

71Bear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

bonsallbear said:

Does dodger management have the courage to fire Roberts? NO
There is one thing that I love about this thread, which I wish had been locked long ago. That Dodger fans keep it alive I think has created a curse whereby the title of the thread keeps being more true (from a postseason view, Vogelsong is better than Kershaw) every year and that the Dodgers blow another great regular season.

If you really want your team to win, stop keeping this thread alive and the baseball gods might even smile on you some day. They eventually got tired of peeing on the Giants.
Are you kidding? This is the best thread posted at this site in the 20+ years I have participated on the site. Heck, now that SF has bottomed out and begun their return to the top, it was be a shame to delete the thread. Fun stuff!
Who wins a title next? SF or LA?
LA has still got to be the favorite to win one first.
bonsallbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

dimitrig said:

71Bear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

bonsallbear said:

Does dodger management have the courage to fire Roberts? NO
There is one thing that I love about this thread, which I wish had been locked long ago. That Dodger fans keep it alive I think has created a curse whereby the title of the thread keeps being more true (from a postseason view, Vogelsong is better than Kershaw) every year and that the Dodgers blow another great regular season.

If you really want your team to win, stop keeping this thread alive and the baseball gods might even smile on you some day. They eventually got tired of peeing on the Giants.
Are you kidding? This is the best thread posted at this site in the 20+ years I have participated on the site. Heck, now that SF has bottomed out and begun their return to the top, it was be a shame to delete the thread. Fun stuff!
Who wins a title next? SF or LA?
LA has still got to be the favorite to win one first.
Only if they get rid of Roberts
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Roberts will be back for at least another season according to the LA Times. And they made the call to retain almost immediately after game 5.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2019-10-10/dodgers-manager-dave-roberts-will-return-next-season
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think some of the postseason bullpen decisions have been absolutely brutal but you can't fire a coach who has never lost the division, just set a franchise record for regular season wins at 106 and also set a record for largest NL West division margin ever. The better approach is to have a serious exchange over what into these decisions and how they can avoid being repeated. Time for conversation and counseling but not firing imo.
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hear you. Maybe they can bring Bochy in as playoff advisor
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnski said:

I hear you. Maybe they can bring Bochy in as playoff advisor
Blasphemer!
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guilty. I'm going for the laundry.
bonsallbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnski said:

Roberts will be back for at least another season according to the LA Times. And they made the call to retain almost immediately after game 5.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2019-10-10/dodgers-manager-dave-roberts-will-return-next-season
Yes I'm aware of that. I was responding to the question. A managerial advisor that can take over during the playoffs night work. Better yet, kick him upstairs and hire someone who knows how to manage
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

Kershaw's post season struggles are pretty inexplicable.

Hard to believe that any Dodger fan wants him "gone". He's arguably the best pitcher in the last 20 years.

Trading him for value (multiple young players with upside) makes sense (Kershaw's had his best year, and may start trending down soon) if the Dodgers want to make payroll room for up and coming young players whose pay day is approaching.
I don't want him gone. He's a very good pitcher in the regular season. I just want him to never see the field again - EVER - in any playoff game.

You know what, check that. The smart thing would be to trade him right now. His velocity is down and he's changing from a power pitcher to a finesse pitcher. He may be competent to good next year but the end is approaching. Get some value for him while you still can.


Interesting article this morning from Andy McCullough in the Athletic on how the Dodgers need to realize Kershaw is not the Kershaw of old, with some eye opening statistics.

"Here is one way to look at it: Kershaw made his eighth All-Star team in 2019. He might crack some Cy Young ballots. He went 16-5 with a 3.03 ERA, the 10th-lowest among starters who qualified for the ERA title. He struck out more than a batter per inning.

Here is another way to look at it: Among the 32 National League starting pitchers who qualified for the ERA title, Kershaw ranked 16th in fielding-independent ERA. Among the 61 National League starters who threw at least 100 innings, he ranked 43rd in home runs allowed per nine innings. He gave up a career-high 28 homers. He did not throw a fastball that reached 93 mph this season, according to Brooks Baseball. Only two years ago, that was his average velocity.

Here is a third way: During a six-start period in August and September, Kershaw posted a 5.24 ERA while yielding 13 home runs. Opposing hitters produced a .921 OPS against him."

https://theathletic.com/1293931/2019/10/15/mccullough-the-dodgers-need-to-stop-living-in-the-past-with-clayton-kershaw/
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.

So the Nats did it. I think the Dodgers and Astros were both better teams, but they both just barely ended up on the losing side of history. Sometimes a team is just charmed.

Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

dimitrig said:


Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.

So the Nats did it. I think the Dodgers and Astros were both better teams, but they both just barely ended up on the losing side of history. Sometimes a team is just charmed.
I've seen that three times. And I've seen when I've supported the better team and watched them lose. Luck factors into baseball more than the other sports IMO.
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

tequila4kapp said:

GBear4Life said:

Kershaw's post season struggles are pretty inexplicable.

Hard to believe that any Dodger fan wants him "gone". He's arguably the best pitcher in the last 20 years.

Trading him for value (multiple young players with upside) makes sense (Kershaw's had his best year, and may start trending down soon) if the Dodgers want to make payroll room for up and coming young players whose pay day is approaching.
I don't want him gone. He's a very good pitcher in the regular season. I just want him to never see the field again - EVER - in any playoff game.

You know what, check that. The smart thing would be to trade him right now. His velocity is down and he's changing from a power pitcher to a finesse pitcher. He may be competent to good next year but the end is approaching. Get some value for him while you still can.


Interesting article this morning from Andy McCullough in the Athletic on how the Dodgers need to realize Kershaw is not the Kershaw of old, with some eye opening statistics.

"Here is one way to look at it: Kershaw made his eighth All-Star team in 2019. He might crack some Cy Young ballots. He went 16-5 with a 3.03 ERA, the 10th-lowest among starters who qualified for the ERA title. He struck out more than a batter per inning.

Here is another way to look at it: Among the 32 National League starting pitchers who qualified for the ERA title, Kershaw ranked 16th in fielding-independent ERA. Among the 61 National League starters who threw at least 100 innings, he ranked 43rd in home runs allowed per nine innings. He gave up a career-high 28 homers. He did not throw a fastball that reached 93 mph this season, according to Brooks Baseball. Only two years ago, that was his average velocity.

Here is a third way: During a six-start period in August and September, Kershaw posted a 5.24 ERA while yielding 13 home runs. Opposing hitters produced a .921 OPS against him."

https://theathletic.com/1293931/2019/10/15/mccullough-the-dodgers-need-to-stop-living-in-the-past-with-clayton-kershaw/
Never like to see the great ones start to lose it. Still sad about Lincecum losing his fastball.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pigskin Pete said:

dimitrig said:

dimitrig said:


Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.

So the Nats did it. I think the Dodgers and Astros were both better teams, but they both just barely ended up on the losing side of history. Sometimes a team is just charmed.
I've seen that three times. And I've seen when I've supported the better team and watched them lose. Luck factors into baseball more than the other sports IMO.
I don't think luck factors into baseball more than other sports. In fact, it might be less because of the multi-games series' in the post season. What is true, in my opinion, is that a team can get on a roll at the right time and pull off an upset. Washington is a darn good team with strong starting pitching and a solid lineup.

Houston was definitely the favorite but the one element that many did not consider is the horrible record Verlander has in the post season. He makes Kershaw's post season record look like Sandy Koufax. Verlander is the most overrated pitcher in the game.....
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

dimitrig said:

dimitrig said:


Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.

So the Nats did it. I think the Dodgers and Astros were both better teams, but they both just barely ended up on the losing side of history. Sometimes a team is just charmed.
I've seen that three times. And I've seen when I've supported the better team and watched them lose. Luck factors into baseball more than the other sports IMO.
I don't think luck factors into baseball more than other sports. In fact, it might be less because of the multi-games series' in the post season. What is true, in my opinion, is that a team can get on a roll at the right time and pull off an upset. Washington is a darn good team with strong starting pitching and a solid lineup.

Houston was definitely the favorite but the one element that many did not consider is the horrible record Verlander has in the post season. He makes Kershaw's post season record look like Sandy Koufax. Verlander is the most overrated pitcher in the game.....

I don't know he sleeps at night

https://www.maxim.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:good%2Cvc_auto%2Cw_600/MTM5NTQxMDM0MjE1NDE3MjY1/kate-upton-1gif.mp4
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

dimitrig said:

dimitrig said:


Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.

So the Nats did it. I think the Dodgers and Astros were both better teams, but they both just barely ended up on the losing side of history. Sometimes a team is just charmed.
I've seen that three times. And I've seen when I've supported the better team and watched them lose. Luck factors into baseball more than the other sports IMO.
I don't think luck factors into baseball more than other sports. In fact, it might be less because of the multi-games series' in the post season. What is true, in my opinion, is that a team can get on a roll at the right time and pull off an upset. Washington is a darn good team with strong starting pitching and a solid lineup.

Houston was definitely the favorite but the one element that many did not consider is the horrible record Verlander has in the post season. He makes Kershaw's post season record look like Sandy Koufax. Verlander is the most overrated pitcher in the game.....
I've always thought of Verlander as merely normal in the playoffs, whereas Kershaw completely and affirmatively sucks in the playoffs. As a Dodgers fan I would be completely happy to never see him take the mound in a playoff game ever again.
rathokan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
the Nats were the hottest team the 2nd half of the season, and they have a starting pitching that can go toe to toe with anyone. They were only looked at as underdogs by most people because of their overall record which included a terrible start to the season. Nobody was playing better than they were the last few months.

Congratulations to the Nats!

Frustrating that the Dodgers have lost to the World Series champion four years in a row now. Was glad to see Washington win it though.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

71Bear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

dimitrig said:

dimitrig said:


Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.

So the Nats did it. I think the Dodgers and Astros were both better teams, but they both just barely ended up on the losing side of history. Sometimes a team is just charmed.
I've seen that three times. And I've seen when I've supported the better team and watched them lose. Luck factors into baseball more than the other sports IMO.
I don't think luck factors into baseball more than other sports. In fact, it might be less because of the multi-games series' in the post season. What is true, in my opinion, is that a team can get on a roll at the right time and pull off an upset. Washington is a darn good team with strong starting pitching and a solid lineup.

Houston was definitely the favorite but the one element that many did not consider is the horrible record Verlander has in the post season. He makes Kershaw's post season record look like Sandy Koufax. Verlander is the most overrated pitcher in the game.....
I've always thought of Verlander as merely normal in the playoffs, whereas Kershaw completely and affirmatively sucks in the playoffs. As a Dodgers fan I would be completely happy to never see him take the mound in a playoff game ever again.
Verlander in the World Series...

0-6 in 7 starts.
5.68 ERA
38 innings pitched
35 hits allowed
27 runs (24 earned)
14 walks

That is awful....


71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rathokan said:

the Nats were the hottest team the 2nd half of the season, and they have a starting pitching that can go toe to toe with anyone. They were only looked at as underdogs by most people because of their overall record which included a terrible start to the season. Nobody was playing better than they were the last few months.

Congratulations to the Nats!

Frustrating that the Dodgers have lost to the World Series champion four years in a row now. Was glad to see Washington win it though.
Me too. Finally, the Expos have a championship!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

tequila4kapp said:

71Bear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

dimitrig said:

dimitrig said:


Nats put away the Cards in 4, which just goes to prove to me that the Nats are a good team and also that the Dodgers really blew another chance at a title.

So the Nats did it. I think the Dodgers and Astros were both better teams, but they both just barely ended up on the losing side of history. Sometimes a team is just charmed.
I've seen that three times. And I've seen when I've supported the better team and watched them lose. Luck factors into baseball more than the other sports IMO.
I don't think luck factors into baseball more than other sports. In fact, it might be less because of the multi-games series' in the post season. What is true, in my opinion, is that a team can get on a roll at the right time and pull off an upset. Washington is a darn good team with strong starting pitching and a solid lineup.

Houston was definitely the favorite but the one element that many did not consider is the horrible record Verlander has in the post season. He makes Kershaw's post season record look like Sandy Koufax. Verlander is the most overrated pitcher in the game.....
I've always thought of Verlander as merely normal in the playoffs, whereas Kershaw completely and affirmatively sucks in the playoffs. As a Dodgers fan I would be completely happy to never see him take the mound in a playoff game ever again.
Verlander in the World Series...

0-6 in 7 starts.
5.68 ERA
38 innings pitched
35 hits allowed
27 runs (24 earned)
14 walks

That is awful....



What about the playoffs as a whole, as was your original argument?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.