Joc Pederson - 6 for his last 6. 5 HRs and a double 3 inches from the top of the fence. I would say he's dialed in.

Another Bear said:

---

Someone has to say it...those mono black and white weekend MLB unis are awful, horrible.

---

They were really bad. You couldn't even read the team names and numbers on them. Impossible to tell who is who.

Giants have bases loaded against Kershaw right now with one out in the first. Is this the beginning of a wild card run?

Posey, down on strikes.

oski003 said:

---

Giants have bases loaded against Kershaw right now with one out in the first. Is this the beginning of a wild card run?

---

Unfortunately they have Posey up. You don't have 36 RBIs for the entire season in the 3-4 spot for no reason. Shockingly, Posey ks.

Strike three to Rickard! Maybe next time. . . .

Boo. 5-1 gigantes

GRRAAH said:

---

Champions yet again! 7 in a row!!

---

Divisional Champs... yay!!!

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

GRRAAH said:

---

Champions yet again! 7 in a row!!

---

Divisional Champs... yay!!!

---

Lolll. This is more funny than their World Series Loser
Ring Ceremony. "We are the best of...5!" Winning the division is certainly not meaningless, seven in a row moreso, but if you're 0 for the World Series in that time, you should feel pretty silly celebrating this.

GMP said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

GRRAAH said:

---

Champions yet again! 7 in a row!!

---

Divisional Champs... yay!!!

---

Lolll. This is more funny than their World Series Loser
Ring Ceremony. "We are the best of...5!" Winning the division is certainly not meaningless, seven in a row moreso, but if you're 0 for the World Series in that time, you should feel pretty silly celebrating this.

---

I'm gonna assume you didn't like the 1989 Giants rings? Did you boycott the big 3-day reunion weekend last month for the 1989 team too?

And by the way, did you see the "celebration" tonight?

From a fan of a team who was "relevant" for a playoff spot in July for 3-4 days...for the first time in the last 5 years? Woo-hoo indeed! Maybe you'll finish within 30 this year!! Congratulations

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

GRRAAH said:

---

Champions yet again! 7 in a row!!

---

Divisional Champs... yay!!!

---

Nice send off this weekend to Bochy. 9-0 . 29 games behind. Sad.

Dodgers post franchise record 106 wins!
Bellinger falls short in his quest for HR record but should win MVP
Rhu wins ERA title but may lose Cy Young to DeGrom.

Congratulations to the Dodgers. Let's keep our fingers crossed

Congrats to the Giants for a great season! A third place finish vastly exceeds all of the "expert prognosticator" expectations. And to finish just 8 games under 500 and only 29 games behind the Dodgers is an obvious achievement and a clear indication that things are trending in the right direction.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Congrats to the Giants for a great season! A third place finish vastly exceeds all of the "expert prognosticator" expectations. And to finish just 8 games under 500 and only 29 games behind the Dodgers is an obvious achievement and a clear indication that things are trending in the right direction.

---

1988. Lolololol

Let's go Brewers and/or Nats!

GRRAAH said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

GRRAAH said:

---

Champions yet again! 7 in a row!!

---

Divisional Champs... yay!!!

---

Nice send off this weekend to Bochy. 9-0 . 29 games behind. Sad.

---

The game didn't matter today, neither did the standings. It was a nice send off, thanks.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Congrats to the Giants for a great season! A third place finish vastly exceeds all of the "expert prognosticator" expectations. And to finish just 8 games under 500 and only 29 games behind the Dodgers is an obvious achievement and a clear indication that things are trending in the right direction.

---

You forgot your sarcasm emoji.

I was very satisfied with the season, particularly the substantial progress shown by the organization's farm system. Zaidi knows what he is doing (of course, Dodger fans know that having seen him in action in LA).

I feel like SF is in a similar place to the years following Bonds' retirement after the 2007 season. And we all know what happened beginning in 2010.

Best wishes in the playoffs (insert sarcasm emoji here).



P.S. Yes, Tim Lincecum showed up today and received an enormous ovation. The Freak came home. Welcome back, Timmy, we missed you.....

Giants accidentally give free car to Dodgers fan on Fan Appreciation Day at Oracle Park

71Bear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Congrats to the Giants for a great season! A third place finish vastly exceeds all of the "expert prognosticator" expectations. And to finish just 8 games under 500 and only 29 games behind the Dodgers is an obvious achievement and a clear indication that things are trending in the right direction.

---

You forgot your sarcasm emoji.

I was very satisfied with the season, particularly the substantial progress shown by the organization's farm system. Zaidi knows what he is doing (of course, Dodger fans know that having seen him in action in LA).

I feel like SF is in a similar place to the years following Bonds' retirement after the 2007 season. And we all know what happened beginning in 2010.

---

Yeah, no one except the most wildly optimistic of Giants fans expected a playoff run this year, but the development of the farm system has been encouraging. You have a series of title runs, then eventually you gotta rebuild.

Giants are going to be bad for a while

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

GBear4Life said:

---

Giants are going to be bad for a while

---

What's a while? Last year will likely see more transition. But I think they'll be very good by 2021. The farm system is better by leaps and bounds than it was even a year ago.

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

---

I prefer winning World Series (which is the object of the game) to winning divisional titles. It is really that simple.
.
Your post reflects the mentality of someone who is attempting to justify 30+ years of wandering in the desert of of poor management, bad baseball and post season failures.

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

---

I prefer winning World Series (which is the object of the game) to winning divisional titles. It is really that simple.
.
Your post reflects the mentality of someone who is attempting to justify 30+ years of wandering in the desert of of poor management, bad baseball and post season failures.

---

I explicitly acknowledged we'd all prefer WS rings over regular season success.

The only point I was making was which was more difficult and less prone to luck and high variance.

(And you can't win a WS if you can't get into the playoffs)

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

---

This is why the Giants got a new GM who is trying to replicate the Dodgers model. None of this is news.

That said, "sneak into three postseasons" is kind of a weird way to put it. If those seasons come in close proximity to each other, doesn't that indicate pretty good leadership and organizational stability for that period? They had to be good enough to make the playoffs, right?

A better example of this would be the two flukey titles the Marlins won, both of which were surrounded by not much success. Those were not stable organizations. The Giants have had up and down cycles, but during the up cycles they have contended pretty consistently.

GBear4Life said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

---

I prefer winning World Series (which is the object of the game) to winning divisional titles. It is really that simple.
.
Your post reflects the mentality of someone who is attempting to justify 30+ years of wandering in the desert of of poor management, bad baseball and post season failures.

---

I explicitly acknowledged we'd all prefer WS rings over regular season success.

The only point I was making was which was more difficult and less prone to luck and high variance.

(And you can't win a WS if you can't get into the playoffs)

---

To the contrary, winning divisions is easy if you are in a weak group (see this year's NL West). In the post season, you play nothing but solid teams. The reason the Giants won three titles is because of Bochy. He managed circles around his counterparts, particularly with his deft handling of his bullpen. As I read in the newspaper this morning, Boch is the only surefire Hall of Famer on any of the three championship teams. That speaks volumes for his brilliance.

Rooting for my Bears in the As this year.

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

---

I prefer winning World Series (which is the object of the game) to winning divisional titles. It is really that simple.
.
Your post reflects the mentality of someone who is attempting to justify 30+ years of wandering in the desert of of poor management, bad baseball and post season failures.

---

I explicitly acknowledged we'd all prefer WS rings over regular season success.

The only point I was making was which was more difficult and less prone to luck and high variance.

(And you can't win a WS if you can't get into the playoffs)

---

To the contrary, winning divisions is easy if you are in a weak group (see this year's NL West). In the post season, you play nothing but solid teams. The reason the Giants won three titles is because of Bochy. He managed circles around his counterparts, particularly with his deft handling of his bullpen. As I read in the newspaper this morning, Boch is the only surefire Hall of Famer on any of the three championship teams. That speaks volumes for his brilliance.

---

Winning 3 WS out of 5 is no fluke. There might have been some luck involved (every WS champ has some) but there has to be talent and clutch play, too. I am a Dodgers fan and I would gladly trade 3 WS since 2010 for 7 division banners.

Winning 7 NL Wests in a row is not easy and also not a fluke. That means they probably won 92-100 games every single year in that stretch. But we all know that the Dodgers have NOT been clutch in the postseason. Never mind whether they had the talent and the luck. Their three supposedly best players, Kershaw, Belli and Kenley, have all pretty much choked their guts out in the playoffs. And their bullpen has not been clutch all year. Good stats, maybe, clutch, no. Starters have been mostly great but in today's game they usually don't make it out of the 7th. Someone's gotta pitch the 8th and 9th.

2014 was a long time ago and the Giants suck now. Dodgers don't suck now but they are carrying a choke monkey on their back. We'll see what happens this year but I'm pessimistic about their chances against Houston or NYY if they even get that far.

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

---

I prefer winning World Series (which is the object of the game) to winning divisional titles. It is really that simple.
.
Your post reflects the mentality of someone who is attempting to justify 30+ years of wandering in the desert of of poor management, bad baseball and post season failures.

---

I explicitly acknowledged we'd all prefer WS rings over regular season success.

The only point I was making was which was more difficult and less prone to luck and high variance.

(And you can't win a WS if you can't get into the playoffs)

---

To the contrary, winning divisions is easy if you are in a weak group (see this year's NL West). In the post season, you play nothing but solid teams. The reason the Giants won three titles is because of Bochy. He managed circles around his counterparts, particularly with his deft handling of his bullpen. As I read in the newspaper this morning, Boch is the only surefire Hall of Famer on any of the three championship teams. That speaks volumes for his brilliance.

---

Yeah, Bochy won the Giants their titles, ok.

Yeah, no, winning divisions is not easy, and dominating divisions over long periods of time is not either.

The Dodgers aren't a product of a weak division. Their record outside the division was very good, as are most teams with a +273 Run diff.

Without question, in short post season series, you face the best teams and their best players. That's not easy either. But it's a poor barometer of the "best" team and it certainly is more flukish than sustained success over a regular season. Their are no cinderellas, as they say, in the MLB regular season.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

There might have been some luck involved (every WS champ has some) but there has to be talent and clutch play, too

---

Nobody disputes this (that I know of). There is of course high variance, but of course each of those 3 seasons the Giants had enough success to get in the playoffs (in two of them they won the division IIRC) in the first place, which is actually the greater feat and a more reliable measure of performance than a playoff run.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a much more impressive feat to sustain success over 6 months, and over several seasons, than it is to win 3 consecutive 7 game series (high variance, small sample size).

What the Dodgers have done over the last many years (and the A's to a certain extent the past two decades) is much more correlative with admirable and reputable organizational operating models and strategies than an org like the Giants who sneak into 3 post seasons and win 3 consecutive series.

Taking nothing away from the Giants -- they came up with lots of big plays, and we'd all prefer to win championships than tout regular season success.

But their 3 championship runs pales in comparison to sustained and consistent success in the sport of baseball.

---

I prefer winning World Series (which is the object of the game) to winning divisional titles. It is really that simple.
.
Your post reflects the mentality of someone who is attempting to justify 30+ years of wandering in the desert of of poor management, bad baseball and post season failures.

---

I explicitly acknowledged we'd all prefer WS rings over regular season success.

The only point I was making was which was more difficult and less prone to luck and high variance.

(And you can't win a WS if you can't get into the playoffs)

---

To the contrary, winning divisions is easy if you are in a weak group (see this year's NL West). In the post season, you play nothing but solid teams. The reason the Giants won three titles is because of Bochy. He managed circles around his counterparts, particularly with his deft handling of his bullpen. As I read in the newspaper this morning, Boch is the only surefire Hall of Famer on any of the three championship teams. That speaks volumes for his brilliance.

---

Winning 3 WS out of 5 is no fluke. There might have been some luck involved (every WS champ has some) but there has to be talent and clutch play, too. I am a Dodgers fan and I would gladly trade 3 WS since 2010 for 7 division banners.

Winning 7 NL Wests in a row is not easy and also not a fluke. That means they probably won 92-100 games every single year in that stretch. But we all know that the Dodgers have NOT been clutch in the postseason. Never mind whether they had the talent and the luck. Their three supposedly best players, Kershaw, Belli and Kenley, have all pretty much choked their guts out in the playoffs. And their bullpen has not been clutch all year. Good stats, maybe, clutch, no. Starters have been mostly great but in today's game they usually don't make it out of the 7th. Someone's gotta pitch the 8th and 9th.

2014 was a long time ago and the Giants suck now. Dodgers don't suck now but they are carrying a choke monkey on their back. We'll see what happens this year but I'm pessimistic about their chances against Houston or NYY if they even get that far.

---

Yeah, what is most "impressive" is sort of a pointless discussion, we all know what we'd prefer, and if we'd all prefer it, isn't that the better accomplishment?

You point out a big reason why the Giants have 3 WS titles and the Dodgers have zero in this decade -- the Giants players didn't choke their guts out, while way too many Dodgers have. Of course, a huge advantage the Giants had in the post-season this decade was having a great post-season manager, who probably helped players not choke their guts out, with a bullpen that was especially clutch and well managed for those 3 runs (with Bochy wisely helping his bullpen with Lincecum in 2012 and Bumgarner in 2014, when the Giants won the WS despite having only one quality starting pitcher).

The only year in which the Giants were arguably as well suited as any team to win the post-season was 2010. The Giants had 4 of their starting 5 pitchers really hot going into post-season, along with a bullpen that was really humming. The one lousy starter got left off the post-season roster. Some other teams had better bats, (the Phillies, the Rangers), but pitching means so much in the World Series. The only pitcher who was a bit of a choke artist in the 2010 post-season was Jonathan Sanchez, who had one quality outing in the LDS and then was never good again in 2010, but Bochy handled him just right in game 6 of the NLCS and had a very quick hook.

In 2012, none of the Giants starters were pitching very well at the end of the season, with only Vogelsong showing signs of coming out of it right at the end. And every one of them had struggles in the post-season except Vogelsong. While as a regular season pitcher, Kershaw > Vogelsong, in spite of 6 post-seasons during the peak of his career (and 2 others before he was really good), Kershaw hasn't come close to having the kind of post-season Vogelsong had in 2012. As a post-season pitcher, yes, Vogelsong > Kershaw, no question. The Reds and the Nationals were both "better" than the Giants in 2012, but the Giants got help with the Cueto injury pushing the Reds into having their 3, 4, and 5 pitchers slotted 2, 3, and 4, Dusty managing like Dusty, Strasburg getting shut down for the post-season and the Nationals choking to the Cardinals.

In 2014, the Dodgers and the Nationals were both "better" than the Giants. But the Dodgers choked to the Cardinals, and Matt Williams bad managing of the Nationals plus luck plus some clutch play helped the Giants (not to mention the Pirates expending all their good starters trying to win the division so when they failed, they didn't have a top starter like Cole for the wild card game to face Bumgarner).

Yeah, it was a combination of talent, clutch play, brilliant post-season managing, choking by others, bad managing by others, and, sure, some luck, that got the Giants 3 WS titles in 5 years. To win 11 post-season series (including single game wild-card "series") and 9 elimination games in a row, you need some luck, but that also takes a lot of skill, but from players and from the manager.

If you asked me 10 years ago what is more impressive, 3 WS titles in 5 years or 7 division titles in a row with no WS titles, I would have said, "I don't care, just give me the 3 WS titles in 5 years, I don't give a red rat's ass about consecutive division titles if there is no WS."

I only needed one WS title, they got 3, so really, I don't care if they don't get another as long as the mostly entertain me. Now I only need one Rose Bowl or conference title, and I don't really care whether it is done in an "impressive" fashion or not.

GBear4Life said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

There might have been some luck involved (every WS champ has some) but there has to be talent and clutch play, too

---

Nobody disputes this (that I know of). There is of course high variance, but of course each of those 3 seasons the Giants had enough success to get in the playoffs (in two of them they won the division IIRC) in the first place, which is actually the greater feat and a more reliable measure of performance than a playoff run.

---

We should also note that in the seasons immediately before and after those three title runs, all but one had the team with a winning record and in contention, and also that they made the playoffs one more time (in 2016) with the same core. So that's a period of being in the playoffs or close to it almost every year between 2009-2016. Getting a championship out of that window is not super flukey or just a result of luck. Three titles, yes, that took some luck (and great managing from Bochy).

You can also argue the Dodgers are unlucky to have not gotten a title out of this current run. Or also that their managers have not been up to Bochy's caliber.