I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Hey Dodgers Fans
1,131,733 Views |
5587 Replies |
Last: 8 days ago by GMP
Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
Kershaw has earned his place in Dodgers history. I believe he will be last Dodger pitcher to ever wear 22. To even suggest that trading him is an option is foolish. He signed a short term deal because he did not want to put LA in a bad spot once his inevitable decline begins. I have nothing but respect for the guy, especially after watching his tip his cap to Boch after retiring Bum in the season finale.TheSouseFamily said:
Kershaw is basically a meme at this point and I hate that for the guy because he's such a quality person. But I don't put the blame on Kershaw. He simply never should have been out there. Anyone with a functioning neocortex could tell you that. Roberts has basically become the managerial version of Kershaw: quality guy, masterful over the 162 game grind, and a head-scratching abject failure in the post season. Roberts' post-season decisions with the bullpen have been brutally awful. Not just one, many. This puts the Dodgers in a quandary. Do you keep a quality guy who can have great regular seasons every year? Then, Roberts is your guy. If you want more than that, he clearly isn't.
Having said all that, I never felt this team would win it this year, not with the bullpen the way it is. I don't know many Dodger fans who were particularly optimistic going into the post-season. The two previous years, the Dodgers simply got beaten by better clubs (despite the poor managerial decisions). No shame in that. This year is a little different. It's a combination of "that's baseball for ya" and horrendous decision-making when it mattered.
And yes, I agree the loss is on Roberts. He screwed up big time.
There is a reason Boch managed 25 years, won over 2,000 games (one of only 11 in history), won three titles and will be elected to the Hall of Fame. He was the premier manager in the game over the last decade. No one was even close....GBear4Life said:Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
Ok. I think he's a good manager that had good players when his teams had success. When his players weren't good, neither was his team.71Bear said:There is a reason Boch managed 25 years, won over 2,000 games (one of only 11 in history), won three titles and will be elected to the Hall of Fame. He was the premier manager in the game over the last decade. No one was even close....GBear4Life said:Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
Does dodger management have the courage to fire Roberts? NO
Thank you for confirming my comment. As many have said, the beauty of the Giants great run is they did it without superstars. None of the players from any of the three title teams is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. All the teams were underdogs going into the playoffs (heck, they did not win the division one year).GBear4Life said:Ok. I think he's a good manager that had good players when his teams had success. When his players weren't good, neither was his team.71Bear said:There is a reason Boch managed 25 years, won over 2,000 games (one of only 11 in history), won three titles and will be elected to the Hall of Fame. He was the premier manager in the game over the last decade. No one was even close....GBear4Life said:Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
The one thread that binds all three is Boch. He is the guy who put all the pieces together. No Boch - no three titles. It is really that simple.
GBear4Life said:Ok. I think he's a good manager that had good players when his teams had success. When his players weren't good, neither was his team.71Bear said:There is a reason Boch managed 25 years, won over 2,000 games (one of only 11 in history), won three titles and will be elected to the Hall of Fame. He was the premier manager in the game over the last decade. No one was even close....GBear4Life said:Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
That's true of most managers.
But do all managers win when their players are good? No.
Do all managers win 3 World Series in 5 years? No.
Especially not in the National League.
Some of that is just guys declining from their peak really quickly. At his peak, Posey was the MVP. Lincecum won two Cy Youngs. They were definitely superstars at that stage.71Bear said:Thank you for confirming my comment. As many have said, the beauty of the Giants great run is they did it without superstars. None of the players from any of the three title teams is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. All the teams were underdogs going into the playoffs (heck, they did not win the division one year).GBear4Life said:Ok. I think he's a good manager that had good players when his teams had success. When his players weren't good, neither was his team.71Bear said:There is a reason Boch managed 25 years, won over 2,000 games (one of only 11 in history), won three titles and will be elected to the Hall of Fame. He was the premier manager in the game over the last decade. No one was even close....GBear4Life said:Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
The one thread that binds all three is Boch. He is the guy who put all the pieces together. No Boch - no three titles. It is really that simple.
And Posey, Bumgarner, Panda were all there for all three titles, so Bochy is not the only thread.
That said, yes, he deserves to make the Hall.
If Roberts and Kershaw are both back next year, might as well cancel the season in Chavez Ravine unless you want to see another 100-win regular season end in epic collapse.
Non Dodger fans don't understand or remember this part. The rest of us know...we've seen some version of this same show the last 4 years. It is absurd. And we also know the truth in what you say about 2017 - the 'Stros were damn good but Roberts and his mismanagement of the pen absolutely cost us 2 games and the championship.KoreAmBear said:
The loss is really more on Roberts than Kershaw or Kelly, like the losses last year were more on Baldwin than McIlwain or Garbers. There was no reason to even begin the 8th inning with Kersh much less continue with him after allowing a bomb to Rendon. There was no reason to go two innings with Kelly much less keep him in after he walked Eaton. Roberts has mismanaged the bully in the playoffs all four years he's been a manager and esp in 2017 when the Dodgers blew at least 2 games where they should have won the series easily v the Astros.
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.
Speaking of Lincecum...sycasey said:Some of that is just guys declining from their peak really quickly. At his peak, Posey was the MVP. Lincecum won two Cy Youngs. They were definitely superstars at that stage.71Bear said:Thank you for confirming my comment. As many have said, the beauty of the Giants great run is they did it without superstars. None of the players from any of the three title teams is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. All the teams were underdogs going into the playoffs (heck, they did not win the division one year).GBear4Life said:Ok. I think he's a good manager that had good players when his teams had success. When his players weren't good, neither was his team.71Bear said:There is a reason Boch managed 25 years, won over 2,000 games (one of only 11 in history), won three titles and will be elected to the Hall of Fame. He was the premier manager in the game over the last decade. No one was even close....GBear4Life said:Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
The one thread that binds all three is Boch. He is the guy who put all the pieces together. No Boch - no three titles. It is really that simple.
And Posey, Bumgarner, Panda were all there for all three titles, so Bochy is not the only thread.
That said, yes, he deserves to make the Hall.
2006 MLB Draft -
7. Kershaw
10. Lincecum
Looking back, Lincecum is one of only two pitcher to win multiple Cy Youngs, World Series titles and throw multiple no-hitters. The other - Sandy Koufax.
Would Giants fans rather have Lincecum or Kershaw?
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.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.
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.
If you're a Cal fan, I guarantee that you care about the regular season and not just whether you won a title.
I bifurcate my fandom expectations. I am 54 years old. On average I probably have about 20-25 years left before I am pushing up daisies. I'm about 99.99% certain that I will die before Cal reaches a Rose Bowl. (Hell, with my luck they'd have their one great season the year the Rose Bowl was aligned with the playoffs and we'd get sent to the Sugar Bowl or something). So yeah, as a Cal fan I realize 10-2 is the mountaintop, so I better learn to enjoy 8-4 type seasons.TheSouseFamily said:
If you're a Cal fan, I guarantee that you care about the regular season and not just whether you won a title.
But the Dodgers...with their payroll, very good front office, commitment to putting a great product on the field...its about winning titles.
The structure of college football is very different. Winning a 12-team conference does mean more than winning a 5-team division.TheSouseFamily said:
If you're a Cal fan, I guarantee that you care about the regular season and not just whether you won a title.
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.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.
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.
Clearly. I'm not suggesting that winning a national title, World Series, etc isn't the holy grail. Of course it is. Would I trade 7 divisional titles for one of those? Almost certainly. My point is that it's not so black and white. I see plenty of reasons to play and to have accomplishments that teams and their fan base can be happy about. As I said before, I had zero expectation of the Dodgers winning the WS this year. And had they lost to the Stros in the WS, I still would have been very content with the season (admittedly less so with the NLDS flameout but still happy to win the decision again).
As a Cal fan, sure it would be nice to win a natty sometime. But let's be honest. We'd fill the stadium with banners and statues if we ever won the PAC-12 North. Heck, I'm happy when we go to a bowl game...any bowl game. Titles are nice to be sure, but if a title is the only thing you look for, you're setting yourself up for massive disappointment no matter what team or sport you like.
As a Cal fan, sure it would be nice to win a natty sometime. But let's be honest. We'd fill the stadium with banners and statues if we ever won the PAC-12 North. Heck, I'm happy when we go to a bowl game...any bowl game. Titles are nice to be sure, but if a title is the only thing you look for, you're setting yourself up for massive disappointment no matter what team or sport you like.
GBear4Life said: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.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.
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.
7 straight division titles is an impressive accomplishment. But I'm not sure it's "harder" than winning 3 World Series titles in 5 years, either. Part of the reason is because to win the division you are competing against 4 other teams, of varying levels of quality. You may really only be competing against one team with a legit chance each season. Sometimes zero. The postseason has a greater chance to get hot because it's a month and not six months, but you're also competing against the best teams in the league. There are no scrubs to clean up on. And, of course, you had to be good over six months to get there in the first place.
In the divisional era, only the Yankees won 3 titles in 5 years (they won 4 in 5). But teams have won 7 division titles in a row. Hell, the Braves won 14. The Yankees 13 (actually some of those may have been wild cards, but the point stands).
If Cal were the #1 or #2 team in the CFP every year and always losing, it would be similar to the Dodgers.TheSouseFamily said:
Clearly. I'm not suggesting that winning a national title, World Series, etc isn't the holy grail. Of course it is. Would I trade 7 divisional titles for one of those? Almost certainly. My point is that it's not so black and white. I see plenty of reasons to play and to have accomplishments that teams and their fan base can be happy about. As I said before, I had zero expectation of the Dodgers winning the WS this year. And had they lost to the Stros in the WS, I still would have been very content with the season (admittedly less so with the NLDS flameout but still happy to win the decision again).
As a Cal fan, sure it would be nice to win a natty sometime. But let's be honest. We'd fill the stadium with banners and statues if we ever won the PAC-12 North. Heck, I'm happy when we go to a bowl game...any bowl game. Titles are nice to be sure, but if a title is the only thing you look for, you're setting yourself up for massive disappointment no matter what team or sport you like.
It's not NOT winning the WS that is unique to the Dodgers and A's, it's their stretches of remarkable success with short-term, end of season failures
Romo, Affeldt, Lopez, Casilla were there for all 3 titles, too. And Bochy used them really well, mixing and matching and plugging in brilliantly, along with Wilson, Lincecum, and Bumgarner, and Petit at the right times.sycasey said:Some of that is just guys declining from their peak really quickly. At his peak, Posey was the MVP. Lincecum won two Cy Youngs. They were definitely superstars at that stage.71Bear said:Thank you for confirming my comment. As many have said, the beauty of the Giants great run is they did it without superstars. None of the players from any of the three title teams is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. All the teams were underdogs going into the playoffs (heck, they did not win the division one year).GBear4Life said:Ok. I think he's a good manager that had good players when his teams had success. When his players weren't good, neither was his team.71Bear said:There is a reason Boch managed 25 years, won over 2,000 games (one of only 11 in history), won three titles and will be elected to the Hall of Fame. He was the premier manager in the game over the last decade. No one was even close....GBear4Life said:Some bad managers exist, and they stand out....this isn't exactly supportive of Bochy being in a class of his own. Having a bullpen that's steady and consistent -- and then goes out in a short series and pitch well -- is the battle.71Bear said:Nope. Refer to Matt Williams in 2012 when he pulled Zimmerman who was dealing for his closer who promptly blew the game.GBear4Life said:I mean, in this case isn't everybody?Cal8285 said:
Bochy was great when things were pretty settled in the bullpen and he knew who he could count on in what situations.
Beyond having a structure in the bullpen, Boch had a sense of when and who. The best example of this is game 7 v. KC in 2014. His move to Affeldt early, sticking with him, and then handing the ball to Bum to finish (without bringing in a closer when things got dicey in the ninth) was pure genius.
Boch earned the trust of his guys. That was really key....
The one thread that binds all three is Boch. He is the guy who put all the pieces together. No Boch - no three titles. It is really that simple.
And Posey, Bumgarner, Panda were all there for all three titles, so Bochy is not the only thread.
That said, yes, he deserves to make the Hall.
How many managers would have left Petit in for 6 innings in game 2 of the 2018 NLDS? Petit set a post-season record that surely will never be broken, 6 successful do or die innings, and yeah, it was an incredibly clutch performance from the number 5 guy out of the pen that Bochy couldn't have counted on, but he knew his guy, he had groomed him to throw short or long, and thanks to Bochy, Petit was comfortable going six (although he looked shaky in his first inning, he admitted it took some time to warm up in the really cold air).
Lincecum was only still performing like a superstar in 2010, and only really performed like a superstar in 2 of his 2010 postseason outings (Game 1 of the NLDS and Game 5 of the WS) -- Cain was the better pitcher in the 2010 postseason. Posey was a solid All-Star but really only at the superstar level in the 2012 regular season, and never in the post-season. He wasn't ever overall horrible, but pretty ineffective at the plate in the 2 7-game series the Giants won in the run, both the 2012 NLCS and the 2014 WS he was 4 for 26 with no extra base hits). He did have one huge post-season hit, the slam in game 5 of the 2012 NLDS. The only real "superstar" performance the Giants got sustained over the course of a full post-season in any of the 3 series was Bum in 2014.
A frequent complaint of Dodger fans is that the superior team can easily lose in a short series. This is true. And no matter who the manager is, anything can happen once regardless of the disparity in quality. But the teams ones who consistently lose to inferior teams in the post-season are the ones who don't have great post-season managers. The ones who consistently beat superior teams are the ones who have great post-season managers.
Bochy was a great post-season manager.
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.GBear4Life said: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.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.
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.
Cal8285 said:
Lincecum was only still performing like a superstar in 2010, and only really performed like a superstar in 2 of his 2010 postseason outings (Game 1 of the NLDS and Game 5 of the WS) -- Cain was the better pitcher in the 2010 postseason. Posey was a solid All-Star but really only at the superstar level in the 2012 regular season, and never in the post-season. He wasn't ever overall horrible, but pretty ineffective at the plate in the 2 7-game series the Giants won in the run, both the 2012 NLCS and the 2014 WS he was 4 for 26 with no extra base hits). He did have one huge post-season hit, the slam in game 5 of the 2012 NLDS. The only real "superstar" performance the Giants got sustained over the course of a full post-season in any of the 3 series was Bum in 2014.
Bum was great in 2014 but he wasn't the only superstar level performance they got in the run.
Pablo was huge in 2012 and 2014. During the 2012 playoffs he hit .363 and had an OPS of 1.098. That would've led all of MLB that year by a good margin if he did it across the season. During the 2014 playoffs he batted .400 or better and had an OPS of 1.000 or better in 3 of the 4 rounds. He played at an MVP level both of those postseasons.
Cain had an ERA of 0 in the 2010 playoffs. Didn't give up a single earned run.
The thing about Cain vs. Lincecum in 2010 is that Cain also pitched fewer games. Lincecum had to go two games each in the NLCS and WS, Cain only one in each. But yeah, both were outsanding.boredom said:Cal8285 said:
Lincecum was only still performing like a superstar in 2010, and only really performed like a superstar in 2 of his 2010 postseason outings (Game 1 of the NLDS and Game 5 of the WS) -- Cain was the better pitcher in the 2010 postseason. Posey was a solid All-Star but really only at the superstar level in the 2012 regular season, and never in the post-season. He wasn't ever overall horrible, but pretty ineffective at the plate in the 2 7-game series the Giants won in the run, both the 2012 NLCS and the 2014 WS he was 4 for 26 with no extra base hits). He did have one huge post-season hit, the slam in game 5 of the 2012 NLDS. The only real "superstar" performance the Giants got sustained over the course of a full post-season in any of the 3 series was Bum in 2014.
Bum was great in 2014 but he wasn't the only superstar level performance they got in the run.
Pablo was huge in 2012 and 2014. During the 2012 playoffs he hit .363 and had an OPS of 1.098. That would've led all of MLB that year by a good margin if he did it across the season. During the 2014 playoffs he batted .400 or better and had an OPS of 1.000 or better in 3 of the 4 rounds. He played at an MVP level both of those postseasons.
Cain had an ERA of 0 in the 2010 playoffs. Didn't give up a single earned run.
Anyway, it's entirely true that superstar performances can come from anyone in a short playoff series. Remember Cody Ross? Marco Scutaro? But it's also not correct to say the Giants didn't have any superstars. They had guys who were definitely superstars at their peak (and I'd say 2010 was near the tail end of Lincecum's peak). That's not to take away from Bochy's managing, because he clearly outclassed his opposition in that department. But the Giants definitely needed some stars to reach the postseason at all.
I love that this has (momentarily) turned into a Giants WS appreciation thread.
We could have a Dodgers WS appreciation thread, but . . . well . . . you know.NYCGOBEARS said:
I love that this has (momentarily) turned into a Giants WS appreciation thread.
to echo your point, yes, in theory, they should (or at least be right there contending for the top).tequila4kapp said:
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.
But so many teams that spend don't.
TB winning the WS will change the game. There are still large swaths of people who think you need to a closer, a leadoff man who can steal, a traditional clean up hitter, and that you need to pay your stars when they reach FA. These things just aren't true. Virtually all "market-value" contracts are overvalued.
Clayton Kershaw, Justin Turner, and Kenley Jansen have just not been good enough in the playoffs. Plain and simple.
Had the Dodgers had a true #1 like a Bumgarner, Verlander, or Schilling, a lockdown closer, and a true stud in the 3 hole, they would have had 1 or 2 rings during this run.
Sentimentality has caused the Dodgers to back the wrong horses for too long. It's time to cut their losses on the current veteran core. They are not going to get it done.
Had the Dodgers had a true #1 like a Bumgarner, Verlander, or Schilling, a lockdown closer, and a true stud in the 3 hole, they would have had 1 or 2 rings during this run.
Sentimentality has caused the Dodgers to back the wrong horses for too long. It's time to cut their losses on the current veteran core. They are not going to get it done.
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
Payroll Rank the last 3 years:
2019: SF #5, LA #4
2018: SF #2, LA #3
2017: SF #4, LA #1
SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:
Clayton Kershaw, Justin Turner, and Kenley Jansen have just not been good enough in the playoffs. Plain and simple.
Had the Dodgers had a true #1 like a Bumgarner, Verlander, or Schilling, a lockdown closer, and a true stud in the 3 hole, they would have had 1 or 2 rings during this run.
Sentimentality has caused the Dodgers to back the wrong horses for too long. It's time to cut their losses on the current veteran core. They are not going to get it done.
Justin Turner has a lifetime .310 average and .931 OPS in the post season. And he hit .286 (1.000 OPS) with 2HR and 5 RBIs in the five games this year.
Plus, he may not have the body of work yet, but after a 21 scoreless innings streak (4th best of all time), I'd say Buehler is a clear #1.
I feel bad for Kershaw. He is a great pitcher and a good person. Roberts did him a disservice last night by trotting him back out there to face Rendon and the lefty after him. I mean, you know his postseason history. Let him do a job and get out of there on a high note. Just as important, he had better matchups to go with.
tequila4kapp said: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.GBear4Life said: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.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.
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.
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
The Giants payroll is backloaded with salaries for guys who are past their prime, injured, or no longer around, contracts given out when they were trying to contend. It's not really an apples to apples comparison.
sycasey said:
The Giants payroll is backloaded with salaries for guys who are past their prime, injured, or no longer around, contracts given out when they were trying to contend. It's not really an apples to apples comparison.
The Dodger payroll has a ton of that too and has had it for years. Even this year, they're paying Homer Bailey $23M, Matt Kemp $7M, Hector Olivera $5M and more. And they finally cleared Carl Crawford's albatross contract from the books. The payroll sheet is finally starting to get clear of some of that lingering stuff.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Sign Highly Rated Recruiting Class
by Cal Athletics
Friday Night Lights Week 12
by Bradley Connelly
Cal Conquers Gonzaga, 86-65
by Cal Athletics
Bears Dealt First Loss Of Season
by Cal Athletics