What's the deal with the Dodgers?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

So the Dodgers had perhaps the greatest two month run in baseball history, going something like 55-11, and immediately follow it with some of the worst baseball ever played, going 1-17. How is this possible?

If you're a fan of unusual stats, these back-to-back streaks have to be among the most bizarre ever. What's going on? Can anyone explain what is happening?

Of course. There is nothing at all wrong with the Dodgers--they simply descended back to reality, i.e., came back to earth. Among position players, they really only have 3 outstanding players--Bellinger, Seager and Turner--and other than Kershaw, the balance of the starters were pitching well above their norm. A lengthy losing streak is precisely how reality corrects for the statistical anomaly of their unlikely winning streak. In short, they never, ever were truly a 115-116 win team.

Hi Barry,

Larry

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Of course. There is nothing at all wrong with the Dodgers--they simply descended back to reality, i.e., came back to earth. Among position players, they really only have 3 outstanding players--Bellinger, Seager and Turner--and other than Kershaw, the balance of the starters were pitching well above their norm. A lengthy losing streak is precisely how reality corrects for the statistical anomaly of their unlikely winning streak. In short, they never, ever were truly a 115-116 win team.

Hi Barry,

Larry

Well they did add Yu Darvish who they didnt have in 1h.......Kershaw and a healty Darvish is a tough series

People forget that 60% of the games in the regular season dont really matter when looking into the postseason. Those are games started by #3, #4, #5 and even #6 starters sometimes..

If you are telling me the Dodgers were 1-4 the last 5 games when Kershaw started that would mean something if there was a long losing streak

If the Dodgers only won 8 of their last 20 games..but those 8 wins were by Kersahaw and Darvish..would those 12 losses really mean anything? I know not that simple but you know what i mean. Who cares if they lost the last 5 games started by Brandon McCarthy

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Well they did add Yu Darvish who they didnt have in 1h.......Kershaw and a healty Darvish is a tough series

People forget that 60% of the games in the regular season dont really matter when looking into the postseason. Those are games started by #3, #4, #5 and even #6 starters sometimes..

If you are telling me the Dodgers were 1-4 the last 5 games when Kershaw started that would mean something if there was a long losing streak

If the Dodgers only won 8 of their last 20 games..but those 8 wins were by Kersahaw and Darvish..would those 12 losses really mean anything? I know not that simple but you know what i mean. Who cares if they lost the last 5 games started by Brandon McCarthy

Kershaw's post season record to date isn't all that remarkable and Darvish as a Dodger isn't either. The Dodgers may win it all, but not because of your argument. There is usually a Brandon McCarthy type who plays a pivotal, unexpected role in a short series. Don Larsen was 3-21 with the Orioles (1954) before his World Series Perfecto in 1956.

Identifying which team the unexpected hero plays for before the playoffs is the problem.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Kershaw's post season record to date isn't all that remarkable and Darvish as a Dodger isn't either. The Dodgers may win it all, but not because of your argument. There is usually a Brandon McCarthy type who plays a pivotal, unexpected role in a short series. Don Larsen was 3-21 with the Orioles (1954) before his World Series Perfecto in 1956.

Identifying which team the unexpected hero plays for before the playoffs is the problem.

Understood, but in your argument it doesnt matter if the dodgers won their last 15 games of the year or lost the last 15 if we are just going on what we believe certain pitchers do in the postseason and talking about unknown surprises Last year though Kershaw was very good in the postseason by the way if not great.

Thus, basically it doesnt matter then if a first place teams ends up losing their last 50 games..if their best player are great in the post season and the many many unknown surprises of players who could suck in the regular season be great in the postseason

If kershaw and Darvish win 6 games in the post season etc, that would further show who cares how the #3 to #5 pitchers did for them in many losses..we shall see..

However my point was that if you think regular season record matters during the last 30 games or whatever i would be more concerned how the #1 and #2 pitchers did not the rest of them. In post season #1 pitchers pitch more often as well

.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Understood, but in your argument it doesnt matter if the dodgers won their last 15 games of the year or lost the last 15 if we are just going on what we believe certain pitchers do in the postseason and talking about unknown surprises Last year though Kershaw was very good in the postseason by the way if not great.

Thus, basically it doesnt matter then if a first place teams ends up losing their last 50 games..if their best player are great in the post season and the many many unknown surprises of players who could suck in the regular season be great in the postseason

If kershaw and Darvish win 6 games in the post season etc, that would further show who cares how the #3 to #5 pitchers did for them in many losses..we shall see..

However my point was that if you think regular season record matters during the last 30 games or whatever i would be more concerned how the #1 and #2 pitchers did not the rest of them. In post season #1 pitchers pitch more often as well

.

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

Of course, but people do bet on games based on prior performances.. Theres a reason there is a betting line. Nothing is certain but there are always situations where the odds are greater.

to me i wouldnt care how a teams #4 and #5 starter did the last 30 games going into the postseason...i would care more on the #1 and #2 starter did. yes there are other pitchers that may come up huge but i am just going by the odds... Back to the thread top ...there would no 'deal' to me for those losses. I wouldnt be asking whats the deal with the dodgers

If Ross Stripling starts this week and takes a loss, does that loss really matter. Would i be saying 'whats wrong with the dodgers?" Nothing would be wrong to me if all they lost were games started by back end guys....

[Peter_Spaeth]

As I did last year (I was close!!), I fear the Indians of Cleveland.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

Not to mention the man above men who made "The Catch" with his back turned, 450+ feet away from the plate off Vic Wertz, the incomparable Willie Mays!

Best wishes,

Larry

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

Yeah the Dodgers have no chance this year in the playoffs. Thus far they are 4-0 in the playoffs in games started by Kershaw and Darvish. That losing streak meant so much on all of those games lost by #4, #5 and #6 starters.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Yeah the Dodgers have no chance this year in the playoffs. Thus far they are 4-0 in the playoffs in games started by Kershaw and Darvish. That losing streak meant so much on all of those games lost by #4, #5 and #6 starters.

Tell me today who will be the MVP of this year’s World Series. I’m getting tired of watching 4+ hour baseball games.