The entitlement is just something else. I know the team's regular season record year after year would lead you to believe they'd have a pile of championships, but that is just not how the game has worked for two decades. As it is, they still won it all TWO YEARS AGO.

This is a perfect example why you cannot make post hoc decisions about what data to include or what data to exclude. You can always come up with some reason to exclude a data point (i.e. two years ago), so you should have those reasons set up before you look at the data.

well, I never had an issue with the 2020 Dodgers being legit World Champions.

but a 60-game season with expanded playoffs in front of no fans - that's not clearly a "slight difference in data."

Roberts already announced in March that the Dodgers won the World Series this year - oops.

so what does he do for an encore? and what will make the Dodgers players feel any more optimistic come next October?

That excerpt is incredibly hacky, and the worst kind of sportswriting, or any writing, really: the entitled, omniscient, faux-psychologist and judge-and-jury all rolled into one. It's the kind of thing that you'd expect to see in comment threads by morons who secretly imagine that if they affect just the right authoritative tone, someone will see their amazing comment and offer them a columnist job.

I wonder how much of the Dodgers post-season "struggles" is just down to Kershaw. 4.22 ERA in 194 IP vs 2.48 regular season. You'd have to think if he had a 3.00 ERA in the playoffs the Dodgers would have at least one more ring.

....

That excerpt is incredibly hacky, and the worst kind of sportswriting, or any writing, really: the entitled, omniscient, faux-psychologist and judge-and-jury all rolled into one. It's the kind of thing that you'd expect to see in comment threads by morons who secretly imagine that if they affect just the right authoritative tone, someone will see their amazing comment and offer them a columnist job.

Dylan Hernandez merely channeled his inner Plaschke.

Roberts is the issue. They need a winner. Hire Bochy

More important is whether he’s admitted to himself that something has to change, that he isn’t just getting unlucky every October, that there’s a reason the only championship he’s won came in a pandemic-shortened season in which the playoffs were most like the regular season.

The 2020 playoffs weren't any more or less like the regular season than other years, I don't think. It was still a best of 5 NLDS and a best of 7 NLCS/WS.

The 2020 playoffs weren't any more or less like the regular season than other years, I don't think. It was still a best of 5 NLDS and a best of 7 NLCS/WS.

The odd thing about that is the 2020 playoffs were the ones least favorable to the top seeds*. Everyone had to win four series to win the title, so no byes like every year since 2012 (and before that took no more than three anyway). Neutral site games after the first round eliminated HFA. And yet, that was the year the two top seeds met in the series, and the best team won.

* Because of the nature of the schedule that year, you can't really determine who the best regular season teams were. However, that the best records were held by teams that have been consistently at the top of the standings in their respective leagues around 2020 gives us some confidence these two teams were legitimately the best two that year.

that there’s a reason the only championship he’s won came in a pandemic-shortened season in which the playoffs were most like the regular season.

I'm not gonna click through but if anybody did ... does the writer offer any suggestions as to what those reasons might be?

that there’s a reason the only championship he’s won came in a pandemic-shortened season in which the playoffs were most like the regular season.

Human beings are simply very uncomfortable with the idea of crapshoots, wherein effect doesn't follow cause and fate is random if not whimsical. This phenomenon holds double in musings upon organized sport. It takes a certain sophistication to transcend that evolved state.

About all I can say is that teams do seem to "stagnate" when they keep rolling over the same players year-to-year. But it's hard to say that's really happened with the Dodgers, they certainly keep rolling through the regular season. And adding Mookie, Turner and Freeman seems like a good way to keep things fresh. :-) The closest you can come to a flaw is that their bullpen wasn't great.

Jeepers -- Andrew Heaney, 14 GS, 73 IP, 13.6/2.4 K/BB ... 14 HRs not good but that was a guy with a career 93 ERA+.

#11: No, the article did NOT offer good suggestions.

The comments after the article suggested it may have been Friedman's post-game conference in which he came across so badly that the writer assigns blame to him. Perhpas.

To suggest the Dodgers have gagged in the postseason in the past 5 to 7 years is to shows the writer lacks understanding of ML baseball. 5 NLCS appearances, 3 pennants and one WS trophy since 2016 ain't bad in 7 tries, even given their fine records. Yes, they suffered much more post-season trauma from 1989 to 2015, but I don't see that as the writer's scope here.

I'm not gonna click through

Yep, the way I felt seeing the headline and the excerpt. The only thing the Dodgers need to do, is continue doing what they are doing, it's not really that difficult of a solution to a non-existent problem.

Let's face it, kershaw has been a drag on the team. He's not delivering the shutdown games you expect from a HOFr. He's 13-12 with a middling ERA. You could get that from a lot of starters. Plus when he loses, he seems to lose early and badly. Plus, Roberts is afraid to pull him.

You really need your best pitchers to show up and steal a few games during a post-season run. Look at what Nola and Wheeler are doing. Has Kershaw ever done that ?

I remember watching the Cardinals torch him and Matt Adams blasted a huge soul-crushing HR off him. All I could think of was, Kershaw shouldn't be giving up HRs to mediocre left-handers.

He hasn't shown he has what it takes to put a team on his back and carry them to victory.

JACKIE ROBINSON STUNK IN THE PLAYOFFS. HE WAS A LOSER. TEAM WENT 1-5 IN W.S. AND "42" HIT .234 WITH NO POWER, WAY UNDER HIS REGULAR SEASON NUMBERS.
LET'S RAG ON EVERYONE WHO HAS PLAYED POORLY IN SMALL SAMPLES!!!

at least Kershaw out-pitched that bum Maddux in the post-season. Wow, 11-14. Who ever called him a great pitcher?

The Dodgers have way more issues than the Braves.

Bellinger's been a black hole for 2 years. Muncy batted under .200 this year. Justin Turner had an okay season, but he's 37 and seems to start slower and slower every year.

The article was horrible. There were only two suggestions that I noticed.

Once again, Friedman turned to the team’s 111-win regular season for cover. Never mind that hitting in the regular season isn’t anything like hitting in the postseason, especially now with how many teams are tanking.
Friedman should have acquired players who can hit in the playoffs.

Despite none of the Dodgers’ starters pitching into the sixth inning in the NLDS, Friedman rejected the notion he should have acquired another pitcher at the trade deadline.
Friedman should have acquired another ace starter.

Second point could have some merit I guess. Don't know/recall if there were opportunities that Friedman did not pursue.

Yes, hitting in the playoffs. I mean, see, the New York Yankees only hit a pathetic .182 in the ADS, which is obviously why they lost to the Guardians....

at least Kershaw out-pitched that bum Maddux in the post-season. Wow, 11-14. Who ever called him a great pitcher?

Kershaw's post-season ERA is also a full run higher than Maddux. Kershaw has been bad in the post-season, that's not debatable.

I wonder how much of the Dodgers post-season "struggles" is just down to Kershaw. 4.22 ERA in 194 IP vs 2.48 regular season. You'd have to think if he had a 3.00 ERA in the playoffs the Dodgers would have at least one more ring.

Accepting that alternate history is sketchy at best, I don't see it. I world have though it true, but looking at individual games, it's not clear he cost them anything. In most of his worst starts, the Dodgers scored very few runs.

In the 2009 NLCS, which the Dodgers lost 4-1, he lost game one 8-6. That's on him and that game was winnable. In the next 4 games, the Dodgers scored 10 runs and lost 3 of 4. he gave up 2 runs in relief in game 5, but the dodgers lost 10-4.

In the 2013 NLCS, which the Dodgers lost 4-2, his 2 starts were 1-0 and 9-0.

In the 2014 NLDS, which the Dodgers lost 3-1, his one start was a 10-9 loss, so that's on him, but they still would have had to win game 5, then the LCS, then the WS. Hard to blame the loss of a championship on game one of the playoffs.

In the 2017 WS, he won game one 3-1. He allows 6 runs in 5 innings in game 5. The Dodgers lost 13-12 in 10. Had he pitched better they could have won in regulation. he was great in 4 innings of relief in game 7, 4 innings, 0 runs. but they lost 5-1. So, mixed bag. 2 great outings, one lousy one.

2018 WS he pitched lousy in 2 starts. BOS won the series 4-1. but, in his 2 starts, the Dodgers scored only 5 runs. If he were his normal self, maybe they win game 1, which they lost 8-4. But he would have needed a shutout to win game 5, and that still get them only up 3-2.

2019 NLDS, he was OK in 1 start (6 IP, 3 ER) in a game they lost 4-2. In game 5 he gave up 2 runs in relief to cough up the lead, but then a teammate gave up 4 and they lost 7-3.

2022 NLDS he gave up 3 runs in 5 innings in a game they lost 5-3.

Every other series, with he pitched very well, or the dodgers won regardless of how he pitched.

It's a little tough to calibrate this (*), but there's little to no reason to spend the dollars typically necessary to obtain wins above 88-ish. The only reason would be financial, if somehow you'd draw enough fans and/or eyeballs with each marginal win to cover the cost plus generate a return. I doubt there's a team in baseball whose P & L works that way, though. There's no baseball reason to do it.

(*) But not terribly tough within reasonable tolerances.

It's a little tough to calibrate this (*), but there's little to no reason to spend the dollars typically necessary to obtain wins above 88-ish. The only reason would be financial, if somehow you'd draw enough fans and/or eyeballs with each marginal win to cover the cost plus generate a return. I doubt there's a team in baseball whose P & L works that way, though. There's no baseball reason to do it.

Don't you have that exactly opposite? There's a huge baseball reason; the top two teams in each league double their odds of winning the pennant and World Series Moving from 1/8 and 1/16 to 1/4 and 1/8 is huge. And that ignores the fact that 95+ win teams have better than 50:50 dds in each series.

There's probably no financial reason to do it.

Those aren't really the odds though, given the forced time off and the crapshoot and the inability to calibrate how many wins it's going to take to get into the top 2.

(I agree there's no financial reason, which is why I said that I doubt any team's P & L works that way.)

Those aren't really the odds though, given the forced time off and the crapshoot and the inability to calibrate how many wins it's going to take to get into the top 2.

No really, reducing the number of rounds you have to win is going to double your odds, even if your per game odds aren't higher. What evidence is there that five games off hurts a team? It should help them. Fully rested pen and rotation lineup up are huge advantages.

someone on twitter claimed (with some sketchy data) that it would require a 72 game series to give MLB teams with the better record the same frequency of advancing as in the NBA

I mean, the Dodgers drew 47k per game, 7k more than the next closest team. That should give them some incentive to keep spending money on the team.

I mean, the Dodgers drew 47k per game, 7k more than the next closest team. That should give them some incentive to keep spending money on the team.

This exactly. The goal of the regular season is the same as that of the post season: to make a lot of money. Winning is always worth it, but when you're the Yankees or Dodgers or Red Sox, you've also got your own RSN with are 162 games worth of commercial air to sell every year, and when the team is good, viewership is up, and airtime is worth more to advertisers. The regular season financial incentives for those teams are different than they are for, say, the Pirates.

There's some certainty in over-building so you are prepared to handle things like injuries or guys getting old very suddenly.

The Dodgers have way more issues than the Braves.

Maybe. It is possible the Dodgers are coming to the end of their dominance or at least will need to rebuild quickly to maintain it.

T Turner FA; J Turner in decline but a cheap 1/$16 option; Muncy 1/$13 then FA; Bellinger fiasco; Kershaw FA; Urias 1 year then FA; Buehler hurt; even Tyler Anderson is FA.

The core of Betts, Freeman, Smith, Lux and a hopefully healthy Buehler is still excellent of course, should still be excellent for the next 3-4 years and of course a bottomless pit of money to spend so no need to feel sorry for them. But they have a lot of things to get right and will have a tougher time navigating another Bauer-type mistake. There are a bunch of SS available again but I'm not sure what's out there on the SP side.

On playoff odds ... the underlying issue is that baseball is always a pretty random sport. Especially in the playoffs, you just don't see mismatches very often. Dodgers-Padres is probably about as extreme as it can possibly get -- even a simple guesstimate only gets the Dodgers to about a 64% chance of winning each game which gets them only to about a 75% chance of winning a 5-game series. Now 75% is good but you're still gonna lose 25% of the time so it's hardly a sure thing. And even if you're so dominant that the first series is 75% and the next is 70% and the third is still 65%, you win the WS just 34% of the time.

Some background ... if a team has a 55% chance of winning each game, their chance of winning at least 3 of 5 is 59.3% ... make it best of 7 and it only goes up to 60.8%. Push it out to a 45-game series and their chances hit 75%. It's simply the nature of the sport.

Obviously the odds change from game to game, mainly based on SPs, so actual numbers would come out a bit different. But y'know, even 1968 Bob Gibson lost G7.

the most INEXCUSABLE series losses in my memory:

until 1968---none (and don't bring up 1960 because Andy will explain how the Yankees dominance was an illusion in a weak American league)

1969 Orioles-Mets--the 1969 Os were one of the best regular season teams I ever saw
1973 NLCS Mets Reds a stunningly mediocre Mets team
1979 Orioles Pirates the Os choked this one away very badly
1985 Royals Cards--#### Bill James
1987 Cards Minn reversible air-conditioning
1990 A's Reds
1993 NLCS Braves Phillies--this is one of the most forgotten MONUMENTAL upsets in MLB history
1996 Braves Yanks--#### Jim Leyritz
1998 NLCS Braves Pads I'm sensing a Braves pattern here
2006 Tigers Cards it is impossible to put into words how mediocre that Cards team was

I'd sign onto all of those above INEXCUSABLE losses except for the first one. The Mets starting pitching in 1969 might've beaten any team in history in a 7 game series. Obviously over the course of a season the outcome would've been different.

the 1969 Mets were 6-11 and didn't get over the .500 mark for good until June.

a 4-game losing streak to end July left them at 55-44 and 6 1/2 games back of the Cubs.

they were 10 games back on Aug. 13 at 62-51.

Mets then closed on a 38-11 "heater" to win the division by 8 games and then swept Henry Aaron's Braves 3-0 in the first NLCS.

those Orioles teams of that era were great, but they ran into an absolute steamroller.

any team winning 80 percent of its games in a 50+ game stretch heading into a WS and then winning in 5 games?
a 45-12 finish including the playoffs, that wasn't no fluke. it must be among the most dominating stretch runs to a WS title in all of baseball history.

1973 Mets? have at it.

Should add the 88 Dodgers to the list. They were not as good a team as the 1990 Reds.

1985 Royals Cards, really? The 85 Cardinals STUNK the whole world series. They were lucky to even be in a place where the ump hosed them.

1993 NLCS Braves Phillies--this is one of the most forgotten MONUMENTAL upsets in MLB history
yeah, but the pennant race down-to-last-day took a lot out of the Braves

1998 NLCS Braves Pads - may as well include 98 Astros-Padres too. Houston won 102 games and added Randy Johnson; they were essentially a 108-ish-win team.

With the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, how do we look back at the Braves teams of 1991-2005, when they made the playoffs every year, but only won one WS; lost four others (none in more than six game, FWIW); and from 2000-2005 only got past the NLDS once.


As a Patriots fans, it sounds crazy now, but there was a period in the early 2010s where Belichick and Brady were starting to see their legacy diminished by the lack of Super Bowl appearances and success after the early rush of 3 SBs in 4 years. Then, they won 3 more in 5 years, and that ended the whole "GOAT" thing for their respective careers.

A friend of mine who is a lifelong Braves fan tells me that if the team had been able to pull off even a second WS title in the back end of that streak, it would have tied together the 15 years of success in an exponentially better way for the legacy of that franchise - sort of the way the Patriots being able to bookend a decade of regular-season success with two sets of three Super Bowls did so for New England.

Is that where we are at with this Dodgers run? Basically, they need to win one more before this group disbands to cement their legacy a generation from now?

I agree, 37; one more WS trophy makes it a dynasty. Else it's like the 1970 era Orioles.

And the Astros are nearly in the same position

And with so many very good teams out there now, along with the extra round of playoffs, it becomes harder for even the best of teams to survive the equivalent of the Stonecutters' initiation ritual. With four 100-win teams along with another with 99 wins, at least four of them are going to wind up with swollen asses.

As Howie was implying, anyone who thinks that the 1969 World Series was an historic upset must not have been following the Mets over the last few months of the season, and must not be accounting for the then-still strong imbalance between the NL and the AL. The "miracle" was the way the Mets came out of nowhere beginning in late May / early June after seven years of being a laughing stock. It wasn't a "miracle" that the team that steamrolled the NL in those final months could beat the Orioles.

the most INEXCUSABLE series losses in my memory:

until 1968---none

Er, try looking up 1906, the World Series between the Hitless Wonders White Sox and the 116-36 Cubs, which was historically far and away the greatest World Series upset ever.

-------------

Should add the 88 Dodgers to the list. They were not as good a team as the 1990 Reds.

I'd also add the 88 NLCS to the list of "shocking" upsets.

. I agree, 37; one more WS trophy makes it a dynasty. Else it's like the 1970 era Orioles.

The Orioles won it in 66, 70, and 83. I guess it’s just a matter of counting it as the same team or not. 1966 was before Weaver took over as manager. There’s a lot of overlap between the 66 and 70 teams. The Robinsons, Blair, Boog, Davey Johnson, McNally, and Palmer. As you might expect just 4 years apart.

There’s a full generation between the MVPs of 66 and 83, Cal Ripken is 25 years younger than Frank Robinson. But what do you expect given a 17 year gap in time? I see the differences between the 66 and 83 Orioles as exactly like the differences between the 2001 and 18 Patriots. In each case, 17 year span and only one player in common (Palmer, Brady).

I’m going with calling it the same dynasty because they were contending the whole way through. Only one losing season in there, 1967, but even that was a fluke, they outscored their opponents by 60 runs.

I would suggest that the 1919 World Series was the most inexcusable loss ever.

I don't really measure success by titles. If you are consistently getting to the LCS, that's a pretty successful team. As the Braves and dodgers have shown, taking those final two steps are very random

I can tell there will be a lot of disagreement about what should make the upsets list. For example, the 98 Padres. They won 98 games and Kevin Brown was incredibly dominant in his first 3 postseason starts. 2 over the Astros, 1 against the Braves. Looks like they pushed him too far, trying to get a game 5 relief appearance out of him. Those two teams though seem like more of an even match than this year’s Padres against either the Dodgers or the Mets.

The Orioles won it in 66, 70, and 83. I guess it’s just a matter of counting it as the same team or not. 1966 was before Weaver took over as manager. There’s a lot of overlap between the 66 and 70 teams. The Robinsons, Blair, Boog, Davey Johnson, McNally, and Palmer. As you might expect just 4 years apart.

There’s a full generation between the MVPs of 66 and 83, Cal Ripken is 25 years younger than Frank Robinson. But what do you expect given a 17 year gap in time? I see the differences between the 66 and 83 Orioles as exactly like the differences between the 2001 and 18 Patriots. In each case, 17 year span and only one player in common (Palmer, Brady).

I’m going with calling it the same dynasty because they were contending the whole way through. Only one losing season in there, 1967, but even that was a fluke, they outscored their opponents by 60 runs.

If you're only counting the regular season for "dynasties", between 1960 and 1985 the Orioles had the best record in all of MLB, although by 1985 the O's were already in the second year of a 5 year stretch where they went from 98 to 54 wins.

This thread did get me to look back at the 70s Reds, the current Dodgers being in a somewhat similar spot.

1969 89 wins
1970 102 wins, lost the WS
1971 79 wins (odd)
1972 95 wins, lost the WS
1973 99 wins, lost the NLCS
1974 98 wins, didn't even win the division
1975-76 210 wins, 2 WS ... obviously what distinguishes them
1977 88 wins
1978 92 wins
1979 90 wins, lost NLCS
1980 89 wins

In today's game, they probably make the playoffs every year except 71. Give them an extra round of playoffs, do they still win in both 75 and 76 or do they "disappoint" with just one WS win? They probably don't get 4 pennants in 7 years either.

Go one more year and the Reds had the best record in baseball, yet were not one of 8 postseason teams. They collapsed hard in 1982.

In 2015-2022 seasons, Friedman's tenure, the Los Angeles Dodgers have gone 47-39 in the postseason, a .546 winning ptg.

Obviously his **** doesn't work in the playoffs.

...any team winning 80 percent of its games in a 50+ game stretch heading into a WS and then winning in 5 games? a 45-12 finish including the playoffs, that wasn't no fluke. it must be among the most dominating stretch runs to a WS title in all of baseball history.

I agree the Mets down the stretch were playing incredibly well but the Orioles were also a juggernaut for a long time.

It's a stoopid argument to say they won in five. They won in five because the Mets got a lot of weird breaks go their way. Its no wonder they won in five. The shoe polish test was really a stoopid call because no one could really see what happened but they changed the call anyhow. The lack of runner interference was a bad call, albeit it's happened before. Didn't someone throw the ball away in game 5 to let the winning run in?

I dont want to put the Met down. They won it all and they were a deserving team. But that series should have gone the distance and it was incredibly disappointing that it didnt come down to game 7 and some PH or something. But its stopid to say they won in 5 and that makes them a better team. They really weren't a demonstrably better team.

Teams w/ 15+ games of regular season advantage versus their opponents in a best-of-5 playoff series have gone 11-2. The '22 Dodgers and aforementioned '73 Reds (+16.5 over the Mets!) are the lone exceptions.

Teams w/ 15+-game advantages in best-of-7s have gone 9-3. The exceptions are:
2021 Dodgers, +17.5 losers to Atlanta
2001 Mariners, +20 losers to NYY
1906 Cubbies, +22.5 losers to Hitless Wonders

Teams w/ regular season advantages of 10-14.5 games above their playoff opponents have gone 11-8 in best-of-5s, 23-13 in best-of-7s.

1971 79 wins (odd)

It really wasn't odd. They did not yet have Joe Morgan who was a big part of the heart of the mid 70s team and they lost Tolan to the off season basketball injury and they had to put Geo. Foster out there. But also the 1970 team was fueled by Wayne Simpson who won his first 15; almost 16; games as pitcher until his rotator went. And also I think Jim Merrit's arm was fcked by the end of the season as well. So their pitching had already crested before 1970 world series and it would have to be rebuilt.

In the end playoffs are a different creature from the regular season. Bobby Cox never really got that, thus won only one WS despite being in the playoffs 16 times (556 win % regular season, 493 playoffs) vs Cito Gaston who figured that out quickly - 4 playoffs, 2 WS titles. Those title years he managed very differently, using pinch hitters (you rarely saw that in the regular season) and more willing to pull pitchers than he was in the regular season - basically recognizing each game was life or death for his team. There is no one formula for winning in the playoffs, although a deep starting rotation is clearly not it (top 3 key, after that meh). A strong pen is helpful, as is a willingness to push guys a bit further than normal if they are on. I'd say a big element is knowing who is hot and who is not via methods other than stats (seeing how a guy is feeling before a game, who is doing well in batting practice, whose pitches are sharp in the pen warming up, etc.) as well as knowing who is able to succeed in each situation before it comes up, and who on the other team is likely to fail before that situation arises so you are ready for it.

Hmm... Maybe the Dodgers should see if Gaston is interested in doing another tour as a manager. Of course, he will be 79 by the time the season starts so maybe not.

a deep starting rotation is clearly not it (top 3 key,

Bobby Cox had 3 HOF'ers for most of that time.

I dont want to put the Met down. They won it all and they were a deserving team. But that series should have gone the distance and it was incredibly disappointing that it didnt come down to game 7 and some PH or something. But its stopid to say they won in 5 and that makes them a better team. They really weren't a demonstrably better team.

Of course they weren't, but in a 7 game Series the team whose starting pitchers can perform like the Mets pitchers did for most of the season is always going to have a reasonable shot at winning over any opponent. Over the course of a long season the Orioles more balanced strengths would've likely prevailed, but there would've been stretches in the course of that season where you'd swear the Mets were the better team. In this case one of those stretches just happened to be in the World Series.

Remember, though, that game 2 was won on a 3 single rally with 2 outs in the ninth inning that broke a tie. Game 4 was won on that missed interference call (though it's likely the Mets would've won anyway), and game 5 turned on that shoe polish play. The fact that the Series only went 5 games tells us very little about the relative strength of those two teams, even though the Mets deserved to win.

Bobby Cox had 3 HOF'ers for most of that time.

Yes, and they usually had a solid 4th starter, and occasionally a 5th. Spending resources on Denny Neagle when you have Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz might have been foolish.

Maybe so but starting the season with 4 good starters is a good way to get into October with 3 (or less). Hard to know then that Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz would stay so healthy.

i'm not getting like what Changes Were Supposed To Be Made. This is plashke/simers kind of stupid

if someone could very accurately predict injuries the someone would be a zillionaire. and stuff like 5% probability catches get made. WHO could have prdicted christian javier (WHO???) not even a regular rotation starter, no hitting the yankees at the time they looked like they gonna be winning 130 games.

who would predict jose altuve to be zero for playoffs so far - not even an RBI groundout.

ol dylan is not usually this dumbass

Nowadays there is a lot of luck involved in winning the world series. Just because Cito wom twice in 4 tries doesn't mean he "knew" what he was doing.

a point re: the narrative of "Clayton Kershaw, post-season flop"

The best active pitching careers are those of Kershaw, Verlander, Greinke, and Scherzer

Match them with these corresponding W-L pcts in post-season play:

.500 , .400 , .577 , .520

Is that personal W-L, or team's record in games they started?

I'm assuming you are asking because Kershaw is .520 or .577. But I think the Dodgers actually won't most of his no decisions anyway.

W-L are pitcher W-L, not team