So at what point do we begin to take seriously the possibility that the Dodgers aren't very good anymore?

The Curse of Cody Bellinger, who'd have guessed?

At what point to we begin to take seriously the possibility that the Cubs are very good? I don't think I'm quite there yet - they have a ridiculous .290 team batting average - but lots of good hitting and good pitching from this team so far. I've been pretty negative about Hoyer, but to give him credit - this team is operating exactly as designed, to date.

at what point do we begin to take seriously the possibility that the Dodgers aren't very good anymore?

The 2022 Dodgers went 14-12 in June. The 2021 Dodgers played sub-600 ball in Apr and May and went 14-12 in July (then a staggering 43-13 the rest of the season). The 2019 Dodgers went 14-10 in July. So ... not yet.

But sure, letting Seager and T Turner go, not replacing J Turner, all the money wasted on Bauer, Buehler and Lux hurt, now Will Smith hopefully only out for a bit will have no long-term concussion effects. It is a much less talented team than it was. But lots going right so far -- Muncy, Outman and Smith hitting; Urias, Kershaw and May all pitching well; JDM, Thompson doing what they're supposed to do. Rojas (and SS overall) has been a disaster though, still can't believe they let Turner walk.

Rojas (and SS overall) has been a disaster though, still can't believe they let Turner walk.

Did LA really have any say in the matter? It was my understanding that Trea Turner was intent on playing for a team on the East Coast, money be damned.

As for the current Dodger hole at SS, I said it before and I'll say it again -- the Orioles' plan over the last five years has been to corner the market at that position. Right now between AAA and the majors they've got five guys who play average to excellent SS, but a dearth of pitching. If the LA problem is actually as bad as it looks then Andrew Friedman should have the Baltimore warehouse on speed dial talking an arms for bats trade.

Re 2 the Cubs have something like 6 guys playing at something like a 9-10 WAR pace. I don't know how often very good teams will have that many players playing that well over a random 20 game sample nut I can't imagine too many go 12-8 over those 20 games like the Cubs just did.

I hope they get to 96 wins but i expect them to be around 85 to 90. Though the Cubs have a lot of options down on the farm right now.

I’m still not convinced they’re much more than a .500 team.

They're a game behind the Pirates, which alone suggests pretty strongly it's too soon to draw any conclusions about them being good.

Re 2 the Cubs have something like 6 guys playing at something like a 9-10 WAR pace.

Obviously players probably won't maintain that pace, but how many of them do you think can end up being a 5 war player? The Cardinals last year had 3 players finish in the top ten in war (and if you include Donovan, 4 players who played at a 5 war pace) You get 3-5 players to put up 4+ war and the rest of the team to 2-3 and you have a potential divisional winning team.

Looking at the Cubs you mentioned, you have the guy that was the big question mark coming into the season, Bellinger, a former MVP, ROY who is only in his age 27 season, you have to feel a bit comfortable with his performance going forward, even with the cliff dive he's had for the past 3+ previous seasons. Stroman is obviously over performing, but a return to his established level still puts him ultimately at a 4 war player for the season (and war underrates the value of a starting pitcher in todays games in my opinion) Hoerner was a 4.4 war player last year, and is hitting better and is in his age 26 season, realistically it's not impossible to see him as a 5+ war player this year. Swanson was a 5.7 war player last year, was signed to be that guy again all his early start does is make you comfortable with the signing. I don't know crap about Steele, he posted a 128 era+ last year, but was a bit late to the show so probably not considered an elite prospect as he doesn't show up on the top 100 lists, but everything he's done at the major league level says good starter, his fip last year matched his era, he's a bit lucky this year, but still a 120 era+ starter doesn't seem unlikely from him. Wisdom is overperforming, but even a return to expectations, he's a solid bat.


Right now, as an observer it feels like all their dice rolls are coming up positive so far, and sometimes that is what happens, and when that does happen a team surprises the world.

If 6 guys playing at a 9 WAR paces gets you 12-8 what does only 3 guys playing at a 5 WAR pace get you?

Steele *was* a highly rated prospect when he was drafted - HS difficult sign bonus baby, same draft class as Dylan Cease. Actually drafted ahead of Cease, but they were both 7+ figure bonus signings the draft before (iirc) mlb really started to the hammer down on slotting bonuses. There was a 3rd HS overslot arm (Carson Sands) who flamed out. Ii think cease and sands were both TJS right out of HS - Steele had TJS his first or second year and then had trouble staying healthy. I think Steele is pitching better than I expected, but he *was* a legit prospect, just raw, missed lots of injury time, etc that made for a late arrival.

I haven't really seen much more than a few highlights. How has Bellinger looked overall? His line certainly looks good for someone who was hitting like a backup middle infielder the last couple of years.

He's on a 12 game hot streak and has gotten on base 13 games straight. First 8 games were not pretty except for a 3 hit game.

14 games now

If 6 guys playing at a 9 WAR paces gets you 12-8 what does only 3 guys playing at a 5 WAR pace get you?

12-8 is (was) a 97 win pace. 6 guys at 9 WAR would be about 41 WAA which would put you at 89 (87? I forget where replacement-level is now) so 96 wins would still be at least a few guys over replacement level. That 6 guys on a 9-WAR pace only produces 12 wins implies the rest of the roster has been pretty stinko to this point. Anyway, it should encourage Angel fans that 6 9-WAR players virtually guarantees you a WC spot so they only need 4 more.

Now of course the Cubs should be able to find more than 8 WAR in the other 20 slots on the roster. Which is of course the answer of "what does only 3 at 5 WAR get you." Yes, the hot starters will cool down ... and the early-season disasters will get better or be replaced. Now obviously going from 6@9 to 3@5 won't get fully replaced and the Cubs will fall off their 97-win pace because (this just in) that aren't THAT good. (Although if they got to play 15% of their games against the A's ...)

As I thought I'd pointed out here but maybe it was another thread or I forgot to submit but their pythage is 14-6. They have the largest run differential in the league by a good margin. (It helps to play the A's.) 14-6 is a 113-114 win pace which, I would guess, is what playing 6 9-WAR players would probably get you. So the Cubs have been an unlucky team with 6 9-WAR players, on pace to finish 16+ games below their 113-114 win pythag. Curses!

Now our good friends the Dodgers won 111 games last year yet those bums (I see what I did there) didn't have a single 9-WAR player. Mookie at 6.4 was the best they could do. But they did have 13 WAA across the position players which meas they averaged about 3.6 WAR per position. Relative to NL, they were only below average in CF (by half-a-win) and essentially average in LF (everybody sux in LF). Now those 13 WAA were only second in the league but their pitchers added another 15 WAA, 7 wins ahead of #2 Atlanta. No individual pitcher made it to 5 WAR (Urias just missed). Anyway 13 WAA + 15 WAA = 109 wins, they actually won 111 and pythat put them at a staggering 116.

Before today's game, the Cubs were tied with the Pirates at #1 with 1.3 pitcher WAA and led with 2.2 WAApos, for 3.5 WAA overall or 13.5 "wins." Milw was 1 win over their pythag, the Bucs 2 wins over. Neither has played the A's yet though. More sacrifices to the baseball gods of luck needed perhaps.

I adore the way you provide information, and I am grateful for the amazing thoughts you share.
papa's freezeria

Irene is a very polite spammer. I hope one day she posts after I do.

I think I'm in love.

The ".io" domain nominally belongs to the British Indian Ocean Territory; however, the UN has ruled that the territory itself really belongs to the nation of Mauritius, a group of islands east of Africa. (The domain is also popular with Esparantists, since "io" roughly means "something" in Esperanto.)

More here.

Although he lost, he had a match that carried the spirit of Dynamons World. Very commendable