As of today, FanGraphs gives the Dodgers an 18% chance of winning the World Series, but the Amazins remain close behind at 17.2%.

The Dodger franchise has won 100 or more games in 9 different seasons--they didn't win the WS in any of those years

The Dodgers are on pace for the third greatest run differential of all-time, behind the 1927 Yankees and 1939 Yankees. And this will be their 5th consecutive season leading their league in both runs scored and fewest runs allowed, which is unprecedented. If they win the World Series this year, this team has a legitimate argument for the greatest of all time, imo.

The Dodgers ERA+ this year is 147. Roger Clemens' ERA+ for his career was 143.

That's really amazing.

And this will be their 5th consecutive season leading their league in both runs scored and fewest runs allowed, which is unprecedented.

This is actually insane. It hasn't been close in either category most of those years, either (outside of 2020 when they edged the Braves by one run scored).

[4] The Dodgers are the only team whose R/G is lower than their FIP. Their pitching is excellent, but the fielding behind it is OP af, making the pitching look better than it is.

And as I've said in other threads you can point to any number of things that didn't go to plan. In addition to Bellinger and Muncy, Buelher had an off year before getting hurt. Justin Turner has been well below his established level of talent and Kimbrel hasn't exactly been automatic.

Still, the results aren't really being driven by fluke offensive seasons and they do have an awful lot of good pitchers. Lux actually turned into a really good player this year which they didn't exactly need but is still really handy.

The Dodgers and the Rays are really the only two organizations now that act like baseball is a weakest link sport (more like international football) than a strongest link sport (like basketball). It is very interesting... I guess the Beane A's also were sort of like this, but I find the Dodgers have taken it to the next level with the amount of money invested. LA operates like a top flight Premier League club by creating massive depth to make up for in-season deficits. It is fascinating.

other clubs who have scored most runs in their league and allowed fewest in 2 seasons back to back
1970-71 Orioles (2)
1942-43 Yankees (2)
1936-39 Yankees (4)

And of course those were leagues of 8 or 10 teams, not 15!

highest team WPCT in 4 consec years

1905-08 Cubs----------- .675
1928-31 Athletics------- .673
2019-22 Dodgers so far .673

If they win the World Series this year, this team has a legitimate argument for the greatest of all time, imo.

Historically great teams win multiple World Series in a row, IMHO.

LA operates like a top flight Premier League club by creating massive depth to make up for in-season deficits

I was struck recently when Chris Taylor came off the IL and the Dodgers optioned the ironically-named James Outman back to the minors. Outman was batting .462 at the time. Now, this was in 16 PAs, and Outman has barely played above AA in his career, but … most teams don't have the luxury of sending a guy down when he's batting .462. Even if just because they usually have some other guy sitting around batting .162.

Historically great teams win multiple World Series in a row, IMHO.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a Yankees fan would say this.

Also, this standard creates a near-impassable barrier of entry for current teams to be considered historically great. Nobody has won back-to-back World Series in over 20 years, and consecutive titles in general have become less common as the postseason has expanded. That doesn't mean that the '90s Braves, say, are less impressive than the $100K infield A's from the 1910s; it means that winning more series is harder.

Historically great teams win multiple World Series in a row, IMHO.

Prior to 1969, sure. Since then, no, that is just an absurd standard that doesn't acknowledge anything resembling reality.

As of today, FanGraphs gives the Dodgers an 18% chance of winning the World Series, but the Amazins remain close behind at 17.2%.

Does that feel off to anyone else? A team in the conversation for greatest ever has only a .8% more chance of winning the world series over a team that might not even win their division (though they probably will). When the Dodgers play their first playoff game, there will only be 8 teams, so coin flips would give them a 12.5% chance. So being one of the best teams of all time (and having HFA throughout) only increases your odds by 5.5%??

I suppose the post-1969 equivalent of winning multiple consecutive WS would be winning multiple consecutive 1st round series?

I suppose the post-1969 equivalent of winning multiple consecutive WS would be winning multiple consecutive 1st round series?

Maybe, but you have to do that, while still being a great team, the Cardinals used to routinely win first round even when they eked into the playoffs. Ultimately though the Braves was a dynasty, the Dodgers are a dynasty, just going into the season and everyone knows you are the best year in year out is the standard we should be going by.

Does that feel off to anyone else? A team in the conversation for greatest ever has only a .8% more chance of winning the world series over a team that might not even win their division (though they probably will). When the Dodgers play their first playoff game, there will only be 8 teams, so coin flips would give them a 12.5% chance. So being one of the best teams of all time (and having HFA throughout) only increases your odds by 5.5%??

Fangraphs’s projection system hates the Dodgers pitching and defense. If you switch the projection mode from Fangraphs to Season-to-Date then the Dodgers World Series odds jump from 18% to 35%.

the Mets might be favored over the Dodgers in Game 1 and 2 of a potential series with a healthy deGrom and Scherzer regardless of who the Dodgers send out there.

Urias would be an interesting matchup, of course. but Gonsolin is on IL, Buehler is Venus de Milo, and Kershaw has to shake off rust - while Heaney and TAnderson are unproven at this 'altitude.'. wait, Dustin May might be the key?

not sure who would be favored in Games 3 and 4 (etc). Bassitt 118 ERA+, Walker 117, lefty Peterson 123 - and wily veteran Carrasco (101 but has had hot streaks) returns this weekend and like Kershaw has to shake off rust.

re: historically great teams: yes, sometimes weird stuff happens in short series. The 69-71 Orioles were 17 and 8 in the postseason; and only won one WS. If you can't put them in the category 'cause of that....

Mets radio crew tells me that backup Dodgers C Austin Barnes has an uncle in Mike Gallegos, the 1980s and 1990s middle infielder for the A's, and then later the Yankees and the Cardinals.

amusing that of those 3 franchises, Gallegos got his WS ring with... the A's.

Gallegos got his WS ring with... the A's.

Last I checked the A's were third in most rings in mlb history.

since 1980, World Series titles:

Yankees - 5
Cardinals - 3
A's - 1 (when he got his ring)

since 1931:

Yankees - 24
Cardinals - 10
A's - 4

but it is true that the Philadelphia A's were a force in the first 30 years of the AL's existence, beginning in 1901

(and of course it is "Gallego")

but Gonsolin is on IL,

Yeah, he's on the IL with a boo-boo that's basically code for, "he needs some rest and we need the roster spot." DeGrom is far more likely to be unavailable in October, given his track record.

DeGrom's a great pitcher when healthy, and Scherzer's long been a great pitcher. But given that the Dodgers throw out pitchers who, despite not being big names, are nearly as good, and a lineup that makes the Mets look like a college team, I'm not really seeing a scenario in which the Mets are favored, at least without further injury developments that favor them.

Remember: "good pitching beats good hitting" was one of the first of the old clichés that metrics people knifed back in the 90s. DeGrom might be a great pitcher, but that doesn't negate the fact that he has to go through the gauntlet of the Dodgers lineup.

the Mets are 3rd in the NL in OPS+ - that's one helluva college team!

:)

(the juggernaut Dodgers are 2nd)

Gallegos got his WS ring with... the A's.

That makes sense to me. He went to three of them with the club. He was bound to win one.

Remember: "good pitching beats good hitting" was one of the first of the old clichés that metrics people knifed back in the 90s.

It was always stoopid. I knew it was stoopid in the 70s. People probably knew it was stoopid in the 1920s. What exactly did metrics do to further that notion? I can't see how it would because all you are left with discussing are statistics and the old school people who believe this crap are gonna say that good pitching results in clutchiness, or intangibles, or intimidation or whatever. They're still not gonna believe you. its a zero sum game is what it comes down to and there's nothing about sabermetrics that is gonna add to that. Is there?

And what other cliches did metrics "knife" in the 90s?

I suppose the post-1969 equivalent of winning multiple consecutive WS would be winning multiple consecutive 1st round series?

Not really. Few 1st round playoff opponents are going to be as good (relative to their times) as the team that won the pennant in the other League before the playoffs expanded.

the old school people who believe this crap are gonna say that good pitching results in clutchiness, or intangibles, or intimidation or whatever.

I think the premise was that having 2 overwhelming SPs - as the Mets may have in deGrom and Scherzer - can control a series.

ask fans of the 2001 Yankees about Big Unit and Schilling in the WS. they pitched 39 of the 65 innings, allowing only 6 ER.
as to the idea that it was "stoopid [even] in the 1920s," there are plenty of previous examples.

ask fans of the 2001 Yankees about Big Unit and Schilling in the WS. they pitched 39 of the 65 innings, allowing only 6 ER.
as to the idea that it was "stoopid [even] in the 1920s," there are plenty of previous examples.

I think the fact the Yankees got outscored 37-14 also played a wee role in that series loss. Bob Brenly played the role of both Tito Francona and Joe Maddon in that series.

30 Do you think they were outscored had anything to do w/facing Johnson and Schilling so much during the series?

I was thinking back to the Jeffs when Stl beat Detroit; did not remember Chris Carpenter on that team had a great year Suppan and Weaver part of the WS winning staff; looking it up Weaver starts two games; Suppan one; they still beat Det. The shorter the series, the greater the chance for variability. Still, in a best of seven 3 starts by the Jeffs and you win, look what can happen.

30 Do you think they were outscored had anything to do w/facing Johnson and Schilling so much during the series?

Well, they had little to do with the Diamondbacks scoring five-plus runs per game (though Big Unit did have an RBI-single in the tight 15-2 win).

And the two starters not named Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling gave up two runs in 12+plus innings.

Obviously, those two guys were spectaculoar. But the only Diamondback who needed to be carried in that series was Brenly.

If the Dodgers don't win the World Series, all the talk about randomness and the difficulty of winning a World Series compared to 1949-53 or 1972-74 or 1996-2000 is going to be of absolutely no consolation to them. Does anyone think that the 2001 Mariners wouldn't gladly have traded about 20 of those superfluous regular season wins for 7 more in the postseason?

What the Dodgers have done up to now is impressive as hell, and if they win the World Series they'll be in strong contention for the informal title of The Greatest Single Year Team In History. But if they don't win the World Series, they'll be just another historical footnote, like the 1906 Cubs and the 2001 Mariners, or on a much lower level, the 1960 Yankees. The Dodgers know that, even if not all of their fans will admit it.

That said, if the Dodgers do win the World Series their claim to the GOAT (single year edition) would be formidable. The modern team generally given that informal title at this point is the 1998 Yankees, but if you look at their level of postseason competition that year---the 88 win Rangers, the 89 wins Indians, and the NL 3rd best 98 win Padres---it was nothing compared to the gantlet the Dodgers will have to go through in order to win it all this year. I'd love to see them get derailed, but I'm not counting on it.

RE Post 15:

Two weeks ago Ben Clemens was asked a similar Q in his Fangraphs chat:

Matthew: What’s up with the playoff odds loving the NL? Eyeballing the world series vs lcs odds, it looks like all of the NL teams are overrated. For instance, the Mets are favored to win the lcs 27% of the time and the ws 17% (i.e. 60% favorites to win the WS if they make it), the Phillies are at 6.2% and 3.1%, the Yankees are at 25% and 10%, and the Rays are at 5.9% and 2.1%

Ben Clemens: It’s because any NL team that wins the CS won’t have to play the Dodgers in the WS, while AL teams have to play the Dodgers most of the time

Ben Clemens: I think it’s just fine? The odds aren’t perfectly precise or anything, they’re not trying to be. Dan runs his separate series-by-series odds in the playoffs to account for hte way the rosters work then. As a rough ballpark, the NL being likelier to win the WS seems fine to me

Maybe that helps explain it?

Maybe that helps explain it?

I can't speak for Kronic, but that has the opposite effect for me.

I think the premise was that having 2 overwhelming SPs - as the Mets may have in deGrom and Scherzer - can control a series.

well that part is real. In the sense that, having excellent front line pitching in the playoffs should make a team stronger than their numbers indicate. Obviously. We were just talking about the 69 Mets and Seaver/Koosman were perhaps the best 1/2 pitchers in the league at that point. That seems like a real thing.

But I was talking just the premise in general, like a good pitcher will beat a good hitting team. that makes no sense. And Im curious why the poster thinks sabermetrics would have anything to add to that discussion.

Fun fact: Joey Gallo's two teams this year are 91-40 with Joey on the roster, and 78-51 without.

The Yankees were playing .673 with Gallo, and have played at .333 since. The Dodgers were .676 before getting him and have gone .778 since.

Fun fact: Joey Gallo's two teams this year are 91-40 with Joey on the roster, and 78-51 without.

The Yankees were playing .673 with Gallo, and have played at .333 since. The Dodgers were .676 before getting him and have gone .778 since.

The guy knows how to win, we were wondering what Tom Brady does in the off season, now we know he changes his name and plays baseball.

That said, if the Dodgers do win the World Series their claim to the GOAT (single year edition) would be formidable.

Not sure why this would be limited to single-year edition, honestly. As noted upthread, the Dodgers have led the NL in runs scored and fewest runs allowed in each of the last four years, and are working on a fifth; nobody else has ever done that in any league size, let alone a 15-team league. If they do win the World Series, they would have two in three years, plus pennants in '17 (losing a very close series to an excellent team that was likely cheating) and '18. They've won over 65% of their games each of the last four years (this season pending, but they could finish 18-15 and still do it). That is not too far from the '36-'39 Yankees.

Not sure why this would be limited to single-year edition, honestly.

The object is to win games & championships, not just put up gaudy regular season statistics while losing in the playoffs. You are correct that repeating is more difficult in the 3-tiered (or more) WildCard Playoff Era, but that’s more reason to credit those who do it.

That said, if the Dodgers do win the World Series their claim to the GOAT (single year edition) would be formidable.

Not sure why this would be limited to single-year edition, honestly.

One doesn't exclude the other.

As noted upthread, the Dodgers have led the NL in runs scored and fewest runs allowed in each of the last four years, and are working on a fifth; nobody else has ever done that in any league size, let alone a 15-team league. If they do win the World Series, they would have two in three years, plus pennants in '17 (losing a very close series to an excellent team that was likely cheating) and '18. They've won over 65% of their games each of the last four years (this season pending, but they could finish 18-15 and still do it). That is not too far from the '36-'39 Yankees.

Because of the talent pool and the level of competition, you could easily argue that the 17-22 Dodgers have been a better team than the 36-39 Yankees. But they haven't dominated the field to nearly the extent that the Yankees did, with their 4-0 / 16-3 World Series record, and an average margin of 15 games over the second best team in the league. And the Dodgers still have to win the World Series this year to make it an unqualified success. The U. S. dominated the Vietnam war by all the numbers, but they still only got a second place trophy.

You are correct that repeating is more difficult in the 3-tiered (or more) WildCard Playoff Era, but that’s more reason to credit those who do it.

That is fine, but you don't diminish their accomplishments when they don't do it. What the Dodgers have done is impressive and elite, just like what the Braves in the past has done, and the Yankees for 100 years or so. The silly thing is to say "it doesn't mean #### if they don't win the world series." only a moronic fool would think that, or someone so old and senile that they think the game is exactly the same in 1940 as it is today.

Name-calling and ageism? Impressive.

There hasn't been a repeat WS winner since 2000, and the only team to win 2 out of 3 in the interim is the Giants, twice, in their odd every-other-year run. So winning 2020 + 2022 would be impressive under current conditions; though 2020 has an asterisk.

Of course even suggesting the Dodgers could do that much probably guarantees that the Mariners or Padres will win the Series this year :-D

What the Dodgers have done is impressive and elite, just like what the Braves in the past has done, and the Yankees for 100 years or so. The silly thing is to say "it doesn't mean #### if they don't win the world series."

I can't speak for Clapper, but noting the obvious----that not winning the World Series would constitute a huge letdown and a major blip on their overall record----doesn't mean that what they've done in the regular season isn't a great accomplishment in itself. Of course it is.

But again I'd ask: If you were a Dodgers fan, would you rather see them win 120 games and get knocked out by the Mets or an AL team in the postseason, or have them win "only" 95 or 100 games and come home with a championship trophy? I doubt if one Dodgers fan in a hundred would go for the first alternative, and certainly no Dodger player or management personnel ever would.

though 2020 has an asterisk.

I mean, the Dodgers probably weren't missing the playoffs that year even if it had been a full season; they had the best record in baseball in the shortened schedule (not remotely balanced of course, but 43-17 is 43-17) and haven't missed the playoffs since 2012. And once in the playoffs, they had to get through an extra postseason round even compared to most modern seasons. I'm far more inclined to asterisk their loss in 2017 than I am their win in 2020 (to be clear, I'm not terribly inclined to do either).