Second place is the biggest loser.

Blasphemy!

That would be a pretty good goal, because once you get to the World Series, one team could get hot and win the series. It is only four wins.

I don't think that it will be tough to be the best team in the NL this year.

If the Dodgers win the NL Pennant in Aught Eight I will be ecstatic. But the dilemma is that I will be angry if they don't win the World Series, but not angry enough of course to write off the entire season.

Regarding the salary cap question that got LAT'd in the last post, I think that a salary cap works only if there is a floor also. Who cares how much the Yankees spend if the Marlins are only going to spend 15 million?

Wow, four posts in one hour. That is usualy a good month for this lurker.

It's not blasphemy. Atop which, it's not necessarily so that the "stronger" team wins the WS anyway. Witness '06, for pete's sake. If we can get there, our chances are as good as anyone's.

I'm growing increasingly amenable to the argument that the World Series is essentially joke, not so much because of "crapshoot" reasons (which have their own appeal), but because of the DH rule.

The American and National leagues are different. They play a different game. Not completely different, but different enough for me to think that one league might very well have a systematic advantage over the other. I don't claim to know exactly what that advantage is or its size, but I'm open to the idea that it exists.

6

I know. I was sort of kidding.

3 - Of course I'll be incredibly passionate about wanting the Dodgers to win the World Series if they're in it. It's just that up to that point, I think it would be gravy on the cake.

4

Good point.

Are there some good articles I can read up on about the salary cap issue, so I don't have to bother you all here?

6 - It's that crapshoot aspect that also influences my thinking.

Just make the playoffs and then roll the dice. No need to join the American Leagues arm race... or bat race. vr, Xei

Mmmmm... cake gravy.... ooooooohhh....

13 Dang it, I had that joke all teed up . . .

Making the playoffs is all I wish. It was painful watching the Rockies take seven from the Dodgers and roll into the postseason like they did.

7
I'm open to the idea that the AL has a DH advantage, but wouldn't some of the gain by having a better player as DH be offset by the fact that in NL parks one of the AL team's better hitters is on the bench?

If you ain't first, you're last!

Okay, this is just odd:
Peter Gammons learned that Darin Erstad could retire to coach University of Nebraska football if he doesn't find MLB interest suitable.

http://tinyurl.com/2n5nyv

Twins manager Ron Gardenhire on Lil' Davey Eckstein:

"I've always had a lot of respect for him," Gardenhire said. "He catches the ball. He knows how to play. He's a proven winner."

18 Special teams punting coach?

My goal for 2008 is just to win a playoff series. Its all I want. I also want to attend one of said playoff wins. I am a simple man.

18/19 - If Eckstein can't get a multi-year deal, perhaps there's an opening on Erstad's coaching staff?

The AL has always been winning the World Series more often.

A little part of me keeps thinking there is a chance the Marlins-Tigers deal falls apart, especially after reading the ESPN winter meetings blog about how it will take a while to finalize due to all the physicals that need to be done. At what point does a trade become "official"? I'm skeptical after seeing that Dodgers-Dbacks-Yankees trade fall apart a few years back.

19 Eckstein and Erstad posts in rapid succession. O.K., I'll complete the cycle . . . (wait for it)

Juan Pierre.

16. Yeah, the advantage is more pronounced in AL parks. Not too many (if any) NL teams have the extra bat on the bench to match the DH of the top AL teams (save the Angels when VLAD is in RF). vr, Xei

20
I'm not old enough to remember the Dodgers ever winning a playoff series. If the Dodgers win two playoff games, it will be the best season I've ever known.

There is power in low expectations.

The advantage that the NL could possibly leverage is having pitchers that could hit better than AL pitchers. I have no idea if that is the case or not. It's always been a pet peeve of mine that most pitchers can't hit a lick. There's a few that can, and to me that seems like an advantage... but probably not much of one. vr, Xei

26 No kidding. I had tickets to Game 4 of the NLDS in 2006. All they had to do was WIN ONE GAME and I could have lived the dream. But noooooooo.

I'm open to the idea that the AL has a DH advantage, but wouldn't some of the gain by having a better player as DH be offset by the fact that in NL parks one of the AL team's better hitters is on the bench?

I would think that the advantage the AL has in the AL park would exceed any advantage the NL would have in the NL park. In fact, I'm not sure the NL has any advantage in the NL park, beyond homefield considerations. It's not as if the extra pitcher they had on the roster all season is gonna be very good. He's gonna be a Carter/Hamulack/Tomko/Hendrickson type.

27
I guess that the NL hitting pitcher is an advantage, but probably less in magnitude than the AL DH advantage.

Plus, it's not as if pitchers only stay in one league. Plenty of NL pitchers in one year probably spent time in the AL (where they didn't hit), and vice versa.

29 - The advantage would be that potentially, removing the DH from the AL team in an NL park means removing its best hitter and/or forcing him to play out of position.

You'd perhaps be subbing Brad Penny's bat for Delwyn Young's vs. subbing Josh Beckett's bat for David Ortiz.

With the NL, you would know that your best hitter is built into your lineup. That could be an advantage in NL parks. I'm not saying it is.

I would think any advantage from having better hitting pitchers would be washed out by the AL teams having a better player coming off the bench to pinch hit.

Of course, it would also make sense that the NL teams would have more depth at pinch hitting, since I would think they would use them more.

If both leagues continue on the same path (DH in AL, not in NL), I'd like to see the DH in NL parks during interleague play and the World Series, and pitchers hitting in the AL parks. Kind of the whole "see what the other league is like" effect, although are there really that many fans exclusive to one league anymore?

29 "I would think that the advantage the AL has in the AL park would exceed any advantage the NL would have in the NL park. In fact, I'm not sure the NL has any advantage in the NL park, beyond homefield considerations."

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, I'm not convinced that the AL always has an advantage in AL parks. There are a lot of lousy DHs out there. What if the Dodgers had Delwyn Young as their DH, facing Seattle who had Jose Vidro as theirs? Or the Indians, who often use the DH as a way to put a light-hitting catcher in the lineup while still playing Victor Martinez?

Meanwhile, you had the Red Sox this year benching one of the best players in the American League because there was no room for him in the lineup. That kind of thing happens in the World Series more than you might think. Heck, in 1993 the Blue Jays were forced to bench the AL batting champ in the World Series because there was no place for him to play.

12 Isnt that conceding victory? We have a rotation spot available, and why wouldnt we join the arms race to get the best possible pitcher for that spot? WWXFD?

Does anybody know how many Series have been won by each league since the DH rule?

I couldn't care less about winning the world series unless we actually are playing in one. Until then, give me a competitive team who plays meaningful games in Sept with a team constructed of players who I like to root for, and I'll be a happy camper.

36 - We're in the race. It's just about what we would have to give up to get him.

36 , and why should just read why

The problem with a salary cap is that there is $6 billion flowing thru MLB right now, and why should the players get capped?

I think there needs to be an increase in revenue sharing, with those dollars earmarked for payroll - a use it or lose it scenario whereby if Florida gets $40 million in revenue sharing, but only spends $10 million, then the $30 million unspent goes back into the revenue pot for the following year.

They need to balance more of the ad revenue.

35 The Indians generally use the DH to put Travis Hafner in the lineup. You can blow things by not spending on a DH, but I don't know why you would.

I am a bit older so my take on the Dodgers differs from most people on this site. I would like to see the Dodgers put a stong team of mostly homegrown talent on the field. This morning I listened to the 5th inning of a 1978 Dodger/Giant game again for the umpteenth time since I first heard it a few months ago. The Garvey, Lopes, Russell, Cey, Baker, Monday and Smith team did not win it all, but they were sure fun to watch and hear thanks to Vin. Bring back a team like that (I think the Dodgers are close to that with Martin, Loney, LaRoche, Ethier, and Kemp) along with a radio broadcaster who can convey the excitement of an exciting team, and have Nancy B Hefly or her clone in the background rather than the amplified noise present at Dodger Stadium now, and I would be a happy Dodger fan. I would rather have all that than a World Series championship

Stan from Tacoma

People who are advocating getting a frontline pitcher seem to take it as a given that such a pitcher will singlehandedly win a World Series for you. But the reality is, even those kinds of pitchers don't do that sort of thing very often. It's far from a guarantee. For every Orel Hershiser in the 1988 World Series, there's a Fernando in the 1981 Series. A star pitcher coming up short.

Not only is there no guarantee that a Bedard would give us a huge advantage in the World Series, there's not even a guarantee he'd be better than Clayton Kershaw or Esteban Loaiza in a short series.

35
I would guess that usually teams with a bad DH don't make it to the World Series.

34 - Vin mentioned that once, and I thought it a great idea.

33
Of course, it would also make sense that the NL teams would have more depth at pinch hitting, since I would think they would use them more.

I looked up the numbers just to see how pronounced the difference in PH usage was between leagues. In 2007:

-AL pinch hitters had 1,223 PA, an average of 87 per team
-NL pinch hitters had 4,328 PA, an average of 271 per team

36. I am all for improving the team and I am all for the owner spending all of his money to do so. Reality is, it's a business and the owner will most likely spend enough money to make his team have a good shot at making the playoffs. We are not competing with teams from the AL (until the W.S. roll of the dice). I think if the Dodgers were in the American League, Dodger management would feel more pressure to do what it takes to get better players. Luckily in the NL the Dodgers and other teams can play/spend/manage their payroll down to the level of the quality of the league. If there were alot of really good NL teams, then the Dodger management would have to consider running the team differently.
vr, Xei

I hate revenue sharing, but of course I'm also a big proponent of allowing indiscriminant moving of teams until the markets are closer to balanced.

26 I was just a kid, then, but I remember the Dodgers team from the 60's: Willie and Tommy Davis, Maury Wills, John Roseboro, and of course Drysdale and Koufax. It was fun to be a Dodger fan then. The fun disappeared after that, even while Garvey, Cey, Russell and Lopes ruled the infield. I got the fun back this past year watching Loney, Kemp, Broxton, Billingsly, LaRoche, Hu and Ethier. I don't know, but something about this crop of Dodgers is special in the '60s Dodgers sort of way.

The home park DH rule for the World Series started in 1986.

12 AL wins
9 NL wins

47. and what were the OPS of those two groups? vr, Xei

51. So basically, very little if any statistical significance. vr, Xei

51

At last, an explanation for why the Cardinals home games had a DH in the 1982 World Series!

44

Just site Cleveland's star pitching against Boston this year.

44
Assuming you are already reasonably happy with our top 3 pitchers, than an argument can be made (Neyer wrote an interesting article on it) that additional good pitchers produce sharply decreasing marginal returns.

In a short series, generally only 3 pitchers start, so at that point the 4th and 5th players don't matter so much. So the incremental advantage of getting Bedard would be the difference between having Lowe and Bedard pitch.

55

cite, not site grrrrr

39 I am aware we are in the race, I was wondering why Xei Frank didnt want to be a part of the race. Obviously I am not saying do whatever it takes to get Bedard, I am just saying its looking like we need to upgrade our pitching to be competitive. Other teams in the NL are looking to get better also, if your saying you feel we are in a good spot to make the playoffs and win the NL right now I have to disagree.

OPS+ numbers are not available (at least not on BB-Ref), but NL pinch hitters OPSed .668 and AL pinch hitters .640.

56 That's a good point. While pitching could be improved, hitting is just a much more pressing need.

Of those world series since 1986:

One featured the "improbable" Dodgers
One featured the Cinderella (albeit wire to wire) Reds
One featured an overmatched Padres team
Two featured the "up and coming" Marlins
Two more featured "slipped in the back door" teams like the '06 Cards and the '07 Rockies

I can think of maybe a handful of World Series in that time where the NL team appeared to be dominant. Most of the ones the Braves were in, plus maybe the ones with the Mets and Phils.

56 You have a good point. I'd only point out that you still need four pitchers in a short series, unless you're starting guys on short rest (which is an awful, awful, awful idea). Usually the 4th guy has to start only once, though.

44
Probably because most of remember how Schilling and Johnson enabled a not very gifted Arizona team to beat a very very good Yankee team in 01. Or how Becket, Penney, and even Pavano enabled another not very gifted team to beat a very very very good Yankee team in 03 so it is fresh in our minds.
I would say that having Bedard and being in the world series might enhance our chances but I don't think getting Bedard and giving up Kemp would help us get into a world series.

58. You may be misunderstanding me. I don't feel it is necessary to pursue free agents (and players via trade) with the same vigor that the elite teams in the American League are. We only need to keep up with the Jones' and they live in the NL. :)
vr, Xei

58 - I'm not saying that the Dodgers don't need to improve to win the NL. But I think the difference between trying to be better than the other NL teams and trying to be better than the other AL teams is large.

63 Exactly. People remember the times when it works, and forget the times when it doesn't.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, to some extent. If the Yankees had won in 2003, people would be saying that you need dominant pitching like Clemens, Pettitte, and Mussina to win the World Series.

"I don't feel it is necessary to pursue free agents ... We only need to keep up with the Jones'"

But Jones IS a free agent!

From 1976 through 1985, the DH was used in all games in alternate years (even-numbered ones) in the World Series.

Of NL DHs in the World Series, the last one to hit a homer was Shawon Dunston in 2002.

The last one with two hits in a game was Erubiel Durazo in 2001.

Three NL DHs have had three hit games: Kurt Bevacqua, Dane Iorg, and Dan Driessen.

Ryan Klesko hit three homers as DH for the Braves in 1995.

Dodger WS DHs have been: Lee Lacy, Rick Monday, Vic Davalillo, Dave Anderson, Mike Davis, and Danny Heep.

44 So Bedard, one of the best pitchers in the game btw, would not be a better bet to get a lineup full of good hitters out over Loaiza? I am trying not to laugh.

Who is the class of the NL right now? Is it still the Mets?

I'm probably biased towards thinking the Dodgers are better than they are (I tend to be wrong about the Dodgers--I'm still trying to figure out how we've not won the West each of the past 4 seasons), but I don't really see anyone that is clearly better.

"Dave Anderson, Mike Davis, and Danny Heep."

That's sort of like hitting yourself over the head with a sledgehammer. Good thing we won the series anyway.

64 - I'd rather blow past the Jones' than just try to keep up with them. Let's build a team that can dominate the NL and then go from there.

If the Dodgers have the best team in the NL, then there is, in my mind, an even chance that they win the World Series - depending on the match up, of course.

70 - "I'm still trying to figure out how we've not won the West each of the past 4 seasons"

Answer: Peavy, Jake.

58
I would expect that Xiefrank realizes the cost for Bedard is Kemp and doesn't want to pay the price.

We have enough prospect talent that we should be able to get Bedard by letting the Orioles have Broxton and then pick through LaRoche, Meloan, Hu, Abreu, McDonald, Elbert, D Young on one level and Dewitt, Bell, DeJesus, Paul on another level.

If not, the answer has to be no. You cannot fill the hole you create in the offense by trading Kemp, and we just cannot trade Kershaw. We can't do it.

The idea that Broxton is untouchable is laughable to me. Heck Smiling Sammy should be the one on the block. Wonder what Melvin would give up for him?

The NL DHs, but ignore the Brewers who are listed who got in because they switched leagues.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/shareit/uFhE

69 Laugh all you want. You're misrepresenting my statement.

Sure, Bedard would be a better bet. But he's not guaranteed to win any World Series games, and Loaiza is not guaranteed to lose any. And given the tiny sample size that a World Series game represents, the advantage that Bedard has over a Loaiza or whoever may not even manifest itself in that particular game.

I'm making these numbers up, but let's say that Bedard has a 58% chance to win a World Series game, while Loaiza has a 40% chance to win one. Is that 18% chance, in one game, worth Matt Kemp?

68 Dave Anderson, Mike Davis, and Danny Heep

The Stuntmen!

69 - You're saying "better bet," but Eric is saying "guarantee." That's the difference.

66 Ummm.. Boston this year. St. Louis last year. The White Sox the year before that. Boston the year before that. When has having a good staff backfired? The Mets would love to believe you, but everyone knows you need pitching.

76 - The point is you don't pursue Erik Bedard to win a WS game - you pursue him to get you to the WS. And the question is, how much will getting him help you vs. what you give up to get him hurts you?

79 - St. Louis had a good staff last year? St. Louis' run was keyed in large part by Jeff Weaver getting hot at the right time.

No one's saying that having a good staff is a bad thing.

76
To my point earlier, I don't think we're comparing Bedard to Loaiza come playoff time. It would take a disaster for Loiza to be our best option in the playoffs, and if that happens, we won't be in the playoffs.

79

Dodgers 2003!

79
This probably goes without saying, but nearly all teams that make it to the World Series have a "good staff."

Winning pitchers for the Cardinals in the 2006 postseason
NLDS:
Chris Carpenter 2, Jeff Weaver
NLCS:
Josh Kinney, Jeff Suppan, Jeff Weaver, Randy Flores
WS:
Anthony Reyes, Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright, Jeff Weaver

Is anyone else praying that these Lincecum for Alex Rios rumors are true? That would be a horrible deal for the Gnats, I believe.

86 - Someone compared it to P4D.

79. St. Louis's staff last year was not apreciably better than the expected Dodger's staff year without Bedard.

520. from last post. You're quite welcome, Gen3Blue.

86 I can't figure out why the Jays would do this. They were in the bottom half of the AL in runs last year and didn't get much out of Lind or Reed Johnson. Is this Travis Snider kid ready?

86
The Giants lineup is pretty putrid and old. Rios will be 27 in 2008, has produced OPS+ of 120 & 122 the last two seasons, and is one of the best RF defensively according to Dewan's +/- system (+29 from 2005-2007, second only to Kearns in RF). Factor in the cavernous RF in SF and it's Rios is a good fit.

Granted, Lincecum looks like he could be great, but I think this is a fair trade for SF.

86 - I hope the Giants do it then they can sign Kyle Lohse to cover the hole in the rotation Lincecum leaves. But apart of me still longs for the Kershaw Vs. Licecum game.

The Giants acquiring Rios would ruin my dream of every starting Giants' position player to be below average offensively.

92 - Kershaw VS Cain works for me as long as we don't have to face Lincecum and his whirling dervish delivery follwed by a 98 mph fastball 5-6 times a year for the next 10 years.

91
Sounds like a decent trade, but wouldn't it be the same as us trading Kemp for Bedard? Where would Toronto make up the offense? Snider is going to be great but it won't be in 2008.

79 "When has having a good staff backfired?"

Detroit 2006. And lots of other times. If you want to talk LCS, then Cleveland 2007.

Look, nobody's saying not to compile a good pitching staff. But you should compile a good pitching staff because it will help you win during the regular season and GET to the World Series. Not because it's guaranteed to win you the World Series once you get there.

You seem to be doing everything possible to misunderstand the point. Yes, you can name lots of teams with good pitching staffs that won the World Series. That's because most teams that have won the World Series have had good pitching staffs. Thing is, most teams that have LOST the World Series have had good pitching staffs too. A good pitching staff is just a hallmark of good teams. But once you get to a short series, sample size often rears its head, and good pitchers can fail, or simply be out-pitched by better pitchers. Good starters are a nice thing to have in the World Series, but they aren't a miracle cure-all, any more than good hitters or a good defense or whatever.

Another thing is that it's often impossible to predict WHICH pitcher(s) will have dominant postseason series and win it for you singlehandedly. Sure, Schilling and Johnson were predictable, and so was Hershiser. But do you think people in 1955 were after Johnny Podres because they knew he'd be a World Series ace? Or Larry Sherry in 1959? Or Moe Drabowsky in 1966? Or the previously mediocre Josh Beckett in 2003? Derek Lowe in 2004?

Maybe the St.Louis staff wasnt comparable, but they dont get that chance to win it all without Chris Carpenter.

<