The Dodgers Are the New Cubs
Over the weekend, the Rockies came to LA to show everyone that the NL West was really going to be a fight, that this wasn’t just the Dodgers’ division to run away with. At 47-28, the Rockies were just behind the 48-26 Dodgers, and with a successful weekend in LA, they could even retake the division lead.
It didn’t go well. They Dodgers won 6-1 on Friday, 4-0 on Saturday, and 12-6 on Sunday, outscoring the Rockies 22-7 on the weekend. The Rockies are now 4.5 games back in the NL West race. Their chances of winning the division, which we had at 9.0% on June 20th, are now 1.3% on June 26th. And it’s not like the Rockies have fallen apart; the Dodgers are just proving to be an absolute behemoth.
LA’s sweep of Colorado pushed their current win streak to 10 games. Prior to losing a game against Cleveland on June 15th, they’d won six straight, so they’ve now taken 16 of their last 17 contests. They’re just a game behind the Astros for the best record in baseball, and right now, they look like the 2017 version of what the Cubs were last year.
Despite lacking a classic superstar slugger, this team can really hit. Their position players have combined for a 117 wRC+, third best in baseball, led by Cody Bellinger, Corey Seager, and Justin Turner. A rookie, a shortstop, and a third baseman with five home runs might not be your normal middle of the order, but these three have combined to hit .317/.405/.575 this year, good for a 158 wRC+ between them. Over the last two weeks, when the team has been basically unbeatable, those three have hit .393/.475/.807, good for a 229 wRC+. Right now, the middle of the Dodgers’ batting order is basically hitting like Peak Babe Ruth.
But what really makes the Dodgers offense scary is their depth. Their less-good regular hitters — Yasmani Grandal, Joc Pederson, and Yasiel Puig — are all above-average hitters, and then they’ve gotten high-end production from role players like Austin Barnes (144 wRC+), Kiké Hernandez (113 wRC+), and Chris Taylor (133 wRC+). They have so many guys worth playing that notable offseason acquisition Logan Forsythe has been turned into something of a utility player, as they don’t have the at-bats to give one of the better-hitting second baseman in baseball a full-time job at the position.
Guys like Barnes and Taylor will inevitably cool off, and even Bellinger isn’t going to keep hitting bombs at this rate, but this is a really good offensive team, and if they upgrade over Adrian Gonzalez at first base before the trade deadline — which they could do by acquiring a first baseman or outfielder, given Bellinger’s flexibility — it might be the best offense in baseball.
Unlike the Astros and Nationals, the other two teams hitting at this level, the Dodgers aren’t really sacrificing defense to get elite bats in the lineup. They currently rank 12th in UZR and 7th in DRS, and that’s despite experimenting with guys like Bellinger and Taylor in center field at times. The Dodgers aren’t the best defensive team in baseball, but they’re probably the best defensive group of the teams that can really hit. So, naturally, they currently lead MLB in position player WAR (+16.2).
And then there’s the pitching. Clayton Kershaw has already set a career-high with 17 home runs allowed, Rich Hill has thrown 40 low-quality innings while struggling with blisters and command issues, Julio Urias struggled before they found out his shoulder was shot, Kenta Maeda lost his rotation spot, and Hyun-Jin Ryu is giving up nearly two home runs per nine innings pitched… and yet they still lead the majors in pitching WAR (+12.7). There’s an incredible disconnect between their overall results and the number of things that have gone wrong for LA’s pitching staff; if I read you the list of issues their pitchers have faced in the first half, you’d probably think it was the collective reason the team was playing .500 ball.
(Photo: Arturo Pardavila III)
But regardless of what kind of pitching metric you use, Dodgers pitchers have been near the top of the league this season. Alex Wood’s revitalization has helped a lot, and Brandon McCarthy has stabilized the back end of the rotation even as everyone else has struggled, while Kenley Jansen is currently having one of the great relief seasons of all time. Again, the team’s decision to stockpile depth has paid off, as they’re getting carried by some unexpected pitchers while many of the team’s best arms from last year struggle.
This is the truly scary part of the Dodgers current run; there still looks to be significant room for improvement. They’ve won 16 of 17 during a stretch in which Kershaw has allowed six homers in 26 innings pitched and has allowed a higher wOBA than Dinelson Lamet. During this run, Rich Hill has a 5.79 ERA, while opposing batters are hitting .328/.377/.684 off Ryu.
The Dodgers are steamrolling the National League while their rotation is struggling, and based on track record, these guys probably won’t keep struggling. Or if they do, they’ll get replaced by one of the hundred other arms the team has floating around. And, again, they could easily make a midseason trade, perhaps swapping Ryu’s cheap controllable years for someone who offered a bit more short-term stability.
Because it’s baseball, no one is ever unbeatable. The Dodgers will have to go through several other excellent teams in the postseason just to get to the World Series, and there is still plenty of time for things to go wrong in the second half of the season.
But right now, the Dodgers look about as formidable as baseball teams get. They hit, they field, they pitch, they have depth behind their stars, and they have a loaded farm system capable of facilitating talent acquisitions at the deadline if they choose to load up even more for a postseason run.
No team is ever perfect. The Dodgers have their flaws. But this team is really good at basically everything. They’re talented, young, deep, and have the closest thing to unlimited resources in baseball. Best of luck to the NL teams who have to take on this juggernaut for years to come. The Dodgers have reached the point where they aren’t just good; they’re scary.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
This narrative has been around ever since the new ownership group take over. They’ve won four straight divisional titles. The Dodgers are the new nothing, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past four years.
The Dodgers have not had the best record in baseball since new ownership, and they currently have the best Baseruns and run differential. They will have to finish only 44-41 to exceed the best record they have had since new ownership.
I think the narrative you’re thinking of has more to do with the general situation of the team. Their money in combination with the strength of their farm (which has a lot to do with their money) and their “brain-trust” front office (used elsewhere disparagingly but here endearingly) causes people to remark that the Dodgers “will be” tough for the foreseeable future, but to this point their present team has never looked as strong as it does now.
I actually think at some point in 2012 the Dodgers had the best record. That team over achieved the first 2 1/2 months of the season
Weren’t the Dodgers tops in player WAR last year… or something like that?
Hey, I disagree with this comment too but that’s a lot of downvotes. A little surprised by the uniformity of the response.
I think it’s the tone of the last sentence.
Not surprising when they have basically an unlimited payroll.
The large payroll was a means to an end when the ownership team took over. They needed to field a good team right away and did it with a huge payroll. But had frequently said that wasnt going to always be the direction of the team. Now many of those high payroll players they have arent even contributing and they are just waiting for those contracts to expire. Look at the list of players listed above. Very few of them are top earners in the league and many are still making league minimum or close to it.
The dodgers have always prioritized keeping prospects, but they have been able to do so because of the payroll. They have traded overpriced veterans while eating their contracts to get back better prospects. They have bought players in Free Agency instead of spending prospects to trade for them.
Just because they have a lot of production from cheap, young players who came up through the system, doesn’t mean that those players aren’t an indirect result of the massive payroll.
“They have traded overpriced veterans while eating their contracts to get back better prospects.”
Not sure what you’re talking about. The Dodgers traded Kemp to San Diego, but the main return was Grandal, who was already a productive MLB player. The Dodgers also traded Olivera to Atlanta, but the main return was Wood, who was already a productive MLB player. The Dodgers released Crawford. What are you talking about?
“They have bought players in Free Agency instead of spending prospects to trade for them.”
Again, not sure who you’re talking about. The only notable current Dodgers acquired via FA are McCarthy and Hill, and the Dodgers did trade prospects for Hill before they re-signed him. Unless you are talking about Turner, but he was signed to a minor-league contract after he was non-tendered… The last major transaction the Dodgers made was trading a prospect (DeLeon) for a veteran (Forsythe).
“Just because they have a lot of production from cheap, young players who came up through the system, doesn’t mean that those players aren’t an indirect result of the massive payroll.”
Actually, they are result of excellent scouting, drafting and development. The 2017 Dodgers’ best players are Kershaw (drafted), Bellinger (drafted), Seager (drafted), and Jansen (signed from IFA).
Ac couple of the examples you use: Kershaw, McCarthy, Hill, Turner, Jansen. You seem to be arguing that the Dodgers are successful because of drafting & developing, not their (enormous) payroll.
The contracts for these 5 players that you cite amount to $455 Million in total value, with an AAV of $91 Million. That’s 5 players, with a salary above 5 different MLB teams. This is without even talking about the dead money, etc. that is talked about above, or the rest of the team for that matter.
The Dodgers are a smart team, no doubt. But come on. Give them an average payroll and they fall back into the pack with everyone else.
Seager, Bellinger, Joc, Kershaw and Kenley are a good start for basically free players. Not to mention Matt Kemp who they also developed. They have traded away some prospects as well.
Justin Turner and Rich Hill hardly were huge signings. The Dodgers are great at drafting and developing talent.
I think its a fair point. Turner and Jansen are two of their critical contributors, and though they weren’t massive $200 million deals, other teams may have felt unable to sign both, while the Dodgers could do it despite AGon, Crawford, Kazmir, and the various dead money. And then there’s Kershaw, who is far from dead money, but who is also the highest-paid player in baseball right now just looking at 2017 salary (unless I’m forgetting someone).
Most of the key contributors to this team are cost controlled:
Seager (pre arb)
Bellinger (rookie)
Taylor (pre arb)
Pederson (arb next year)
Grandal (one more arb year)
Wood
Most all of the bullpen
Many of the higher paid players are homegrown or developed into stars with the organization:
Kershaw
Jansen
Turner (signed as a utility player, now a star)
Only the pitching depth has really been built via spending in FA at this point (hill, mccarthy, maeda, etc )
Gonzalez isn’t relevant to this team and is the last over spent contract from somewhere else sitting on the roster.
Most of the people driving that payroll number aren’t active with the team at this point and may never play again (gonzalez, ethier, they’re still paying Crawford).
The key cost-controlled contributors are a downstream effect of previous high payrolls.
Case in point, Alex Wood. They got him from the Braves in large part by eating most of Hector Olivera’s contract.
If we’re going to be fair then we should point out that they didn’t eat any of Olivera’s contract. What you’re referring to was the signing bonus that was paid out. They were able to get Wood because Coppy felt he needed an offensive plug and he also recieved some intriguing arms. It’s a faulty narrative to believe the Dodgers ate part of his contract, because it’s simply not true.
people downvoting CJ’s comment should be aware that what he’s saying is true
about half of the spend on olivera was his signing bonus, which the dodgers did pay most of, so it’s fair to point that out
but the braves actually sent money to the dodgers in that trade, not the other way around
https://www.talkingchop.com/2015/8/3/9083463/financial-side-of-the-hector-olivera-trade-braves-dodgers
saying the dodgers at “most” of olivera’s contract is just incorrect. even including the bonus, it was less than half, about $20 million out of 60
“The key cost-controlled contributors are a downstream effect of previous high payrolls.”
no idea why this has so many upvotes – as a blanket statement it’s just flat wrong
probably the two most important cost-controlled dodgers are seager and bellinger, who are just straight up draftees. so is joc
alex wood is probably the third most important. it’s fair to call him somewhat of a downstream effect, with the olivera stuff, although the braves did actively want olivera and took on a lot of his money
grandal is similar w/r/t kemp. still can’t quite believe that one happened
so those two, ok, although both trades were good enough that they seem more complicated than “high payroll -> ??? -> profit”
but then all of the others mentioned – the drafted guys, and then – chris taylor, keekay and barnes were all picked up in small or otherwise non-financially-driven deals. most of the non-jansen bullpen is homegrown or from the scrap heap. they signed toles out of a grocery store. etc
“The key cost-controlled contributors are a downstream effect of previous high payrolls.”
Teams with low payrolls are forced to trade off some prospects when going all in on contending. The Dodgers instead could invest, pre-season, a bunch of money into huge numbers of injury-prone pitchers with a decent chance that at least a few of them would be healthy and contributing … and thus keep all of their premium prospects. They could also re-sign *all* of their free agents. They could also absorb financial mistakes that would sink smaller payrolls (Carl Crawford), yawn, and eat the dead money instead of having to include cheap good assets to get rid of the albatross or waste the roster spot.
Yes, drafting well and a few good trades were handy, but payrolls definitely mattered.
ok, a lot of this is reasonably true, sure, but i still don’t think that makes it even vaguely accurate to say, in effect, “the dodgers only have corey seager because of their huge payroll”. small market teams don’t trade their seager or bellinger level prospects either, no one does.
and if they didn’t have functionally unlimited money they wouldn’t have taken on crawford’s deal in the first place. he’d already tanked when they acquired him; they didn’t SIGN him to that deal, boston did. perhaps this is still exasperating behavior for small-market fans to observe, but it’s not true that the small-market dodgers would have had to trade all their good prospects to get rid of crawford, they just never would have had him.
not that they haven’t signed any bad contracts – obviously they have, ethier, etc – but that’s a bad example. and throughout, having the budget they had changed the decisions they made.
i’m certainly not arguing that a large payroll doesn’t confer plenty of advantages. i made a lot of these same arguments as a red sox fan dealing with the late-90s “homegrown” yankee dynasty. but to say that all of their cost-controlled players are only due to money is just way too broad.
Now, to be fair,
Carl Crawford, Salary=$21,857,142
Alexander Guerrero, Salary=$7,500,000
Matt Kemp, Salary=$3,750,000
Hector Olivera=$4,666,666
and lets not start with the trades of this “brain trust”, Logan Forsythe anybody?
Speaking of trades by the brain trust:
Kemp – gave up only him and a non-prospect catcher for Yasmani Grandal, a critical piece of this current team. Actually saved money on the deal despite paying part of Kemp’s deal.
Olivera – In one of the most lopsided deals I have ever seen, they traded a player acquired with money only for Latos and Johnson for the stretch run, oh and also Alex Wood, Luis Avilan, and Jose Peraza, the latter of which helped seed the Rich Hill trade.
they were trying to “sell low” on Wood a couple years ago, so really can’t take any credit for that one. Also, they had him as their 6th man to start the year. BTW he is the best pitcher in baseball right now, good job brain trust. Lets hear about that Dee Gordon trade too. Matt Kemp could be their 4th outfielder right now, that would have saved $, if that was their goal, but it is not. Oh yeah how did Reddick work out for you guys last year? and are you actually happy to have Rich Hill in your starting rotation? and everyone *loves* Grandal on this site but with actual baseball GMs the feeling is not the same.
They were happy to have hill last year which is all the trade bought: they were up 2-1 on the cubs after his start, remember?
Yasmani Grandal is at 1.9 war on fangraphs which doesn’t include framing. Matt Kemp is at 1.0. WARP at BP which includes framing has Grandal at 2.5 already.
Matt Kemp is a league average DH who is a huge negative defensively at any position.
Only you would rather have Keke Hernandez as your 4th outfielder/Pinch Hitter over Matt Kemp. Go check the RBI leader board past couple seasons…and those were on “bad” teams.
Pay Matt Kemp 21 million to be your fourth outfielder and lose one of the best catchers in baseball or pay Kike 500k. Gee tough decision
Dodgers brass has made SEVERAL horrible trades. Even Schebler would be a way better 4th outfielder/pinch hit option. They traded Jose Peraza, who could be your 2nd baseman, and Schebler, who could be your 4th outfielder, both of which would be upgrades over the current incumbent, for Trayce freaking Thompson! LOLOLOLOL
As soon as Kemp can play SS, you’re welcome to compare them.
RBI? Really?
Kike Hernandez has started at every position except catcher this year and has been worth 0.9 WAR to Kemp 1.0 in 80 less plate appearances.
Kike is a cheaper, more versatile and better player than present day Matt Kemp.
“Kike is a…better player than present day Matt Kemp.”
KiKi 2016 OPS+=64
Kemp 2016 OPS+=126
I don’t even know why I am responding, but you see how the one number is way bigger than the other one. A lot bigger it is almost doubled.
So you refute the “present day” argument with 2016 stats? Isn’t that a bit of a disconnect?
less than one half of season of “preferred pitching match-up starts” for Keke vs “everyday play no matter who is pitching” for Kemp means “present day?” IDK, that would be a disconnect in playing time and offensive stats IMO.
So 2016 is present day. Got it.
“present day” means the first 2.5 months of the current season?? ok sure. or perhaps lets make it literally present day, June, 27,2017. what do you mean?
Hey Fan, I think you made a gaff.
Its 2017, not 2016!
In regards to Hill, anyone can have one half of a great season…Charlie Morton anyone? Doesn’t mean you give up 3 “live arms” for him.
The Dee Gordon trade? The one that got the Dodgers Kike Hernandez, Austin Barnes and Chris Hatcher. Yea 3 valuable players are better than one 2nd basemen with a 86 RC.
… …(smh)Dee Gordon won a freaking batting title…in Miami…LOLOLOLOLOL. runs created OMG what a stat to quote with a lead-off/speed guy in Miami no less, LOLOLOL. you can’t make this stuff up.
Plug those three into a starting line up all year and we’ll see how well they do..
Dee Gordon is an awful baseball player who won a meaningless title due to a skill that erodes faster with age and a lot of food luck.
I am so glad he is not a Dodger.
And I’m sure you’re glad Forsthye is a Dodger batting .200. Well if he is “awful” then DJ LeMahieu, Javy Baez, Brain Dozier, Brandon Drury, Ben Zobrist, Dustin Pedrioa, Devon Travis are “awfully” worse.
you said it not me.
Dee Gordon won a batting title in a year he batted .333 with an OBP of .359. One of only two years in his career that his wRC+ was above average (114 that year, 102 the year before).
Oh and let’s not forget the part where he received an 80-game suspension and postseason ban for performance-enhancing drugs.
right…OBP of .359…with almost 60 stolen bases. do you see the value in that? Way better than Forsythe will ever be or Utley numbers in the past 5 years.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=2b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0
The Dodgers have a 104 WRC+ from people playing 2b.
The Marlins have a 74 wRC+ from second basemen.
I think I would gladly take the first group.
Dee Gordon is an overwhelmingly overrated baseball player. In fact, Chris Taylor and Kike Hernandez have been worth a combined 6.4 baserunning runs above average. Dee Gordon? 6.0
Kike Hernandez has 27 extra base hits this year. Dee Gordon has 15. Gordon has double the number of PAs.
yea Chris Taylor, just like Trayce Thompson. so great for such a long period of time. Oh wait, it was the exact opposite.
you could put Keke in Colorado he wont even bat .260. do you know how hard it is to win a NL batting title in any other place besides Colorado? Much less Miami.
I honestly have to believe Mr. Gaff was/is trolling, because there was so many terrible arguments there.
Yeah I’ve been extremely happy with trades and the direction made. Grandal was a win, Taylor was a win, Dayton was a win, Hill was a win last year (and they traded questionable arms who had fallen so far down the depth chart it was unrealistic to think they’d get an opportunity.), the Dee Gordon trade is not really that bad of a trade when you understand that Kikè and Barnes have provided this team with a lot of value. We shall never know but in a vacuum would I rather have Gordon at 10M and Kemp at 19M, which is major money to be allocated, or Jansen and Turner. In a resounding response I’d take Jansen and Turner.
Let’s also remember that Kemp had no interest and stated such in moving to LF while he was a Dodger not really sure he’d be ok with being a 4th OF. It’s about winning yes, but the ability to substain winning.
The last player the Dodgers acquired because they have more money than other teams was Zack Greinke, who isn’t even on the team anymore and who the Dodgers could have re-signed but didn’t because he was too expensive. The Dodgers’ best players this season are either draftees of the Dodgers (Seager, Bellinger, Kershaw), international signees who have been with the Dodgers their whole careers (Jansen, Puig), players who the Dodgers acquired in relatively low-profile trades (Taylor, Wood), Grandal).
How much of their core did they draft and develop?
At this point the Dodgers have nothing left to prove in the regular season. It really is postseason success or bust given their huge institutional advantage.
Under what condition does a team have something to prove in the regular season?
If the Dodgers win the postseason, what would that prove?
I guess it would prove that they can win the postseason. Seems relevant.
Like Hell. The postseason is just a small sample size crapshoot.
The Dodgers do not have to prove they can win in the postseason. Obviously they can.
At most it would “prove” that they DID win. But I guess the resident contrarians like these games where they pretend not to understand verb tenses indicating potentialities.
You seriously think that Kershaw/Jansen/Gonzalez/Turner think ‘I don’t have anything to prove in the postseason’? Seriously?
Every player on every team without exception wants to win in the postseason. Do you think Posey/Bumgarner/Cain/Belt don’t want to win in the postseason? Seriously?
As we’ve been saying for quite a while now, it doesn’t help anything just to keep huffing that phrase angrily, because the problem is what construction you put on it. If you think, as I do, that “have something to prove in the postseason” means “would very much like to win baseball games in the postseason,” sure. And I’m sure the athletes would assent to that reading as well. The problem comes when we — as you seem to want to do — take this empty cliché phrase as license for presuming some analytical difference between postseason ability and the ability to win any other kind of baseball game.
#freeaustinbarnes
Barnes gets no love. Him alone makes the dee gordon trade worth it
Also about 1 war of relief from hatcher and avilan
Avilan was part of the trade where the Dodgers got Alex Wood and Jose Peraza for a can of beans.
Thats right!
Counterpoint: Jansen walked a historic number of batters yesterday, so he sucks. The greatest single-day drop in K/BB this late in the season, of all time!
Technically, no, since his prior K/BB was undefined. (Someone had to say it.)
no… it was defined… it was infinite, which I think we would all agree is a large number
going from infinite to finite is the biggest possible drop in the whole framework of mathematics.
You are mistaken. Look it up. Dividing by zero has no meaning. It is undefined.
That’s no fun.
While it’s hard to find fault with anything Dave writes here–the Dodgers are clearly a juggernaut–I do wonder about the line about not having a classic superstar slugger. I know he’s a rookie, but Cody Bellinger certainly fits that mold well. And Kike Hernandez has been good for a while, just not last year. But I feel like that going into the season, it was pretty clear that that the Dodgers were going to be one of the best teams in the league so this isn’t that surprising.
I think the point is that Bellinger is a rookie who joined a month into the season.
Since they called up Bellinger at 10-12, they’re 42-14, so they’ve played a third of a season at a .750 clip.
I am a Cubs fan who is thrilled they won their title in 2016. Dynasties are tough in baseball, but the Dodgers are going to be the best team in baseball over the next five years.
Citing the payroll is too simple (though it sure helps). They have replaced a mediocre front office with geniuses from Tampa and Oakland who have created a player development machine. After 2018, they have no bad contracts.
Good luck, National League.
Though, if the Dodgers are clearly the best team in the NL now, when at this point last year we would have easily projected the Cubs to be the best in the NL at this time this year… from this time last year… I think that made sense… the point is that if the Cubs are already not a juggernaut, then it shows how easily juggernauts can get worn around the edges; if all of a sudden the Dodgers aren’t that great at this time next year, we shouldn’t be too surprised.
“Once heroes are found to be mortal and subject to failure, they are no longer heroes.”
They also added Alex Anthopolous, which simply seems unfair.
They are really good. But shouldn’t they use their resources to trade for an ace? With hill struggling they don’t have a real number 2 and when they face a not choking nats or hot again cubs in october that would be a risk.
Go ahead and try to find a current rotation with a better top 3 right now than Kershaw/Wood/McCarthy. I’ll wait.
Scherzer/Strasburg/Scherzer
I don’t know that this point is as obvious as you’re making out. When the Dodgers moved from the Kershaw-Greinke-pray-for-rain topheavy rotation model to the Kershaw-and-assorted-gambles odds-playing model, there was probably a certain amount of cost associated with that in terms of certainty of playoff-dominant performance. I think the better point may be how much better this model is at smoothing out the injury odds — they’re not ALL going to get hurt at once, and you can absorb losing an Urias better if you have a Wood coming back strong at the same time.
This is more likely with Urias out for the year imo.
You’re right, Wood is more like another #1 than a #2.
Otherwise, I invite you to look at the recent playoff results of teams that:
1. haven’t had a second ace, or even a first ace
2. have traded for an ace at the deadline
Group 2 has not fared particularly better than group 1.
This is kind of the canonical playoffs-are-a-tiny-sample argument, though, isn’t it? Even supposing at the extreme end that dealing for an ace actually did improve a team’s playoff chances by say 10% or 20%, there’s no way you’d expect that to reliably show up in (whatever definition of “recent” you like) playoff results.
FG just does playoff odds. FiveThirtyEight also projects WS odds and gives the Dodgers a 23% chance today, which is crazy high.
Considering winning the WS is the entire point, I’d argue that the higher your chances the more sense it makes to make sure you don’t spoil that opportunity. You’d rather increase from 23% to 27% than from 4% to 8%, right? Even though one is a greater magnitude, once your odds are that high you have a lot more invested.
The problem is that teams ‘going for it’ often do so when their odds arent that good to begin with. The cubs making the big upgrade to Chapman last year when they were already a strong favorite made sense. The Dodgers doing the same would make sense for the same reason.
Its the teams who can’t even make themselves the favorites paying a premium to upgrade that are (rightly) criticized, see: Nationals.
And who is this mythical #2 theyd acquire? Wood and Mccarthy have been better than any pitcher on the market
Actually, to this point Wood has been better than all starters except Chris Sale. He may or may not outperform Sonny Gray or Jose Quintana going forward but up to this point Wood has been incredible.
If they acquire its due to not trusting Hill and Urias being out. Last year they had a dynamic 1-2 but lost 3 game started by not those two.
They need a 3rd after Kershaw and wood and it’s not clear they have that person anymore.
Kershaw, Wood, and McCarthy is a great 1-2-3 punch, but a fragile group. Wouldn’t pin my hopes on Kazmir or Hill coming to the rescue either. So yeah, if they can acquire a Jose Quintana or Sonny Gray they’d be better, but the Dodgers seem pretty conservative with trading prospects these days and they don’t seem to place that much of a premium on team control of veterans (last year’s trade for Rich Hill and Josh Reddick, for example). You could see them making a play for Trevor Cahill or Jason Vargas, though.
The Dodgers have chosen the depth approach because it’s so hard to find reliable, high-quality pitching, but I imagine that if they found the opportunity to pick up that kind of player they would gladly do so. The idea is that if you put all your eggs in a basket named Greinke and some idiot breaks his collarbone you are really screwed, but if they could pick up a reliable mid-rotation pitcher under a few years of control for an amount that isn’t exorbitant they will probably do so.
Well if you don’t believe in track record that is true. But I’m sceptical until I have seen a little more. His peripherals are good but it is not even half a season and him (and McCarthy) both have an injury history.
Wood could have become an elite pitcher but im not ready to call him one yet.
The cubs last year also paid a big price to make the best team even stronger. Now it does more often than not work out but who knows when the dodgers get a core like this again.
I’m generally against selling the farm but this could be the best core the dodgers get in the next 15 years and getting a long term solution with a cost controlled starter could make sense.
The cost is huge but lets say they trade verdugo,calhoun and a P for archer or quintana, that would give them a cheap solution for the next 3-4 years. Now both have not performed great to date but I tend to but more into track record when talking about a healthy pitcher in their prime who hasn’t lost velo.
I don’t disagree with the premise of your comment except that Archer and Quintana aren’t even close to the same league in trade value right now. Quintana has struggled, but Archer has been a clear #1 so far this year–he’s got about 3 WAR in about 100 innings.
When Dave does his trade value list it will be shocking if Archer isn’t close to the top. Five years of control (with the last two years of control being team options) for a #1/#2 pitcher for only $35 million dollars is insane. For reference, Strasburg got $10 million in his first trip through arbitration. The Rays would require an arm and a leg for him. That extra pitcher you reference would probably have to Buehler or Alvarez, and they’d have to throw in more mid-level prospects too (I don’t know how many, but in the Mitch White/Brock Stewart/Will Smith/Yusniel Diaz/Jordan Sheffield tier).
Personally, I’m a big fan of trading injured but very talented players for win-now pieces if you’re going for it (last year with Schwarber for Miller is the prototype). So if the Rays fall out of contention this year, I would wonder if Urias would work as trade bait for the Rays (although he certainly wouldn’t be the only piece).
If the Astros have a better record than the Dodgers, then why aren’t the Astros the new Cubs? Especially because they’ve been playing without most of their starting rotation for a while.
Astros are not as balanced as Cubs were a year ago. Though I don’t know how a team can be this year’s Cubs when there are two teams projected for 100+ wins. Part of the Cubs from last year was that they were the juggernaut. Astros and Yankees aren’t that far behind in Base Runs.
A few months ago, Dave wrote this article:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/this-is-how-dynasties-begin/
Concluding with these words:
‘But looking at how this Cubs team is structured, there’s a real chance that this was just year one of the kind of dynasty we haven’t seen in baseball since the Yankees owned baseball at the end of the 1990s.’
I wonder how today’s article will read a few months from now.
It will probably read a lot better than basically all of your comments from the past year.
Really? Why don’t you go back and check. A lot of my comments last year were about how the cubs weren’t going to be a dynasty. People seems to have pretty much accepted that now. first time i got into trouble here was when i said it was ridiculous to compare arrieta to kershaw. How does that look now?
Actually a ton of your comments were on semantics and saying the same thing over and over. You also said the Cubs were overrated and that they wouldn’t win in the playoffs…how does that look now? I have no idea if the Cubs will be a dynasty but that’s far from decided at this point.
People were routinely saying that they could rank with the great teams in baseball history, that’s when i said they were overrated. How does that look now? And they were certainly helped a lot by playing the giants (one of the worst records in the majors after the all-star game), the dodgers (who have won one postseason series in the last quarter-century) and the indians (who had 2 of their top 3 starters out with injuries). I didn’t realize their path would be cleared for them like that.
It’s pretty impressive you’re still making excuses for why the Cubs weren’t that good last year. They won 103 games and the World Series, finished 3rd in runs scored (behind an AL team and Colorado), 1st in ERA and one of the greatest defenses ever. You have a really high bar.
Writing an article called ‘This is how dynasties begin’ is setting the bar pretty high, wouldn’t you say? And if the Cubs were so good last year, how do you account for the fact that basically the same team is playing .500 ball through half a season in the weaker league this year?
Uh, the Dodgers have been to the NLCS four times in the past ten years. Not sure where you got the idea that they’ve won one postseason series in the last 25.
its already decided. no pitching, no dynasty.
Whatever you think of JFTG, that particular comment was a valid critique of Dave’s Cubs preview. Projecting a dynasty after one great year was and always will be foolish. The Cubs are struggling now for the very reasons skeptics mentioned at the time — regression by an aging rotation, and lack of progress by less established players. This degree of struggle is a big surprise — no one thought they’d be near .500 — but that they might not be a WS contender is just baseball being baseball.
Wouldn’t write them off. The pitchi ng was going to come down but most of their young hitters are underperforming and the team is running like a 280 babip.
I think they still can hit and should come around at some point,plus their division is bad and they can afford to play a little longer like that and then get hot in august. If they do they are very dangerous.
I’m not writing them off, but dave is by calling the dodgers the new cubs.
Two juggernaut metaphor articles in one day including Alex Chamberlain’s Domingo Santana Piece. Can we have an article about what team is an emerging immovable blob? That way we can get pumped for the collision between the unstoppable juggernaut and the immovable blob of the MLB!
Have to start dreading some naughts as well, to balance out all the juggering.
We’re talking about a team that could finish 3rd in its division.
This whole article should just be about the Dodgers brass screaming “thank goodness we lucked into Alex Wood.”
Did the Dodgers mug your mother or something?
Probably a Rockies fan.
Every good trade they’ve made (Wood for Olivera, Grandal for Kemp, Barnes & Keekay for Gordon, etc) was just luck. It couldn’t possibly be that this FO is skilled at talent evaluation and deal making.
how about that Schebler deal? “skilled at talent evaluation and deal making”
Schebler is doing pretty well right now. But I seriously doubt he will become a star player the Dodgers will regret letting go. This happened with Gordon too. He won a batting title the next year and people thought the Dodgers made a HUGE mistake, but then he turned back into a fast, but ultimately unproductive pumpkin…just like he was before the trade. I expect Schelber to hit bombs and play decent defense, but it won’t be a trade they will ever regret.
The Dodgers are to me best summarized by two old-school stats: JT is hitting .390 and Bellenger has 22 HR.
But the depth is incredible. They had a week a while back where Grandal and Puig carried them.
The top three players in OPS in June in all of baseball, among players with at least 50 plate appearance in the month? Turner. Pederson. Bellinger.
About that “third baseman with five home runs”: This would be the 2nd of Turner’s 4 Dodgers years that he’s hit few homers. Those years were significantly more productive than the years he hit more HRs. In combination:
2014 + 2017 — .361/.434/.518/.952 OPS
2015 + 2016 — .283/.352/.492/.844 OPS
Despite hitting 27 HRs last year, Turner has never gotten great results on fly balls, and I’ll guess he’s realized that HE is better off keeping the ball flat. His LD% was about the same in both pairs, but in the better pair he hit far more grounders than flies (43% GB / 26% FB), while in the others it was 37/31. And his trajectory splits in those better years show how much damage can still be done with line drives and hard grounders.
Not quite 2 weeks ago, the Yankees were 38-23, with a +117 run differential (almost 2 runs per game). Their .674 pythagorean W% would have been #15 of all time, and the best since 1969. They were 19-2 in blowout margins of 5+ runs.
They’ve since gone 3-10, getting outscored 77-56, going 0-3 in blowouts. Everything’s regressed, and injuries have struck.
So, now the Dodgers have a +138 Rdiff and .681 pythag (through Sunday). Forgive me if I don’t try to take their measure when they’re red hot.
The Dodgers are a very good team. But even after whomping Colorado, they’re 10-9 against the 2 division contenders. They’re 19-15 against teams at or above .500, which is fine, but the Yanks are 20-16 there and Toronto’s 27-23. LA is really cleaning up against losing teams, 32-11. There are a lot of bad teams in the NL, so that’s a path to the postseason, but tends to distort a view of team strength.
These talks rarely touch on how the NL as a group is clearly inferior to the AL. The AL’s combined W% in interleague play over the past 12 years is .550, and this year it’s .582. The Dodgers in that span were .546 vs. NL, but .427 vs. AL (88-118). This year they’re 2-1 vs. AL, which means they have 17 games left. Let’s see how they look in some of those series. As I write this, they’ve been stymied through 6 innings by Ricky Nolasco, who came in 2-9 with a 5.23 ERA and an MLB-high 23 HRs allowed.
Do the Dodgers chase another bat? And if so, who? They’ve been linked to Braun throughout the offseason, but with the Brewers in 1st place, you wonder about their willingness to trade him. They’ve tinkered with Utley and Pederson at leadoff, though neither is really an ideal leadoff hitter. It does seem prudent to add another thumper in the event that Bellinger has a second-half swoon, a la Pederson in 2015.
I generally agree with your take, but I’ll also add that if the Braun-to-Dodgers trade hasn’t already happened you would wonder what would change the GM’s minds.