Am I the only one that would like to see a Tampa vs. Cubs WS?

**HoustonGM** · 10-04-2008, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by justanewguy

Right. But so far, the Dodgers definitely do not look like the worst team in the playoffs.

2 games in, the Pirates could "not look like the worst team in the playoffs." I agree that they don't, but two games is irrelevant to an overall evaluation of the teams.

On paper, I'd agree somewhat with this, but I'd probably place the Dodgers higher. Probably fifth, above the Phillies. The Dodgers have better pitching and a better all around lineup than the Phillies.

The Dodgers have better starting pitching, but I'd say the bullpens are a push. I'd also say that the Phillies have a better lineup. Howard and Utley are miles ahead of Loney and Dewitt. I'd put Rollins slightly ahead of Furcal, and Blake ahead of Feliz. In the outfield, the Dodgers have a clear advantage in left, and I'd say Kemp and Victorino are pushes, with Ethier being slightly better than Werth. And the Dodgers have the clear advantage at catcher. I'd say the Dodgers are better at C, 3B, LF, and RF, with the Phillies being better at 1B, 2B, and SS, with a push in center. The huge advantage that the Phillies have at first and second though put them over the top in my opinion.

But within a few weeks, we'll see who the "best team" is.

And that's the fallacy that comes about with the playoffs. The best team does not always win. In fact, I'd venture to say that the best team rarely wins. It's the team that played best in October.

**5DiMaggio** · 10-04-2008, 02:52 PM

The Dodgers are a completely different team with Furcal in the lineup. He is their jump starter and gets the offense going.

I say they win the WS

**justanewguy** · 10-04-2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The Dodgers have better starting pitching, but I'd say the bullpens are a push. I'd also say that the Phillies have a better lineup. Howard and Utley are miles ahead of Loney and Dewitt. I'd put Rollins slightly ahead of Furcal, and Blake ahead of Feliz. In the outfield, the Dodgers have a clear advantage in left, and I'd say Kemp and Victorino are pushes, with Ethier being slightly better than Werth. And the Dodgers have the clear advantage at catcher. I'd say the Dodgers are better at C, 3B, LF, and RF, with the Phillies being better at 1B, 2B, and SS, with a push in center. The huge advantage that the Phillies have at first and second though put them over the top in my opinion.

Defense included, is Howard really THAT much better than Loney? Loney's numbers look pedestrian in 2008, but quite frankly, he had a piss poor season. He's certainly better than a sub-100 OPS+ guy, though that's how his numbers added up.

I'd put Furcal and Rollins totally even. I'd put Kemp above Victorino, slightly, and I'd say Ethier is MUCH better than Werth.

With Kuo, the Dodgers have a better bullpen. Without him they're even. However, if you consider the playoff roster bullpens, the Dodgers are better on account of Maddux and Kershaw.

We also haven't even gotten into the Dodger bench... Pierre, Kent and Nomar. That's almost ridiculous.

And that's the fallacy that comes about with the playoffs. The best team does not always win. In fact, I'd venture to say that the best team rarely wins. It's the team that played best in October.

Well, everything we're saying is rather moot. It doesn't matter who says which team is better and for what reasons... the system in place is what it is, and we have to accept that the WS winner is the champion. All other 29 teams are essentially losers, no matter what names are on the roster and what numbers they've put up.

Originally Posted by 5DiMaggio

The Dodgers are a completely different team with Furcal in the lineup. He is their jump starter and gets the offense going.

He has nearly as big an impact as Manny has. I'm surprised (very, very pleasantly) that he's been able to play good baseball after the injury. A healthy and effective Furcal just might put the Dodgers over the top.

I say they win the WS

I wouldn't go that far just yet... there's a lot of good teams out there, and there's still one game to win against a very good Cubs team. I do like their chances though. If they keep up what they've been doing, they have as good a chance as anyone.

**Swampdog** · 10-04-2008, 08:04 PM

This illustrates the problem of telling any fan the truth about his team. No Dodger fan wants to believe his team is not great, despite all evidence to the contrary. The Dodgers would quite likely be watching the postseason if they weren't in the weakest division in baseball. I dont like or dislike the Dodgers. They are simply just a notch above mediocre.
They won TWO games. Wow. That surely qualifies them as...something. As I stated before, if, by some miracle, they win the WS, they will be among the weakest teams ever to achieve that. But they got in, and they have a chance. Thats what matters.

**justanewguy** · 10-04-2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Swampdog

This illustrates the problem of telling any fan the truth about his team. No Dodger fan wants to believe his team is not great...

I never said they were "great." I was simply arguing against the notion that they're the worst team in the playoffs.

By the way, being a fan of a team doesn't disqualify you from being able to say positive things about them, and doesn't automatically invalidate any claims you make. My being a Dodger fan has little to no impact on how I assess the team.

...despite all evidence to the contrary.

Such as? Run differentials that barely take into account Manny Ramirez, Rafael Furcal, or Casey Blake? W/L records that reflect a heap of injuries and inconsistent play? Surprise, surprise... a team that lost its starting CF, 3B, SS and ace starter didn't manage to reach 90 wins.

Perhaps you also have some numbers I haven't seen that show the Dodgers pitching isn't among the elite staffs in the majors?

I'm just saying: 1) there's no "evidence" that the team currently in question is "the worst team in the playoffs" and 2) W/L records and full seasons of stats can mislead you if you don't look beyond them. Especially when they barely apply to a team which has completely overhauled its personnel.

The Dodgers would quite likely be watching the postseason if they weren't in the weakest division in baseball.

True.

I dont like or dislike the Dodgers. They are simply just a notch above mediocre.

It's your opinion, but it's grounded in irrelevant information.

They won TWO games. Wow. That surely qualifies them as...something.

If they win 10 do they still get to be discredited?

As I stated before, if, by some miracle, they win the WS,

Is that not laying it on a little thick? You basically accuse me of being a homer, but you're stating it'd take a "miracle" for them to win it all. See above, I said in reply to someone else that I wouldn't go as far as to say they'll win the WS just yet. But somehow I am the one being unrealistic...

they will be among the weakest teams ever to achieve that.

Wrong. They'll be among the least-winning teams during a regular season to achieve that.

**ohms_law** · 10-04-2008, 10:08 PM

The thing is, there are always numerous ways to rationalize the fact that the teams that win in October are "the best team". Houston is correct though, in that they rarely are. There is an extreme amount of luck involved in the playoffs.

In the end, the winner of the World Series is the luckiest team among the qualifiers. The main component to the MLB playoffs is that only four teams qualify (which, incidentally, is where most of the criticism about the wild card comes from).
In the end though, this is a very philosophical question. The World Series winner is just that: the winner. It's not about who the "best team" is, it's about who the Champion will be.

**DarthJaker** · 10-04-2008, 10:51 PM

I said Phillies-Angels in the WS and im sticking to it!

**justanewguy** · 10-05-2008, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by ohms_law

The thing is, there are always numerous ways to rationalize the fact that the teams that win in October are "the best team". Houston is correct though, in that they rarely are. There is an extreme amount of luck involved in the playoffs.

I think it's a little more common than "rarely."

Recent examples of the "best team" actually winning the WS:

2007 Red Sox
2005 White Sox
2004 Red Sox (this one is arguable, but the case can be made)
2002 Angels
2001 Diamondbacks (also very arguable, but I think the Mariners overachieved)
1999 Yankees
1998 Yankees
1997 Marlins

This is not by W/L record alone, although the lowest win total on that list is 92. It's more of a (rough) assessment of W/L AND what kind of team was being fielded on paper.

In the end, the winner of the World Series is the luckiest team among the qualifiers.

While I agree that luck is indeed a huge factor in how the playoffs play out, I couldn't disagree more that luck is the primary component. Last year's "lucky" team got the crap knocked out of them by the best team the second they stepped into the WS.

The AL has dominated baseball for quite some time now. It's not because of luck, it's because they have better teams.

The main component to the MLB playoffs is that only four teams qualify (which, incidentally, is where most of the criticism about the wild card comes from).
In the end though, this is a very philosophical question. The World Series winner is just that: the winner. It's not about who the "best team" is, it's about who the Champion will be.

It is philosophical... but the "best team" or "worst team" thing is meaningless in the playoffs. They play for the right to get in; then they play for being crowned the champion.

I agree with what HGM said, that the champion will end up being whoever played best in October. Luck, again, is a factor. But I think, more often than not, the best teams tend to be of high enough quality to survive the playoffs, and tend to be CONSISTENT teams which can win in October as well as April, June or September.

**RedsoxRockies** · 10-05-2008, 11:42 AM

CUBS LOST!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

**ohms_law** · 10-06-2008, 01:19 AM

I agree with what HGM said, that the champion will end up being whoever played best in October.

Yup, luckiest... which is really a misnomer, which is probably where the "disagreement" is coming from.

Technically, it's not "luck" at all... it's variation and the simple fact that the percentages are always so close that events can easily go either way during any single game. Case in point, tonights Angels - Red Sox game.