DallasAg 94 said:

---

Ag Natural said:

---

Nobody puts an astericks on the '81 World Series win and that was a shortened season.

---

1994 has an asterisk.

---

Yeah 1994 just has the rotting corpse of the Expos Franchise

I can't stand the Doyers and their ability to essentially pay for a championship, but I'm not going to give them an asterisk. They were a dominant team this year. You can only play the games in front of you, and they took care of business in those.

Quote:

---

their ability to essentially pay for a championship,

---

Everyone has this ability.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

their ability to essentially pay for a championship,

---

Everyone has this ability.

---

Yeah, let's not act like MLB is a level playing field, because it certainly is not. Of the Big 4 professional sports in the US, it is the only one where one team can have 3 times the payroll of another one. Thankfully, it is also a sport where the best teams don't always win, so parity can still exist.

Danny Vermin said:

---

The only asterisk is 2017. Dodgers should actually be champions 2 of the last 4 years.

---

2018?

How many contributors make over $15mm for Dodgers?

How many free agents other than Mookie?

BMX Bandit said:

---

How many contributors make over $15mm for Dodgers?

How many free agents other than Mookie?

---

I'm well aware that the Dodgers are good at identifying/developing talent. Most MLB teams are not able to retain that type of talent due to payroll concerns. They aren't able to go out and get a Mookie Betts via trade in the offseason due to payroll concerns.

There is a reason why the A's, Rays, etc. with good front offices are referred to as the farm system for those with more revenue. Some of those teams have to get rid of players when arb costs start to skyrocket from good production, they are essentially renting the same young talent that they are producing and then have to trade it in for more young talent to develop. It's a vicious cycle that results in those teams not having any ability for sustained success.

Baseball has a lot of luck/momentum involved. That is why people refer to windows as being important, being able to spend exorbitantly on needs/championship pieces is a luxury that others don't have and obviously extends those windows.

BMX Bandit said:

---

The teams with the best records in the short season made the World Series . Do you think they would not have made the playoffs in a 162 game season?

And this playoff was more difficult than in normal years.

Asterisk is such a hot take

---

Remember my Spurs and the **** they got on that 50 win season? **** LA and their tainted whatever it was.

Quote:

---

Yeah, let's not act like MLB is a level playing field, because it certainly is not. Of the Big 4 professional sports in the US, it is the only one where one team can have 3 times the payroll of another one. Thankfully, it is also a sport where the best teams don't always win, so parity can still exist.

---

it all ends up being clutching at pearls because baseball has no desire for this level playing field. Everyone's in on it.

To your credit, perhaps this plays into the sports slow death spiral.

With all of that said, even as an Astros fan -- I may like the Dodgers a bit now. They showed people covid was a joke (my family and myself had it and can attest as well) and for that, I kind of like them. "ohhhh, look at Dave sitting maskless next to Turner... How will the cancer survivor, survive this horrible disease? LOL. As much as I hate these dudes, they nutted up in two aspects: baseball and no ****s given about the covidbros.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Such a great example of how corporate America works. Blind adherence to principles no matter what the moment is saying, the view that everyone is replaceable with no drop in performance, the view that the guy who turns the knob is more valuable than the guy who knows which knob to turn...

---

It's very strange - this "blind adherence" logic is the same one against conventional wisdom in this case. Pitchers are always dealing...until they aren't. You can't go back and take an HR off the board and say "wait, I meant to take him out BEFORE that". Also, that's what principles are - things that DON'T change in the heat of the moment. if they do, they aren't principles. Snell knew from before the game that he wouldn't see the Dodgers third time through the line up.

The question is...what's better going forward at that point in the game? 73+ pitches in facing the 3rd time through...or a "fresh" (it is game 6, after all) reliever from THAT bullpen? In my mind, the Snell yank was more 50/50 (wasn't right or wrong to yank him here), but his choice of reliever was nonsensical. It's very strange that we didn't see Castillo there, but maybe that was the problem Cash had.

Side note, Bellinger kinda told you their mindset for Snell. They were targetting getting him out in the 3rd time through and guessed it would be around the 6th. They knew he was gettable then. The rest of their comments around Snell are just praise for him and excitement they won the WS.

---

Agree. But why is it that the principle is follow the nerd behind the keyboard who did some math 18 months ago rather than the manager on the field in the deciding game of the world series, following a 60 game season, when everybody is about to get months off...? And, if we're gonna be so insistent that the rules cannot allow any variance, where does Betts' 500 point higher OPS against righties figure in, and where does Anderson's 6 game streak of allowing runs figure in?

Hasn't the concept of "buying a championship " been squashed by now? It seems like a vast majority of big money FA signings are bad moves. A few work out sure. And I guess if you have more money you can afford to make mistakes.

The Dodgers have done a great job developing talent and they have many cheap retreads contributing. They paid Mookie and they've paid Kershaw and Jansen. Outside of that they've let guys like Machado, Mieda, Darvish and Ryu walk. Theyve been real stingy with their top prospects as well. That tells me they plan to be very selective on who they keep when they get expensive.

You don't buy a championship through free agency.

You buy a championship by having enough money to make mistakes and can either overpay the lower-end talent or eat a bad contract while other teams can't.

I mean, when you have a $200m payroll and can still go out and pay Mookie Betts $20m+, it's silly to ignore that your finances aren't a driving force in your success.

You still have to win the games, but take Mookie Betts off the Dodgers playoff roster... Do they still win it all?

You can't compare our projected payroll with teams 2019 or 2020-converted payrolls.

Team payrolls will likely be significantly down all across baseball. They are looking at 1 season at no capacity, and at least half a season at reduced capacity.

Congratulations, dodgers. You were awarded the trophy in a sardine can.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

mwm said:

---

Congratulations, dodgers. You were awarded the trophy in a sardine can.

---

We prefer Beer Barn.

---

thats awesome. As an Astros fan, I can get behind that name...

baseballaficionado said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The teams with the best records in the short season made the World Series . Do you think they would not have made the playoffs in a 162 game season?

And this playoff was more difficult than in normal years.

Asterisk is such a hot take

---

Remember my Spurs and the **** they got on that 50 win season? **** LA and their tainted whatever it was.

---

The spurs asterisk is from tanking games to get duncan.

Proposition Joe said:

---

You don't buy a championship through free agency.

You buy a championship by having enough money to make mistakes and can either overpay the lower-end talent or eat a bad contract while other teams can't.

I mean, when you have a $200m payroll and can still go out and pay Mookie Betts $20m+, it's silly to ignore that your finances aren't a driving force in your success.

You still have to win the games, but take Mookie Betts off the Dodgers playoff roster... Do they still win it all?

---

I agree but that's not the point. A lot of teams have money to spend and I feel the Dodgers have been very disciplined. Yeah they went after Mookie because he was the missing piece. There's a lot of guys they didn't go after. Bryce Harper anyone?

The Astros for many years were considered a low payroll team and that is no longer true because they want to hold onto all these guys they drafted. And they've signed the Grienkes and Verlanders as well. If Cole wasn't so hell bent on being a Yankee they would have given him big money. My point is you cant really buy a championship (looking at you Angels) but it helps when you have a chance to great player.

I think you can make a better case that "money doesn't guarantee championships" than "money doesn't buy championships".

You can still moneywhip everyone and screw it up (as you mentioned, the Angels).

Proposition Joe said:

---

I think you can make a better case that "money doesn't guarantee championships" than "money doesn't buy championships".

You can still moneywhip everyone and screw it up (as you mentioned, the Angels).

---

Yep, this is pretty much the case I was making. You can't discount that money makes things a ton easier for any team. There is a reason why the teams with higher payrolls are consistently contenders while the lower payroll teams make a run or 2 over a 10 year span.

The new Rangers Stadium looked amazing on television.

Looks like a great place to watch a game in 100 degree summer heat.
I wonder if they will have fans in 21?

Aggie09Derek said:

---

---

Yeah. Ratings cratered across the sporting world, from the horse track to the ballpark to the golf course to the arena. I think there's just been way too much sports to watch in a short period of time, and man, I think everyone in TV Land but the cable news networks is going to be so damn happy when election coverage is over.

It's a lot of sports at once, but I also feel like the 4-5 month gap has resulted in reducing interest of casual fans. The World Series was competing against everything it normally is, sports-wise. They've found other things to do, got pissed off about the woke/blm movement, whatever, but big picture, there is a group of viewers that just don'r give enough of a **** to watch. And I don't expect a big rebound in the spring either

Many also viewed this is a gimmick season.

Certainly not deserving of an "asterisked" championship, but I caught maybe 5 Rangers games this year when previously I'm the guy that is watching 90% of the games even during really bad seasons. Had opportunity to go to a couple of the WS games, declined.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Aggie09Derek said:

---

---

Yeah. Ratings cratered across the sporting world, from the horse track to the ballpark to the golf course to the arena. I think there's just been way too much sports to watch in a short period of time, and man, I think everyone in TV Land but the cable news networks is going to be so damn happy when election coverage is over.

---

A few weeks back I was out with some female friends during the Stanley Cup Finals. I asked them if any of them had watched the basketball or hockey playoffs, and they all replied they had not.

Most of them stated that it was too weird to watch the games without fans. They were casual fans with no real emotion investment in the teams.

They could not generate enough excitement to follow the games without the visual eye candy of fans exploding with emotion.

Quote:

---

Agree. But why is it that the principle is follow the nerd behind the keyboard who did some math 18 months ago rather than the manager on the field in the deciding game of the world series, following a 60 game season, when everybody is about to get months off...? And, if we're gonna be so insistent that the rules cannot allow any variance, where does Betts' 500 point higher OPS against righties figure in, and where does Anderson's 6 game streak of allowing runs figure in?

---

In terms of the principle question, supposedly following the nerd behind the computer is what got you there. Snell seems to drop off the third time through and you have that stable of arms to roll out. For me, it was 50/50 due to Snell having an above average performance through 73 pitches and your bullpen may have been a little taxed. I don't think there's any consideration for the time off because the decision wasn't made with that in mind. It was simply a look into data into trying to pull BEFORE he gives up runs...unlike in Game 2, where he pulled him late. Obviously, the difference in Game 2 and Game 6 wasn't the pitching, but the run support.

Again, the Anderson choice was problematic for me too. Betts is also historically even right/left splits, but just off this year, IIRC. Seager after him was the bigger problem.