Are The Dodgers Even Going to Finish Over .500?

That’s the question of the day, not anything about playoffs. At just four games over, losers of 7 of 8, 11 of 16, and 16 of 23, with series remaining in Washington, Cincinnati, & San Diego – only the league’s two best teams and the NL’s hottest – it’s fair to wonder if the Dodgers can win 7 of the remaining 18, which would put them right at .500.

As we’ve discussed, while not making the playoffs in 2012 would be disappointing, it’s not really the end of the world. What really makes this interesting is that if you had told us all back in spring training that the Dodgers would be heading into this final stretch on pace to finish just slightly over .500, I’m pretty sure we’d have said, “yeah, that sounds about right.” (I can’t find it right now, but I’m pretty sure my prediction was for 80-85 wins with an outside chance for 90 if everything broke right, which of course injuries were never going to allow.)

Six months later, it looks like the end result is going to be exactly where we expected it would. This may be the destination we were prepared for, but I don’t think any of us can say this is the route we saw them taking to get there. No matter what happens to end this season, at least the organization is in a better place than it was a year ago – or at least that’s what I’m trying to keep convincing myself of as the games get increasingly unwatchable.

344 comments
Dodgers' 7th Ring
Dodgers' 7th Ring

I couldve gone to this game but I just cant, rather go to a high school football game

LakerDodger24
LakerDodger24

What time is the game tonight? I need to know so I can try to avoid following or watching it (and keeping my hair in the process), but inevitably, I'll end up watching it anyways, regardless of score. 

EephusBlue
EephusBlue moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 RT @LAObserved: Fox 11:  Numerous 911 calls to LAFD from canyon residents who can't get electric gates open with power out.

 

1% problems?

EephusBlue
EephusBlue moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I am laffing at them

DBrim
DBrim moderator

In news that surprises nobody...

 

Eric Stephen ‏@truebluela

Ted Lilly is shut down for the year

 

DBrim
DBrim moderator

Bobby Valentine: "Are you kidding? This is the weakest roster we've ever had in September in the history of baseball," he said. "It could use help everywhere."  

 

 

Butbutbutbut Loney.

DBrim
DBrim moderator

DodgersGM ‏@DodgersGM

Shouldn't be a problem. RT @truebluela Don Mattingly said he'd like to get Kenley Jansen into a game in a non-closing opportunity first

 

Catfacts
Catfacts like.author.displayName 1 Like

I think we should start Ethier at first and put Adrian in right just to shake things up a bit. Kemp seems like he can throw a strike too. Maybe we'll start him at pitcher. He hits like one. 

Catfacts
Catfacts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Ideal Lineup: Cruz, Gonzalez, AJ Ellis, Mark Ellis, Ethier, Victorino, Pitcher, Kemp, Hanley

Kewldood69
Kewldood69

It's good that money is not an issue, but having a bunch of hacks signed longterm is (along with losing quality prospects).

Weston Taylor (Has More ISO than any Dodger)
Weston Taylor (Has More ISO than any Dodger) like.author.displayName 1 Like

I enjoy advanced statistics. I like to think of myself as an information gatherer, and am willing to look at other stats and try to make a diagnosis of a certain problem or success, or really just marvel at how certain players put up insane statistics. Now, having said that, I also like how anything that can't be proven or explained by sabermetrics is automatically discounted as "mostly non-consequential" or "doesn't have the effect that people think it has" around here. This is mostly talking about clubhouse chemistry, hitting coaches, managerial decisions, the lineup, etc. There is literally NO concrete evidence that suggests that any of these are completely worthless. I understand that there's no evidence to prove that they are useful, either. I'm also not saying that these play a major part in a season. I think we can all agree that the players and quality of players account for, oh, 85%-100% of a team's finishing W-L record, depending on who you're talking to. 

 

I'd just like to put something in context, though. Understand that wanting to optimize each facet of the game is not ludicrous. If we took all the things that "didn't matter as much as people think" and decided how many TOTAL games these things affected, we might come out to 16 games, which would be 10% of a season. Given a .500 team with an exceptionally adept manager (Joe Maddon), I would say that Maddon could go 11-5 in those 16 games, giving his otherwise .500 team a final record of 84-78. Still not a playoff-worthy record, but the point was that these little things do add up, and right now it would be nice to have a couple more games in the W column. 

 

(Note: I don't think Donnie should be fired. I think he still deserves another year to work with the team.)

Tony Fernandez (SVS Afficionado)
Tony Fernandez (SVS Afficionado)

 @WestonTaylor It's not that they're portrayed as unimportant. They can be, we just have no way of knowing. And besides, the advanced statistics explain most of the variation in the game. There isn't much left to explain with chemistry and the like.

Weston Taylor (Has More ISO than any Dodger)
Weston Taylor (Has More ISO than any Dodger)

 @Ken Griffey's Grotesequely Swollen Jaw Well, I'd LIKE to think that they're important, otherwise there would be no point in having a lineup or a manager. Players would just bat themselves arbitrarily, and position themselves the same way. 

Tony Fernandez (SVS Afficionado)
Tony Fernandez (SVS Afficionado)

Managers to me seem like glorified supervisors. Make sure everyone stays working and is doing well. Other than that, they have little impact on the results of the games, despite how heavily they get criticized. As long as your manager is not overusing the bullpen, giving guys rest, and the like, then you're above average. Doing things like creative defensive shifting and assembling good lineups are just icing on the cake and don't make a huge difference over the course of a season.  @WestonTaylor  @Ken Griffey's Grotesequely Swollen Jaw 

Bawfuls
Bawfuls

 @WestonTaylor The impact of random variations in baseball games can swing a season as much as each of these 'intangibles' though.  And if you're going to claim that all these factors that we can't quantify add up to 16 games, we're going to need some evidence.

Weston Taylor (Has More ISO than any Dodger)
Weston Taylor (Has More ISO than any Dodger) like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @Bawfuls also, there is no such thing as evidence with chemistry, or each individual managerial decision. To properly quantify each managerial decision, we would have to have a group of people watching each play of every season, critiquing each and every move, and deciding whether or not that was the right move at the time. So really, this is all just guesswork. 

Bawfuls
Bawfuls

 @WestonTaylor Things like sacrifice bunts and line-ups can be quantified however, and the data says they aren't a huge impact.  Even bullpen management can to some degree be quantified/simulated, and those are probably the most significant set of strategy decisions a baseball manager makes.

 

My point was that since you pulled that 16 games number from no where, it is meaningless.  The real number could be 3 games, in which case it's a pointless discussion.  Since you can't quantify the effect, it's pointless to speculate that it's a major issue.

 

Not only can we not quantify the effect, but we can't even definitively say the effect is more significant than that of random variation.

DBrim
DBrim moderator

hahahahaha

 

Dylan Hernandez ‏@dylanohernandez

#Dodgers lineup: Victorino LF, Ethier RF, Kemp CF, Gonzalez 1B, Ramirez SS, Cruz 3B, Punto 2B, Ellis C, Capuano P.

 

Tony Fernandez (SVS Afficionado)
Tony Fernandez (SVS Afficionado) like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @DBrim  @dylanohernandez Hmm, I'm Don Mattingly, and I need to give Ellis a day off. Who's on my bench? Punto, mhmm, and Castellanos. Well this team is having an offensive slump and so to fix that, I'll go with VETERAN JUICY GOODNESS and SLICK FIELDING!

Capnsparrow
Capnsparrow

 @DBrim  @dylanohernandez Hahahahahaha

 

If they'd just start raking all will be good for a minute maybe 2!

DBrim
DBrim moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @capnsparrow Mattingly must have seen Shane's soft fly ball to end yesterday's game and said "I WANT MORE OF THAT".

EephusBlue
EephusBlue moderator

If you took the second half of last season and the first half of this season as a complete season how would things look?

pedro guerreros coka illness
pedro guerreros coka illness

@dbrim i didnt. know we had a name for donnie picked out and youre. point on kershaw doesnt make no sense at all just like its a must win,110% effort or any other stupid cliche..

TheConman
TheConman

 @RafaMolina  @dbrim dbrim's kershaw comments make perfect sense to me, and considering you asked the exact same question on a thread yesterday, and got  the exact same answer, I'm not sure exactly why you decided to ask again today

This comment has been deleted

DBrim
DBrim moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

What?