Writes Rowan Kavner, in "The Dodgers' Three-Peat Dream Became An NLCS Nightmare. Now What?" (FOX Sports).
The view from the winning side:
AND: A pithy graphic:You are going to want to watch this Cooper Pratt interview. https://t.co/pgwSzLNupC
— Curt Hogg (@CyrtHogg) October 16, 2026
పోస్ట్లు
40 కామెంట్లు:
🎉
…very nice- I also hope they win it all…
…there is something about baseball, players and ski masks there somewhere. Motivational tool, funny ad, something. I’ve tried to pull the sword from that stone but alas. Maybe someone else can…
Cubs’ fan here, but I’m glad the Brewers won. Hope the Rays make it to the World Series. Brewers and Rays tied for MLB lead in batting average at .258. Both actually put the ball in play in defiance of the Three True Outcomes (HR, walk, K) style that has dominated MLB for a decade. The result of this strategy has been a huge increase in strikeouts. It’s a very boring style of play. I want to see the ball in play, not a parade of passive Ks. I think MLB should also limit the number of pitchers per nine inning game to 2 and stop the parade of 100+ mph relievers.
To be fair to the Dodgers in the graphic, what are the salaries of the opposing pitchers?
If the Brewers were smart, they’d give a press pass to the Cal Ripken of blogging and her assistant who carries the laptop.
A pithy graphic
Reminds me of last month, when a pop-up by the Orioles landed between a billion dollars worth if Mets!
Come on Cleveland!
how cute is he?
Meow.
Go Brewers!
Very classy by Kike. 🏆
I remember watching Bruce Sutter of the Cardinals wiping out Gorman Thomas to end the 1982 World Series. I was sitting in the television lounge in my dorm. We were sad, but we all agreed - the Brewers were a really good team and they'd be back in the World Series soon. Forty-four years later isn't exactly "soon," but finally our beloved Brew Crew have finally returned. Enjoying every moment of this glorious season and it continues!
“To be fair to the Dodgers in the graphic, what are the salaries of the opposing pitchers?”
DL Hall’s contract is a little more than three-quarters of a million dollars, and Trevor Megill’s contract is $4.7 million, for a combined total of a little less than $5.5 million — roughly 3.25 percent of the salaries of the Dodgers in the graphic.
As a Guardians fan, happy for the Brewers. In some ways I wish the Guards would spend Brewers-like money.
Congrats to the Brewers for sweeping the mighty Dodgers. They really had a magical, perfect series, excelling in every facet of the game. Enjoy, but don't celebrate too much. You haven't won the World Series yet.
…according to mainstream media Dave, anyone is entitled to press access if you claim you're entitled to press access. Judges agree…
@Earnest Prole: Thank you!
What's with Brewer fans' obsession with the Dodgers payroll?
Mark Walter was looking for a threepeat to get top dollar on a sale of the franchise.
Too bad.
@curious George because Brewer Fans are thrifty midwesterners who think you should get good value for money spent? It doesn't appear that the Dodgers have done that this year.
"What's with Brewer fans' obsession with the Dodgers payroll?"
I don't think it's limited to Brewers fans.
The Dodgers are a great team. Just not good enough this year Congratulations to the Brewers on a well deserved pennant.
In baseball, as in life, sometimes you'll be one run down and get left on third base at the end of the inning.
Is there anything duller than baseball players salaries? Oh wait, there's how much money the owners have, and their finances. Now, that's dull.
Funny how people never think why these BB players get so much money. The owners are paying it. But they're not losing money. Answer: Its coming from TV. Which means everytime you pay a Cable TV bill - you're paying it.
I had no idea that they paid some baseball players this much! I can see why they don't want to show the games for free on TV anymore.
Baseball is much like youtube or instagram.
The league provides content for people to watch.
It is just boring content. random creators on youtube are far more entertaining than whatever you want to call modern baseball.
I'm a Padres fan--and always like to see the Blue Dragon (and assorted other dinosaurs in Chavez Ravine) get derailed. But even so it's unseemly to dance on the face of the losers. Baseball can be a humbling game for almost every player.
Re: A pithy graphic...
What's meaningful about it? That some players are paid a lot of money and they still didn't win?
If money can't buy you a championship (which seems to be the point of the graphic), why do so many people continue to whine about how much is spent on salaries?
"If money can't buy you a championship (which seems to be the point of the graphic), why do so many people continue to whine about how much is spent on salaries?"
I believe from what I've read recently (though I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert) that money does buy championships in baseball. This year's an anomaly.
"I believe from what I've read recently (though I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert) that money does buy championships in baseball."
Baseball has no salary cap and last year, the Dodgers became the first team in 25 years to win back-to-back World Series championships. Hockey does have a salary cap and there have been three back-to-back Stanley Cup champions in 10 years.
It appears to me that spending money on player salaries can be a factor in winning championships but it's not necessarily a determining one.
“What's meaningful about it?”
I would say it indicates baseball offense is grossly overestimated and overcompensated relative to baseball defense, if your measure is winning a world championship.
If your measure is pleasing fans, every indication is that they’d rather pay to watch their favorite offensive stars fail rather than pay to watch lesser-known pitchers succeed. The proof is the proportion of salaries of the pitchers I mentioned upthread relative to the salaries of the offensive players who stranded the baserunners: 3.25 percent.
2015 Kansas City Royals 13th
2016 Chicago Cubs 5th
2017 Houston Astros 17th
2018 Boston Red Sox 1st
2019 Washington Nationals 10th
2020 Los Angeles Dodgers 1st
2021 Atlanta Braves 14th
2022 Houston Astros 8th
2023 Texas Rangers 4th
2024 Los Angeles Dodgers 1st
2025 Los Angeles Dodgers 3rd
I look at that data and say, "Yeah, more money is correlated with more winning." For example, 6 of the last 11 championships were won by teams in the top 5 in salaries.
Put another way, there are 30 teams in baseball, and the top 5 salaried teams won half the championships in the last decade. I think you have to conclude that money is a decided advantage. It's one reason I'm not much of a baseball fan.
"I think you have to conclude that money is a decided advantage."
I said I thought it was, but not the determining one. What about the ability to identify talent to draft or competence at player development? Those things are important, but nobody seems to bitch if one team is better at it than another.
And just for the heck of it, one of the guys in that graphic- Max Muncy- was released by the A's. Every team in the league had the opportunity to make him an offer. I asked ChatGPT how much the Dodgers signed him for and this is the reply:
Bottom line: I couldn't verify the actual amount. His later major-league salaries are documented, but they don't establish what he was paid under the 2017 minor-league contract. My best guess: Around $15,000–$25,000 for the 2017 minor-league deal, potentially more if it included a bonus. I found no public evidence establishing the actual figure.
"but not the determining one."
If by "not the determining one" you mean "not the only one", well sure. If you mean "not the biggest one", I don't know about that. I don't want it to be a factor at all.
"What about the ability to identify talent to draft or competence at player development? Those things are important, but nobody seems to bitch if one team is better at it than another."
Bitch? That's exactly the kind of thing I *want* determining winners, not their pocket book.
When it comes to sports, I guess I'm a commie.
Good owners hire good people throughout their organization. Scouting & development are much cheaper than a superstar player.
The Dodgers do a good job trading young talent for better players who they then sign longer term. They also got the right free agents in Shohei & Freddie Freeman. Glasnow & Snell were also good signings. Tucker and Diaz were bad signings.
The Yankees, Mets, and Padres can’t replicate what the Dodgers have. Not for lack of money & spending but for lack of acumen.
The Braves are also very good. A junior varsity Dodgers. Some very smart feee agent signings and kicking up young home grown guys early for longer term.
The Cubs & Red Sox have owners who only care about filling the stands not winning. Their fan bases are gullible and keep paying more $$ to watch slightly above average baseball.
"Bitch? That's exactly the kind of thing I *want* determining winners, not their pocket book."
Personally, I don't think being more able in those areas than other teams is better or worse than being able to spend more money. It just is what it is- one of several factors involved. I understand others may not agree and that somehow, money shouldn't be as important as it is- that's okay.
Just for kicks, I asked ChatGPT about the MLB teams that are recognized as best at player development. Here is the response:
My overall shortlist: Dodgers, Guardians, Rays, and Brewers. Those four are particularly useful to study if you're interested in which organizations are best at turning prospects into productive big-league players.
Oh can money buy a championship? what a boring question. The owners are all billionaires. Do you believe that we should control the owners.
Waah, that socialism, boy! You dont wanta be a commie do you?
If you don't, then their teams. Their rules. We peasants just watch and enjoy THEIR product. We should just be happy that the Billionaires allow us to see and clap for their teams.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.