the skippers view anti-dodgers bias is so fascinating to see in real time as they go back to back. A baseball team that pays their players money they deserve, does things the right way, executes at a high level in both fundamental baseball and MLB-level stuff, sells out stadiums, etc. etc. etc. somehow is rooted against in the long run by "baseball purists". fascinating. Most organizations have a lot to learn from the Dodgers but maybe they're ran by people with the same mentality - root for the demise of success rather than imitate it.
if this was the yankees, all I'd read would be think pieces about how perfect an organization they are.
"Prior to winning the past two World Series, the Dodgers won what many consider a fraudulent 2020 World Series and lost back-to-back World Series in 2017 and 2018."
Mentioning 2020 was possibly fraudulent but no mention about getting literally cheated out of 2017? That's an interesting take to say the least.
2/3rds of the remaining article is about how this current Dodgers team isn't a dynasty. It absolutely is lol.
"What exactly constitutes a “dynasty” in the MLB, you ask? In my eyes, it’s simple: a team that is a perennial contender for 5+ years that wins at least three championships while retaining the same core of star players. "
Author recognizes GSW dynasty despite the fact they added one of the league's absolute best players to their team midway through said dynasty. Author mentions "early 2000's Yankees" despite many of their key players being added sometime btween the start of the run ('96) to the end ('00). A revolving door of HOF-level talent not unlike the current Dodgers at all. Several of them were not a part of all of the titles, just like the Dodgers. Boggs, Posada, Justice, Clemens, Strawberry, etc. were not constant across this Dynasty. It's pretty clear here that those dynasties get exemptions while the Dodgers are not a dynasty yet according to the author, despite the fact that they meet all the same criteria of a dynasty: Absolute divisional dominance, contender for a decade plus, 3 WS in 5 years, the list goes on. They're more of a dynasty than the Giants, whom were mentioned in the article, whose entire claim to dynasty is 3 WS in 5 years, while missing the playoffs or putting up losing records in the other 2 of 5 years. (p.s. Giants also had switched up key contributors during their "dynasty" too.)
Sure the title is about how "the Dodgers winning is good for baseball" but the meat of the article is undermining their current success and highlighting past failures (4 of the 6 total paragraphs to be precise).
Parting words from the article btw: "My message: Be patient. If the Dodgers keep winning, let them; it will only make their inevitable collapse that much sweeter."
IMO we should be excited an dynasty has finally emerged and celebrating their success because that is indeed good for baseball. It brings in new fans, reinvigorates old viewers, and bottom line money. Instead the tone of the article is "yeah the WS was great but they aren't even a dynasty and when they fail we're all gonna rejoice". We can, and should, hate on their success too but undermining accomplishments and downplaying success is not the way to do it - leave that to the casual fans on twitter and clickbait ragebait aritcles.
the skippers view anti-dodgers bias is so fascinating to see in real time as they go back to back. A baseball team that pays their players money they deserve, does things the right way, executes at a high level in both fundamental baseball and MLB-level stuff, sells out stadiums, etc. etc. etc. somehow is rooted against in the long run by "baseball purists". fascinating. Most organizations have a lot to learn from the Dodgers but maybe they're ran by people with the same mentality - root for the demise of success rather than imitate it.
if this was the yankees, all I'd read would be think pieces about how perfect an organization they are.
The blog is literally called “the dodgers winning is good for baseball”
I do not think The Skippers View has an anti Dodgers bias in anyway.
"Prior to winning the past two World Series, the Dodgers won what many consider a fraudulent 2020 World Series and lost back-to-back World Series in 2017 and 2018."
Mentioning 2020 was possibly fraudulent but no mention about getting literally cheated out of 2017? That's an interesting take to say the least.
2/3rds of the remaining article is about how this current Dodgers team isn't a dynasty. It absolutely is lol.
"What exactly constitutes a “dynasty” in the MLB, you ask? In my eyes, it’s simple: a team that is a perennial contender for 5+ years that wins at least three championships while retaining the same core of star players. "
Author recognizes GSW dynasty despite the fact they added one of the league's absolute best players to their team midway through said dynasty. Author mentions "early 2000's Yankees" despite many of their key players being added sometime btween the start of the run ('96) to the end ('00). A revolving door of HOF-level talent not unlike the current Dodgers at all. Several of them were not a part of all of the titles, just like the Dodgers. Boggs, Posada, Justice, Clemens, Strawberry, etc. were not constant across this Dynasty. It's pretty clear here that those dynasties get exemptions while the Dodgers are not a dynasty yet according to the author, despite the fact that they meet all the same criteria of a dynasty: Absolute divisional dominance, contender for a decade plus, 3 WS in 5 years, the list goes on. They're more of a dynasty than the Giants, whom were mentioned in the article, whose entire claim to dynasty is 3 WS in 5 years, while missing the playoffs or putting up losing records in the other 2 of 5 years. (p.s. Giants also had switched up key contributors during their "dynasty" too.)
Sure the title is about how "the Dodgers winning is good for baseball" but the meat of the article is undermining their current success and highlighting past failures (4 of the 6 total paragraphs to be precise).
Parting words from the article btw: "My message: Be patient. If the Dodgers keep winning, let them; it will only make their inevitable collapse that much sweeter."
IMO we should be excited an dynasty has finally emerged and celebrating their success because that is indeed good for baseball. It brings in new fans, reinvigorates old viewers, and bottom line money. Instead the tone of the article is "yeah the WS was great but they aren't even a dynasty and when they fail we're all gonna rejoice". We can, and should, hate on their success too but undermining accomplishments and downplaying success is not the way to do it - leave that to the casual fans on twitter and clickbait ragebait aritcles.