Enough With the Dodgers-Stand-to-Lose-the-Most-by-Shortened-or-Cancelled-Season Idea Already

Enough With the Dodgers-Stand-to-Lose-the-Most-by-Shortened-or-Cancelled-Season Idea Already

There is an awful lot of the Dodgers-stand-to-lose-as-much-or-more-than-anyone-by-a-shortened-or-lost-2020-season going around lately. Pretty much every major sports publication in business has featured some such headline or other since Major League Baseball suspended Spring Training five weeks ago. SI’s own Tom Verducci posted his thoughts on the matter just this morning, with the following lede: "No team stands to lose more from the loss or truncation of the 2020 Major League Baseball season due to the coronavirus than the Dodgers."

Verducci mentions correctly that since the Dodgers are annual pacesetters in attendance, they stand to lose the most revenue, but that's really a side issue, a ways apart from the gist of the statement in the previous paragraph. As for the rest of it, I respectfully disagree. Because, in a couple of words, it’s a false premise. 

First of all, the absence of baseball hurts everyone, a ton. Like a punch to the gut. Fans, major leaguers, minor leaguers, reporters, networks, advertisers, front office personnel, game day workers and businesses in the vicinity of the 30 big league ballparks are all affected. Actually, injured is a better word than affected. We're in the midst of a once-in-century experience. None of us has been through anything like it before. Conclusions based on zero experience don't carry a lot of water, in my humble opinion. And as I’ve said many times before, there’s no predicting in baseball. No predicting. And certainly not in October, which is what matters most. 

The Dodgers have been better in the marathon of a 162-game season seven straight years without winning the sprint that is the postseason. Maybe this is the year of sprint mode from start to finish, with the finishing being Game 4, 5, 6 or 7 of the 2020 World Series. All hands on deck, right Skipper?

Secondly, Los Angeles was better prepared for the 2020 season this March than in any of the previous seven Marches. They were so well-prepared that SI predicted a 107-win season. That’s out the window, obviously, but if there is a 2020 season of some length - and assuming Rob Manfred doesn't move the Astros back to their pre-American League division - Los Angeles is going to win the National League West. That’s one prediction that can be made, and I’ll make it with one surgical mask tied behind my back.

Verducci posits that "[t]he smaller the sample size, the less likely the better team wins." Based on what, some mathematical formula related to the laws of probability?

Again, I respectfully disagree. If the best team in football can be determined with a 16-game regular season followed by three rounds of postseason competition, and a worthy NBA champion can be crowned following an 82-game season and four rounds of playoffs, and a World Series champion can be deemed properly after 162 games and just 11 wins afterwards, the cream can rise to the top of the baseball mountain in 60 or 80 or 100 games plus a normal postseason.

Related: Andrew Friedman's Dodgers Trades - The Complete List

As for a certain franchise-type player late of Boston, Verducci, says "[t]hey may have traded three prospects to Boston for few or no games from Mookie Betts and his $27 million salary." Well, L.A. has traded three prospects for Mr. Betts, and of course the last thing any of us wants is a zero-game 2020 season, but 60, 80 or 100 games does not "few" make. Fewer is it what it makes. Equally as relevant is the important notion that all three of the prospects shipped to Massachusetts over the winter came from a position of Dodgers strength.

Certainly, Jeter Downs is a fine young shortstop. But Los Angeles has Corey Seager under contract for the 2020 and 2021 seasons, during which time they can extend him for five, six or seven more. They have a rising young shortstop in Gavin Lux. They have Chris Taylor, they have Kiké Hernandez and they have minor leaguers Alex De Jesus and Jacob Amaya. And the possibility of trading for this year or signing Cleveland's Francisco Lindor following the 2021 season. Just how many shortstops do you need?

Sure, Connor Wong is a nice little prospect, but L.A. has better young catchers Will Smith, Keibert Ruiz (and no, I'm not worried about his uninspiring 2019 season) and Diego Cartaya in the organization. Just exactly how many catchers do you need and what is the point of having four of them if not to trade one or more for a greater need? 

Similarly, just how many left-hand hitting outfielders do you need? I like Alex Verdugo just fine, but he was expendable too. Very much so.

Andrew Friedman wasn't kidding when he said that Betts was the best player he has ever traded for or ever will trade for, and the Red Sox swap was one of the greatest, most-lopsided transactions in Los Angeles history. I'd make that deal with a 60-game season in front of me in a heartbeat. It's the equivalent of an August 31 trade in any year prior to this one. And look, the Dodgers are re-signing Mookie Betts. They gave up three players they didn't need and they're going to re-sign Betts. They sign their own free agents. And Betts is their own free agent. The equation changes not one iota because of COVID-19. On top of all that, L.A. still has a chance at a victory parade come October. Or November.

Enough with the groupthink. In a season of almost any length, the Dodgers are in better shape than 27, 28 or 29 of their competitors. I'll take my chances with this bunch in 2020 however it plays out, thank you very much. Enough with the Dodgers-stand-to-lose-the-most-by-shortened-or-cancelled-season already. It's a silly argument.

And remember, glove conquers all.

Howard Cole has been writing about baseball on the internet since Y2K. Follow him on Twitter.