Return of the Golden Age?

MLB.com writer Barry Bloom makes several interesting observations in his latest piece on the LA Dodgers:

During a year in which the Dodgers are honoring the 50th anniversary of the 1955 Brooklyn team that defeated the Yankees to win the World Series for the first time, the 9-2 start is the second best in franchise history. The '55 Brooklyn (Trolley) Dodgers opened 10-1. The home start is the best since 1950. How's that for neat symmetry?

Meanwhile,

The Dodgers have simply defied baseball logic. They opened the season without starting left fielder Jayson Werth, starting pitcher Brad Penny, and Eric Gagne, one of the preeminent relievers in Major League Baseball. In the ensuing two weeks, they've also had little production out of free agent signee J.D. Drew and first baseman Hee-Seop Choi, who are batting about a buck-fifty apiece.

Still, newcomer Jeff Kent is hitting .415 and has been smoking up the league with four homers, 13 RBIs and has also scored at least one run in 10 consecutive games. And the Dodgers, who opened the season with new players at six starting positions, are making a mockery of a thing called chemistry.

Sound familiar?

Even Dodger Blues is sanguine:

The sun rose. There was traffic on the 405 freeway. Michael Jackson touched a boy. And oh, yeah... the Dodgers won. What's new? Winning for the 12th time in 14 games on Wednesday night, the Dodgers have become very good at doing two things: (1) never giving up, and (2) badly, badly fooling fans into thinking that they're never going to lose again. We know that #2 is true because we're fooled. We admit it. We'd like to say something like, "They may be winning now, but you've got to prepare yourself for the day when they begin to tank," but right now we can't even bring ourselves to write it. While we know deep down that they're not this good, maybe good has nothing to do with it. After all, the 1988 Dodgers weren't good. For Christ's sake, their shortstop hit .199. The team sucked. But they won. Sure, it's a little early to compare the 2005 Dodgers with the 1988 Dodgers, but you can't exactly compare them to the 1927 Yankees either. The fact is, they're starting the season better than any team in L.A. Dodgers' history. And not only are they winning, but—dare we say—they're exciting to watch.

Wouldn't it be great if the classic teams--Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, Tigers--are really returning to their former glory?

Comments

[T]

But then the Yanks, the most classic of classic teams, would also have to return to former glory ... i.e. winning tons of championships.

[beth]

not in the glory days of the aughts and teens in the early twentieth century, they didn't. not in the fifties, when the dodgers beat them. not in the doldrums of the eighties, when they flat-out sucked and the tigers were good.

[Boston Fan in Michigan]

Ah, the Tigs... you know, with that young rotation, I'm rooting for this year but they could very well be fantastic in the upcoming seasons.

*gets starry-eyed*

[T]

not in the glory days of the aughts and teens in the early twentieth century, they didn't. not in the fifties, when the dodgers beat them. not in the doldrums of the eighties, when they flat-out sucked and the tigers were good.

Well, they made it to 6 World Serieseses in the 1920's and won 3 of them.

They went to 8 World Serieseses in the 1950's and won 6 of them. I hate the Yanks, but holy shit, that is absolute dominance which will never be seen again.

And really, I only hate the modern day Yanks. I loved Gehrig, Mantle, Maris, Joe D, Billy Martin, et all.

[beth]

I'm going to puss out of this argument entirely by noting: Serieseseassssesessss.

[T]

Nah, there's no argument. It's just a matter of which era a person thinks of as the golden days of baseball, or glory days. Whichever.

I'm not a baseball historian, but my favorite era happens to be the 40's and 50's because of who played during that time, not who won the most championships.

Just so happens that the Yanks owned the 50's just like the Celtics did in the Bill Russell days. Unless that wasn't the 50's. Then pretend I didn't say this.

I'm not sure if you know this, but I really do enjoy your blog a lot. I don't agree with some of your opinions, but I'd read my own shitty blog if I was looking to agree with everything someone says.

[beth]

i would hope you enjoy it since you seem to read it quite a bit, and disagreement is to be expected.

i appreciate the appreciation, though.

that said: seriessesesssessesssesesseses.