You need to compare that against the rate at which the Dodger's give up runs in the next half when they didn't score. If that also is is around 30% then it doesn't show any particular propensity of the Dodger's to give up runs right after they score them, just a propensity to give up runs (i.e., if the Dodger's allow the other team to score in 100% of the innings you could say "Every single time the Dodger's got some runs they immediately gave them back but there wouldn't really be any connection between the two).

Also, you can calculate some confidence intervals as 83 innings doesn't seem like a big sample to rule out random bad luck (which is important for assigning blame).

Well hey, that's actually a higher percentage. 41.25%.

Interestingly, that's an almost universal pattern in the NL. All but 2 teams are more likely to give up runs after an inning in which they did not score than they are when they have scored. The only two teams that aren't are the Cardinals and the Brewers (and in both cases the two percentages are very close, within 5% points).

The Dodger's ~6 point difference is well below the average difference of over 11 points, so I guess it's not that big a weakness.

Wait, nope, error in calculation.

First off, recalculating the first percentage with SL's observation that the last half-inning of the game shouldn't be counted brings the after-scoring percentage for the Dodgers to 35.0%, still in the lead.

The Alex percentage (percentage of times the Dodgers gave up runs in the half inning immediately following a half inning in which they did not score themselves) is 28.45%.

Barring issues with sample size (I never did get a grasp of how to calculate standard deviation, confidence intervals, margin of error, et al), that looks like a notable difference to me. It's the 3rd highest absolute disparity in the NL (most teams have a lower percentage after not scoring).

Translated: Dodgers suck! Giants rule!

Speaking of the Giants.....

Looks like the PoPo's caught up with the Dodgers fan that put the Giants fan into a coma.

I ran across this on CNN today....

While there are obviously some obstacles to that plan which a Councilperson can't overcome on their own, what to do think of the general idea? Should the Dodgers go the way of Greenbay?

I have heard that Steve Garvey is interested in getting investors together to buy the team. I like that idea.

Yes, no risk of any marriage-related embarrassments with him.

As an aside, much as he always sort of made my skin crawl, I do think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

I've got a lovely locker room photo of my nine year old self snuggled up next to a sweaty, wearing just a towel, Steve Garvey.

Baseball Tonight just reported that there have been early talks between owners and the players' union about realignment. The proposal is to even out the leagues at 15 teams each (currently it's 16 in the NL, 14 in AL). Then do away with divisions all together with the top 5 teams in each league going to playoffs. I can't quite wrap my head around what a 5 team playoff looks like.

The speculation on Baseball Tonight was that Houston is the likely team to switch leagues. It would create a rivalry with the Rangers and they're likely up for sale soon anyway.

Not sure how I feel about it. The guys on BT made some good points (the weirdness that is the 4-team AL West and 6-team NL Central, the fact that the poor bastards in the AL East always have to fight against NY and BOS). They also liked that it would do away with so many games against in-division teams, but I quite like the drawn out LA/SF rivalry.

I also think they should just sent the Brewers back to the AL.

They were careful to reiterate that this was JUST an idea floated, currently "less than 50/50" chance it will actually happen.