Look man, as I said the Dodgers and Giants both did great under the circumstances. I admitted that a team of Giants half full of nobodies (honestly, anyone would admit this, which is why their season success is so astounding) had a great year. I never said teams do not have injuries, nor did I say that all of the Giants injuries were nobodies. For most of the year the Giants really only had half of an offensive line up that really stuck fear into anyone. They were fortunate to have the other half, full of 'no-names' step up and work perfectly as a team and do just enough to consistently win games. As much as I hate to admit it, it was a spectacular achievement.

So yes, sure, you can name some Giants injuries that were impactful (though to note an aging catcher - Posey - by listing games played ignores actual games taken off that were not due to injury is a bit deceptive). I do not deny that, and I am not biting at the straw-man you are propping up as my supposed argument or comments. The fact of the matter is that the Dodgers have sustained more games lost by more high impact players. Here is a comparison I found:



That is all. I am not trying to diss your beloved Giants, they had a great year, far exceeding anyone's reasonable expectations. I was just pointing out that the Dodgers had the worst of the injury bite to high impact players and I think it cost them a number more games than the Giant injuries cost the Giants.