Response to sub .500 argument for Dodgers early success.
Good teams beat the teams they should beat. This is not a fait accompli by any means. In the game of Baseball, one can well make the case that beating teams you should is possibly more difficult than beating better teams. You cannot take out of the equation the psychological element of motivation, grind, days off, let downs, etc...especially when playing a sport where you play every day. Any team is susceptible to being defeated by any team in Baseball on any given night. There is a reason why only two teams in history have this many consecutive home wins to begin a season.
In addition, the starting pitching the Dodgers have faced and beaten is eye opening: Jake Peavy (twice), Chris Young (faced twice, beaten once), Barry Zito (1 and 1 which could have been two), Matt Cain, Cook and Jimenez (twice each), Lincecum (loss) and the numerous "never seen before" pitchers that the Dodgers of the past have succumbed to. Add to that the fact that our starters have averaged less then six innings a start, we have been without our number two in Kuroda (or arguably our number one), have lacked production from Raffy, Loney, and Martin...sure, sub .500 teams are just that, but as mentioned above, they haven't always been sub .500 this season.
Whatever happens on the road against the east, or here against the east or elite central, does not take away from the extraordinary accomplishment of this ballclub. Is this really our fattening up on weak sisters, or is this really about how powerful the Dodgers are at home? The record here in LA since the All Star break speaks volumes.
Home cookin' mystique.