There has been a lot of buzz about the Dodgers strong showing the past 2 months since Kershaw got hurt. They're 24-16 since his last appearance (June 26). Compare this to the disaster scenario the experts (e.g. Buster Olney) anticipated after CK went down. How were they able to turn the corner? Two reasons: (1) luck and (2) more offense.

The oft cited stat supporting the doomed thesis was their 27-34 record when CK was not starting vs. 14-2 when he was. But their run differential over that 27-34 stretch was a minuscule -3. 250 runs scored vs. 253 allowed. They should have been ~500 over that stretch not 3.5 games under. They got a little unlucky and looked worse than they were.

Conversely, the Dodgers been some lucky, lucky ducks since losing CK. Their winning percentage is up: playing 600 ball (24-16) vs. their 530 win rate before. But, their run differential is down. +0.45 runs/game after vs. +0.52 before. They're playing worse but winning more.

The other explanation I've heard a couple times is that their other pitchers/relief squad have stepped up to pick up the slack. Not so. Since losing CK the Dodgers have allowed 4.48 runs/game. Before CK went down, they only allowed 4.15 runs per game in the games he did not start.

What's really made the difference is hitting. The Dodgers went from scoring 4.14 runs/game in the Kershaw era to 4.93 runs/game after Clayton. I don't know what is driving this. Maybe unloading Puig helped...