by Joshua Worley
Since Abreu was called up, here are the starters at third base:
22 May --- Abreu
23 May --- LaRoche
25 May --- Abreu
26 May --- Betemit ( Abreu at second base )
27 May --- LaRoche ( only two PA for Andy )
29 May --- Abreu
30 May --- Abreu
As I feared, the Dodgers have tried to jam three young players into one spot. The least deserving of the three has played the most, and the one with the highest ceiling has seen scant playing time. Only on one day have two of the three played at once. Since Abreu was called up, Abreu has 20 plate appearances to LaRoche's 7.
Of LaRoche and Abreu, who has shown the better plate discipline and contact skills in their brief stints at the big league level?
Player -- PA -- SO -- BB
LaRoche -- 52 -- 4 -- 15
Abreu -- 20 -- 3 -- 0
Things can change, but these samples, small though they be, create a stark contrast. LaRoche belongs in the big leagues far more than Abreu does, based on what they've done so far this year and what they've done previously. And yet who is likely to be sent down if Kuo is called up to make Saturday's start?
One objection to LaRoche's walks is that they've all come with him batting eighth in front of the pitcher. But this just isn't true. Here is a breakdown of his 15 walks:
4 --- intentional pass with pitcher up next and first base open
2 --- pitcher up next; first base open
2 --- pitcher up next; first base occupied
5 --- non-pitcher next; first base open
2 --- non-pitcher next; first base occupied
At least 9 of these walks are legit, including the situations when either a man is on first or a non-pitcher is up next. I would argue 10 of them are, since one of the walks with the pitcher coming up and first base open was actually a bases empty walk with one out which set up the sacrifice and then a possible RBI situation.
If we remove the 5 suspect walks, then LaRoche still has 10 walks in 47 plate appearances. That's terrific plate discipline. Why won't the Dodgers play LaRoche more?
********************************************
Russ Martin is in a small slump. During his last four games he's 2-16 with a walk and 5 strikeouts. The reason I call it a slump, and not just a statistical fluctuation, is the strikeouts. Prior to these last 4 games he only had 6 strikeouts in the month of May, so he's nearly doubled his monthly total of strikeouts the last 4 games.
It still might be merely statistical fluctuation, I guess. I'm not advocating that he needs to sit tonight, or tomorrow. And he did have that home run last night, so it's not all bad for Martin at the bat. I'm just keeping an eye on his batting line: if he has a few more hitless, high strikeout games then it could be a sign of something wrong. In the meantime I hope he gets his normal rest this Sunday or Saturday, but not before then.
31 May 2007
30 May 2007
Little Did We Know
by Joshua Worley
The Dodgers are alone in first place, again. I hope we don't look back on this day later in the season and say, "Remember all the way back to the end of May, when we were still in first place? That was the high point of the season, before the pitching collapsed and we tumbled below 0.500, below the Padres, Snakes, even the Giants. Little did we know ..."
Most days of the season have the potential to be looked back on as either the true high or low point of the season, depending on what happens after. There are often likelihoods that the current trends will continue, to be sure, but no guarantees. Present success or failure may be reversed. I'm sure every Yankee fan is hoping that months from now they can look on yesterday as the low point of the season. It's a strange way of making the current awful moment seem remote and unreal, to imagine a future from which the present appears outlandish and wrong. "Really, we were tied for last, 14.5 games back of the Red Sux? Seems so strange, now that we're in first place. I know it happened, but it seems a lifetime ago ..."
Did Brad Penny have an inkling when he started the All-Star game last year that this would be the high point of the year for him? When he was getting shelled in relief in a playoff game after being booted from the postseason rotation did he ever look back at the time when he was a top-5 pitcher in the NL and think, "Little did I know ..."
For Hendrickson, this year, the date was 2 May. He had given up only 1 home run and struck out more than 25% of batters faced. That was the high point of his season, maybe of his career. Since then, he's given up 6 home runs and is on the edge of losing his place in the starting rotation.
There was no sign that Penny would collapse in the second half of last year, while there was ample evidence to tell us Hendrickson would tumble from his great first month. Sometimes we can have a pretty good idea that we've reached the high point, and other times we couldn't have any way of knowing. Enjoy the good times while they last, even as you hope that they will last.
That's not the end of it, though. It's not enough that the Dodgers merly hope that they haven't already reached the high point of the season. How do the Dodgers guard against having to four months from now say, "Little did we know ... "? The Dodgers have no superstars. They are a team built on depth, but for that depth to mean anything they have to use it when necessary. Depth isn't just for injuries. To guard against a premature high point to the season, they have to be willing to play young players in place of veterans who aren't getting the job done. They're already doing this with the pitching staff. It remains to be seen if they will do it with the outfield and first base should current trends continue.
The Dodgers are alone in first place, again. I hope we don't look back on this day later in the season and say, "Remember all the way back to the end of May, when we were still in first place? That was the high point of the season, before the pitching collapsed and we tumbled below 0.500, below the Padres, Snakes, even the Giants. Little did we know ..."
Most days of the season have the potential to be looked back on as either the true high or low point of the season, depending on what happens after. There are often likelihoods that the current trends will continue, to be sure, but no guarantees. Present success or failure may be reversed. I'm sure every Yankee fan is hoping that months from now they can look on yesterday as the low point of the season. It's a strange way of making the current awful moment seem remote and unreal, to imagine a future from which the present appears outlandish and wrong. "Really, we were tied for last, 14.5 games back of the Red Sux? Seems so strange, now that we're in first place. I know it happened, but it seems a lifetime ago ..."
Did Brad Penny have an inkling when he started the All-Star game last year that this would be the high point of the year for him? When he was getting shelled in relief in a playoff game after being booted from the postseason rotation did he ever look back at the time when he was a top-5 pitcher in the NL and think, "Little did I know ..."
For Hendrickson, this year, the date was 2 May. He had given up only 1 home run and struck out more than 25% of batters faced. That was the high point of his season, maybe of his career. Since then, he's given up 6 home runs and is on the edge of losing his place in the starting rotation.
There was no sign that Penny would collapse in the second half of last year, while there was ample evidence to tell us Hendrickson would tumble from his great first month. Sometimes we can have a pretty good idea that we've reached the high point, and other times we couldn't have any way of knowing. Enjoy the good times while they last, even as you hope that they will last.
That's not the end of it, though. It's not enough that the Dodgers merly hope that they haven't already reached the high point of the season. How do the Dodgers guard against having to four months from now say, "Little did we know ... "? The Dodgers have no superstars. They are a team built on depth, but for that depth to mean anything they have to use it when necessary. Depth isn't just for injuries. To guard against a premature high point to the season, they have to be willing to play young players in place of veterans who aren't getting the job done. They're already doing this with the pitching staff. It remains to be seen if they will do it with the outfield and first base should current trends continue.
29 May 2007
The series sweep that wasn't
By Griffster.
Boy, sometimes things break your way, and sometimes they do not. Remember a few games back, coming off getting swept by the Angels and dropping one to the Brewers? Soft rumblings of discomfort through sections of the fan base:
The offense isn't getting it done.
You can't make a run stand up every game.
You have to score to win.
You're not going to score if you can only hit singles from about 5 spots in the lineup and nothing from the other four.
Then those spinning lineup wheels found some purchase and the Dodgers bounced out of the home stand with two 2-1 series wins.
The wheels found purchase on some extra base hits. You really can't win with a lineup of singles hitters. We are carrying two of those already: Pierre, and 2007 Nomar. 2007 Gonzo is also worryingly singles-like, despite hitting the odd home run.
Speaking of singles and not getting it done, let's break down the past three series by what the Dodgers offense did. In the games against the Angels, here is the sequence of Dodger hits for each game. Innings indicated by spaces between lines, innings with only a walk, or no hits do not show up:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
single
single
double
double ( run scores )
double
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single ( run scores, thanks to a steal of second and advance to third on flyout )
double
Game 3
single
single
single
single
double ( run scores )
There is a lot of painfully dangling singles there. Apart from the manufactured run in the second game, the runs that did score scored on extra base hits. The runners stranded were mostly left holding their singles with nothing else to show for it.
That series was atypical, one would hope. Hunting for some context, here is the Angels' hitting sequences for the same series:
Angels
Game 1
walk
double ( run scores )
single
( steals second, advances on ground out, scores on another ground out )
walk
single
sac fly ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double
single
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
( steals second, scores on ground out and error )
home run ( run scores )
single
walk
single
ground out ( run scores )
single
double
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
double
single ( run scores )
single
single
single
single
single ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
triple
Does that tell us anything, apart from the fact that the Angels scored more runs because they had a heck of a lot more hits than the Dodgers did? Well, the Angels also had their little dangling singles, and they even had a inning of "single ( that word is starting to look weird now when I type it ) the opponent to death".
It does show that, of the 11 innings in which the Angels scored, they had extra base hits for 6 of those, assists from the opposing team in the form of walks or errors 4 times, and only once they scored on the virtue of singles alone ( and a lot of singles to boot! )
The Dodgers scored in three innings. Two due to an extra base hit in the inning, and once due to a walk, a steal, and two ground outs.
The moral of this story is: unless you have some help from the opposition and some extra base hits, you need a long string of singles to be sure of scoring a run.
That's it for that horrible series. ( Let us never speak of it again! ) Moving on to the next two series, won by the Dodgers, here is the same sequences for the Dodgers and the Brewers:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
double
single ( run scores )
home run ( runs score )
walk
single
single ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
steal
( dropped foul )
single ( run scores )
single
double
home run ( runs score )
Game 3
single
single
hit by pitch
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
error
single
double
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
sac bunt
walk
steal
balk
walk
sac fly ( run scores )
single
walk
single
Brewers
Game 1
single
home run ( run scores )
single
double ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double ( runs score )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
single
single ( run scores )
walk
double ( run scores )
single
Game 3
single
walk
sac bunt
walk
single
ground rule double
double
infield single
infield single to second
ground out
single ( run scores )
Yeah?
Well, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. Of those eight innings, 5 had extra base hits, and the other three had help from the opposition ( all three had walks, and two also had either an error, or a balk and a sac fly, to help things along ). Not one time was any runs scored on singles alone.
And the Brewers? They scored in 7 innings. 5 of those innings had extra base hits. One of the others had a walk as well, and the other was stringed together on a single, ground out, and single.
How about one more series, the most recent?
Dodgers
Game 1
single
error
walk
single ( run scores )
single
walk
home run ( runs score )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double
walk
single
single
single
single ( run scores )
wild pitch ( run scores )
walk
single ( run scores )
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
single
single
single
home run ( run scores )
walk
walk
intentional walk ( 2B open after steal )
hit by pitch ( run scores )
Cubs
Game 1
single
single
single
steal
ground rule double ( run scores )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
caught stealing ( no runners on )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
error ( run scores )
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
single
single
double
single ( run scores )
infield single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
walk
error
single
double
single
wild pitch
walk
single
double
single
single
single ( run scores )
In this series, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits. 2 of the remaining innings had walks in them as well. One of those were done entirely on walks and a hit by pitch! And only one had runs score on pure singles.
The Cubs scored in 5 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits, the other one was also a pure singles effort.
Moral of the story: you have to do more than hit singles to put up the runs that let you win ballgames. If you have a lineup of aging veterans "that knows how to win" yet mostly hits singles, you're going to struggle to see those veterans do what they know how to do. ( Just had to get that out of my system ) The 2007 Dodgers threaten to resemble a club of singles hitters, and singles hitters do not win games consistently.
There are players young and old on this team who could bring some power to the plate. Whether they do so with fair consistency will determine how often this team wins - provided the pitching remains stellar, else the 2007 Dodgers will be the 2007 Yankees before you could blink.
Now, on to explaining the title of this post. Who should have swept whom?
The ( losing record ) Cubs should have swept the Dodgers, we all know that. But for a huge, happy comeback in game 1 ( a jambalaya of trademarked singles, one wild pitch and a sac fly, it was done the Dodgers way ) and a freebie in game 3, we'd be looking up a two-game ladder at the Padres.
The dog days of summer, they're a-comin'. Swinging into June, the Dodgers have to find a higher notch and kick up into it. The Padres and the Diamondbacks have already done so, and they're up on rung one with us. We sat back on our heels long enough. Time to pull away. ( But no wheelies and mysterious broken wrists, please! )
Boy, sometimes things break your way, and sometimes they do not. Remember a few games back, coming off getting swept by the Angels and dropping one to the Brewers? Soft rumblings of discomfort through sections of the fan base:
The offense isn't getting it done.
You can't make a run stand up every game.
You have to score to win.
You're not going to score if you can only hit singles from about 5 spots in the lineup and nothing from the other four.
Then those spinning lineup wheels found some purchase and the Dodgers bounced out of the home stand with two 2-1 series wins.
The wheels found purchase on some extra base hits. You really can't win with a lineup of singles hitters. We are carrying two of those already: Pierre, and 2007 Nomar. 2007 Gonzo is also worryingly singles-like, despite hitting the odd home run.
Speaking of singles and not getting it done, let's break down the past three series by what the Dodgers offense did. In the games against the Angels, here is the sequence of Dodger hits for each game. Innings indicated by spaces between lines, innings with only a walk, or no hits do not show up:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
single
single
double
double ( run scores )
double
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single ( run scores, thanks to a steal of second and advance to third on flyout )
double
Game 3
single
single
single
single
double ( run scores )
There is a lot of painfully dangling singles there. Apart from the manufactured run in the second game, the runs that did score scored on extra base hits. The runners stranded were mostly left holding their singles with nothing else to show for it.
That series was atypical, one would hope. Hunting for some context, here is the Angels' hitting sequences for the same series:
Angels
Game 1
walk
double ( run scores )
single
( steals second, advances on ground out, scores on another ground out )
walk
single
sac fly ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double
single
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
( steals second, scores on ground out and error )
home run ( run scores )
single
walk
single
ground out ( run scores )
single
double
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
double
single ( run scores )
single
single
single
single
single ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
triple
Does that tell us anything, apart from the fact that the Angels scored more runs because they had a heck of a lot more hits than the Dodgers did? Well, the Angels also had their little dangling singles, and they even had a inning of "single ( that word is starting to look weird now when I type it ) the opponent to death".
It does show that, of the 11 innings in which the Angels scored, they had extra base hits for 6 of those, assists from the opposing team in the form of walks or errors 4 times, and only once they scored on the virtue of singles alone ( and a lot of singles to boot! )
The Dodgers scored in three innings. Two due to an extra base hit in the inning, and once due to a walk, a steal, and two ground outs.
The moral of this story is: unless you have some help from the opposition and some extra base hits, you need a long string of singles to be sure of scoring a run.
That's it for that horrible series. ( Let us never speak of it again! ) Moving on to the next two series, won by the Dodgers, here is the same sequences for the Dodgers and the Brewers:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
double
single ( run scores )
home run ( runs score )
walk
single
single ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
steal
( dropped foul )
single ( run scores )
single
double
home run ( runs score )
Game 3
single
single
hit by pitch
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
error
single
double
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
sac bunt
walk
steal
balk
walk
sac fly ( run scores )
single
walk
single
Brewers
Game 1
single
home run ( run scores )
single
double ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double ( runs score )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
single
single ( run scores )
walk
double ( run scores )
single
Game 3
single
walk
sac bunt
walk
single
ground rule double
double
infield single
infield single to second
ground out
single ( run scores )
Yeah?
Well, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. Of those eight innings, 5 had extra base hits, and the other three had help from the opposition ( all three had walks, and two also had either an error, or a balk and a sac fly, to help things along ). Not one time was any runs scored on singles alone.
And the Brewers? They scored in 7 innings. 5 of those innings had extra base hits. One of the others had a walk as well, and the other was stringed together on a single, ground out, and single.
How about one more series, the most recent?
Dodgers
Game 1
single
error
walk
single ( run scores )
single
walk
home run ( runs score )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double
walk
single
single
single
single ( run scores )
wild pitch ( run scores )
walk
single ( run scores )
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
single
single
single
home run ( run scores )
walk
walk
intentional walk ( 2B open after steal )
hit by pitch ( run scores )
Cubs
Game 1
single
single
single
steal
ground rule double ( run scores )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
caught stealing ( no runners on )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
error ( run scores )
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
single
single
double
single ( run scores )
infield single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
walk
error
single
double
single
wild pitch
walk
single
double
single
single
single ( run scores )
In this series, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits. 2 of the remaining innings had walks in them as well. One of those were done entirely on walks and a hit by pitch! And only one had runs score on pure singles.
The Cubs scored in 5 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits, the other one was also a pure singles effort.
Moral of the story: you have to do more than hit singles to put up the runs that let you win ballgames. If you have a lineup of aging veterans "that knows how to win" yet mostly hits singles, you're going to struggle to see those veterans do what they know how to do. ( Just had to get that out of my system ) The 2007 Dodgers threaten to resemble a club of singles hitters, and singles hitters do not win games consistently.
There are players young and old on this team who could bring some power to the plate. Whether they do so with fair consistency will determine how often this team wins - provided the pitching remains stellar, else the 2007 Dodgers will be the 2007 Yankees before you could blink.
Now, on to explaining the title of this post. Who should have swept whom?
The ( losing record ) Cubs should have swept the Dodgers, we all know that. But for a huge, happy comeback in game 1 ( a jambalaya of trademarked singles, one wild pitch and a sac fly, it was done the Dodgers way ) and a freebie in game 3, we'd be looking up a two-game ladder at the Padres.
The dog days of summer, they're a-comin'. Swinging into June, the Dodgers have to find a higher notch and kick up into it. The Padres and the Diamondbacks have already done so, and they're up on rung one with us. We sat back on our heels long enough. Time to pull away. ( But no wheelies and mysterious broken wrists, please! )
Washington Preview: I miss the Expos
by Joshua Worley
The Nats are so awful and nondescript. The only thing interesting about them is the shortening of their team name into "Nats", which feels like a throwback nickname, if that makes sense. It should, because indeed, the original Washington Senators were also called the Nationals for most of their existence as well, and the nickname "Nats" was frequently used for the team in the first half of the twentieth century.
I miss the old days, when the National League had just 12 teams. I guess I should be more specific, since I was just going on about the original Senators: to me the old days is the 1980's. Back then there was no team in an abomination of a ballpark in Arizona ( shudder ). There was no Arena-baseball being played in Denver. The Brewers were in the American League where they belonged, with all the other boring American League teams. There was no team in Florida buying World Series titles.
There was, however, a team in Montreal. The Expos were the odd duck of the NL east, a team playing in French Canadian Montreal. Back then the Expos were still relevant, still popular, still good. They had Gary Carter, Tim Raines, Tim Wallach and Andre Dawson. They weren't just a sad lame duck franchise, as they became in later years, with no players and no hope and no fanbase. There was a time when the Expos had more of a claim to fame then being the home team of the mascot Youppi!
Yeah, I miss the Expos. I miss the old Expos logo, an M that strangely doubled as a lowercase "elb". I miss having a non-American city in the NL; almost a European city in character. I miss getting to hear "O Canada" before Expos games ... the only chance of hearing that now is if the Dodgers play the Blue Jays, but how often does that happen? ( Okay, it happens this year! ) I even miss that horrible stadium, that artificial turf house of horrors where the Dodgers so often lost, because when they did win it was that much sweeter. I remember the Dodgers carrying sod with them into the Montreal dugout to break their artificial turf jinx one year.
I hope the Dodgers won't have any trouble winning in Washington this year. The Nats are really awful, especially on offense. Only the Cardinals are worse in the NL at scoring runs. The Nats are 21-30, with a run differential of 191-241. Now the Nats do have a 12-5 record in their last 17 games, and they've scored at least 4 runs in each of their last 8 games. Regardless of this recent success of the Nats, the Dodgers need to win this series. Arizona and San Diego have each already taken their first series from the Nats, and the Dodgers need to do the same.
The pitching matchups are Penny v Simontacchi, Lowe v Bacsik, and Hendrickson v Bowie. I have to admit I've not heard of any of the Nats pitchers. I'm also really tired to seeing Hendrickson's name as an upcoming pitcher. I look very much forward to the day, I hope coming very soon, when there is no Dodger starter whose name makes me shudder.
Dmitri Dell Young -- 1B
age: 33
bats: switch
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.298 -- 0.387 -- 0.468
Young is by far the Nats best hitter. That's a rather amazing and pathetic turn of events, because Young came to the team as a non-roster spring training invitee on a minor league contract in February. Young had legal and alcohol problems last year, and did not hit well with the Tigers, with an OPS of 0.700 in fewer than 200 plate appearances. And yet Young had the self-absorption to accuse the Tigers of unfairly releasing him last year, after he played so awfully and missed playing time because of problems he created for himself. Jim Leyland, the famed manager who once disgracefully quit on the Colorado Rockies, fired back a rip of his own at Dmitri. All this happened in February; things have been quiet in Dmitri-land since. Young has revived his career and seems to have turned his life back around. The one pothole in the road so far happened just two days ago, when he had to leave the Nats game after a collision with Scott Rolen at first base. Young is hopeful that he will be able to play today, though I think he should take at least three days off and make sure he's fully healthy before coming back.
Seriously, if he can't play it will be a big blow to the Nats offense, such as it is. He leads the team in slugging percentage and on base percentage.
Ryan Matthew Church -- CF/LF
age: 28
bats: left
0.263 -- 0.372 -- 0.455
Church and Young are the only Nats with an OPS above 0.800. Church is one of the few bright spots on the Nats, a relatively young player who can really hit. And yet at age 28 he's never yet had a full year at the big league level. What gives?
Well, in 2005 after being named the NL rookie of the month for May, Church had injury troubles and ended up with only about 300 plate appearances. Yet he still had an OPS of 0.819 on the year and he seemed a lock to be the team's starting center fielder the next year. What happened next shows the utter incompetence and small-minded pettiness of the Nats GM Jim Bowden. Church was demoted to AAA at the start of 2006 after having a poor spring training; in his place Brandon Watson was promoted. Said Bowden: "Brandon Watson outplayed him, outhit him, got on base, stole bases, got a good percentage of stolen bases, did the things that we asked him to do." Church, who was understandably shocked, said, "I didn't think it was a competition." Why would he, after winning the starting job during the regular season the previous year?
Bowden doesn't seem to realize that spring training stats don't matter. Or he just felt like punishing a player who didn't have a spring as good as he thought he should have. Or maybe he honestly thought Brandon Watson was the better player. But if he really thought that, then he really mistreated Watson, because Watson got to play in all of 8 games after his great spring before being demoted again. What kind of chance is that? This makes me think Bowden either wasn't buying the snake oil he was selling about Watson being better than Church, and just wanted to punish Church, or that Bowden is just the stupidest, most arrogant GM to ever walk the earth.
When Watson was sent down, Church was called right back up, which I think confirms my "punishment for a bad spring" theory. But then after 23 games Church was sent down to AAA again, with a line of 0.215 -- 0.346 -- 0.452. Are you kidding me, Bowden? What does anyone want to bet that all Bowden looked at was the batting average, and didn't notice the great secondary averages? Once Church's batting average reverted to a more normal level his OPS would have been around 0.900. The Nats had a center fielder who was already putting up an OPS of 0.800 and a good bet to do a lot better, and Bowden threw it away because of a low batting average. Unbelievable.
Church finally was back up to the big leagues to stay on 22 July 2006, and on the year he ended up with an OPS of 0.891. I'm sure Bowden felt that his demotions were just the kick in the pants Church needed to reach this level of excellence, and would take credit for Church's success. While Church was languishing in AAA a collection of mostly stiffs played in center field for the Nats:
Player Name --- games --- OPS
Ryan Church --- 51 --- 0.892
Marlon Byrd --- 57 --- 0.667
Nook Logan --- 26 --- 0.726
Damien Jackson --- 22 --- 0.666
Alex Escobar --- 23 --- 0.969
Brandon Watson --- 8 --- 0.385
Marlon Anderson --- 7 --- 0.754
Escobar did his damage in less than 100 at bats; his career OPS is 0.743 in about 400 plate appearances. Is anyone else disturbed that a man named Damien ended up with an OPS of 0.666? There's just no excuse for letting this collection of players man center field when you have Ryan Church available.
I can't help but think of James Loney in all this. Now the situations aren't even close to being parallel, except in the sense that again there is a player not getting the chance at the big league level he deserves. Loney in 2007 is far younger than Church in 2006 was, and Loney doesn't have quite the big league track record Church had put together previously. Loney wasn't demoted because of a bad spring; he was demoted in spite of a great spring. And the players chosen over Church were all bad, while Nomar has been chosen over Loney. Nomar did have a good 2006 and ownership must have put considerable pressure on Colletti to resign this fan favorite.
Still, when I look at the sad abuse of Church by Bowden I do think of Colletti and Loney a little bit.
Ryan Wallace Zimmerman -- 3B
age: 22
bats: right
0.249 -- 0.306 -- 0.402
When I look at his name I am reminded of "Charles Wallace" from "A Wrinkle in Time". Zimmerman is scuffling along this year, and he had a good but not great OPS of 0.822 last year. Why all the hype surrounding him? Well, he's only 22. So yeah, he's really good if he's putting up an OPS of 0.800 at age 21.
No one else has played third base for the Nats this year. I think his biggest problem on the year so far is his strikeouts outnumber his walks 32 to 16. I'd like to see Dodger pitching keep up this trend.
Felipe Lopez Jr. -- 2B/SS
age: 27
bats: switch
0.255 -- 0.304 -- 0.363
I'm going to have a really hard time finding something interesting to say about all the awful Nats hitters to come. Lopez has an alarming number of strikeouts ( 40 ) for someone with not much power. There are a lot of Nat hitters with strikeout totals that exceed their walk totals by a wide margin, which typically produces low batting averages and low on base percentages. The Nats are 354-169 in strikeouts to walks, while the Dodgers are 252-183.
Lopez started the year as the regular shortstop, and then moved to second when Guzman became the regular shortstop.
Christian Antonio Guzman -- SS
age: 29
bats: switch
0.269 -- 0.326 -- 0.397
Yet another crappy switch hitter. He's not doing that bad, actually. I mean, this is the same guy who put up an OPS of 0.574 in 142 games back in 2005 for one of the worst offensive seasons in baseball history. Guzman missed all of 2006 after having shoulder surgery.
Ronald Belliard -- 2B
age: 32
bats: right
0.281 -- 0.323 -- 0.356
He lost his regular second base job after a hot April. He might start a game in this series, or see some action as a pinch hitter.
Austin Ryan Kearns -- RF
age: 27
bats: right
0.262 -- 0.324 -- 0.414
Same old story as so many other Nats: 37 strike outs, 15 walks. That's a good recipe for an OPB of only 0.320, which isn't quite good enough for a corner outfielder. He hits the occasional home run or double.
Kearns does a lot better on the road than at home, like many other Nats. I guess it's worth noting that the Nats aren't quite as bad offensively as these stats show, since their home stadium is a pitchers park. The Nats home OPS is 50 points lower than their road OPS.
Brian Duncan Schneider -- C
age: 30
bats: left
0.236 -- 0.320 -- 0.345
He's a regular old catcher. Makes me so glad to have Russ on the Dodgers.
Exavier Prente Logan -- CF
age: 27
bats: switch
0.265 -- 0.308 -- 0.367
Words fail me -- what a name! How did he get to be called "Nook"? I'm sure Vinny knows, and will tell us. He's probably told the story before, and I've forgotten. I know some people incorrectly say the name "Xavier" by pronouncing the intitial X like the letter X instead of with a Z sound: I guess Exavier's parents made this alternate pronunciation explicit, which I find rather bizarre.
He missed some time in April on the DL with a foot injury. Since he came back Church has moved over to left field to make way for Logan in center.
Jason William Simontacchi -- P
age: 33
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
4.37 -- 22.2 -- 16 -- 7 -- 2
Simontacchi pitched with the Cardinals from 2002-2004, then was out of the majors until this year. He gave up too many walks and home runs in his go arounds with the Cards, and why would anything really be different now?
He's not lasted longer than 6 innings in any of his 4 starts so far. The Dodgers should see plenty of the bullpen when he starts today. The Nats 'pen has been pretty average, with an ERA of 3.79 and a record of 9-7. The Dodger 'pen, in contrast, has an ERA of 3.20 and a record of 9-3.
One strange aside: the vaunted Padre bullpen, with a NL best ERA of 2.26, has a record of just 7-9. The Padre 'pen along with some limp late-inning offense has let some games get away.
Michael J. Bacsik -- P
age: 29
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
1.98 -- 13.2 -- 5 -- 2 -- 2
I'm willing to let that J. stay uninvestigated, since this way he reminds me of Michael J. Fox. Here is another pitcher whose last year in the big leagues before this one was 2004. Man, do the Nats suck. He's never shown anything previously at the big league level. He's allowed three runs so far on those two home runs. His ERA will soon be leaping up above 4, maybe even 5.
Bacsik has made just two starts; in his only home start he shut out the Orioles for 6 innings. That better not happen to the Dodgers.
Micah Andrew Bowie -- P
age: 32
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.91 -- 25.1 -- 18 -- 6 -- 4
Yet another pitcher with a two year gap in his big league resume! He pitched 19 inning with the Nats last year, then before that his last big league stint was in 2003. He's been thrust into the starting rotation after being in the 'pen to start the year. I don't feel so bad for not recognizing any of the Nat starters anymore.
What's with all these starters who weren't starters to start the year? Well, the Nats have had 4 pitchers go on the DL. Only Matt Chico is still standing from the start of the year; Patterson, Williams, Hill, and Bergmann have all gone on the DL.
The Dodgers have no excuse not to win at least 2 of 3 in this series, no matter how hot the Nats have been lately. Strike that: With the Padres and Snakes right with the Dodgers in the NL West standings, the Dodgers better sweep.
The Nats are so awful and nondescript. The only thing interesting about them is the shortening of their team name into "Nats", which feels like a throwback nickname, if that makes sense. It should, because indeed, the original Washington Senators were also called the Nationals for most of their existence as well, and the nickname "Nats" was frequently used for the team in the first half of the twentieth century.
I miss the old days, when the National League had just 12 teams. I guess I should be more specific, since I was just going on about the original Senators: to me the old days is the 1980's. Back then there was no team in an abomination of a ballpark in Arizona ( shudder ). There was no Arena-baseball being played in Denver. The Brewers were in the American League where they belonged, with all the other boring American League teams. There was no team in Florida buying World Series titles.
There was, however, a team in Montreal. The Expos were the odd duck of the NL east, a team playing in French Canadian Montreal. Back then the Expos were still relevant, still popular, still good. They had Gary Carter, Tim Raines, Tim Wallach and Andre Dawson. They weren't just a sad lame duck franchise, as they became in later years, with no players and no hope and no fanbase. There was a time when the Expos had more of a claim to fame then being the home team of the mascot Youppi!
Yeah, I miss the Expos. I miss the old Expos logo, an M that strangely doubled as a lowercase "elb". I miss having a non-American city in the NL; almost a European city in character. I miss getting to hear "O Canada" before Expos games ... the only chance of hearing that now is if the Dodgers play the Blue Jays, but how often does that happen? ( Okay, it happens this year! ) I even miss that horrible stadium, that artificial turf house of horrors where the Dodgers so often lost, because when they did win it was that much sweeter. I remember the Dodgers carrying sod with them into the Montreal dugout to break their artificial turf jinx one year.
I hope the Dodgers won't have any trouble winning in Washington this year. The Nats are really awful, especially on offense. Only the Cardinals are worse in the NL at scoring runs. The Nats are 21-30, with a run differential of 191-241. Now the Nats do have a 12-5 record in their last 17 games, and they've scored at least 4 runs in each of their last 8 games. Regardless of this recent success of the Nats, the Dodgers need to win this series. Arizona and San Diego have each already taken their first series from the Nats, and the Dodgers need to do the same.
The pitching matchups are Penny v Simontacchi, Lowe v Bacsik, and Hendrickson v Bowie. I have to admit I've not heard of any of the Nats pitchers. I'm also really tired to seeing Hendrickson's name as an upcoming pitcher. I look very much forward to the day, I hope coming very soon, when there is no Dodger starter whose name makes me shudder.
Dmitri Dell Young -- 1B
age: 33
bats: switch
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.298 -- 0.387 -- 0.468
Young is by far the Nats best hitter. That's a rather amazing and pathetic turn of events, because Young came to the team as a non-roster spring training invitee on a minor league contract in February. Young had legal and alcohol problems last year, and did not hit well with the Tigers, with an OPS of 0.700 in fewer than 200 plate appearances. And yet Young had the self-absorption to accuse the Tigers of unfairly releasing him last year, after he played so awfully and missed playing time because of problems he created for himself. Jim Leyland, the famed manager who once disgracefully quit on the Colorado Rockies, fired back a rip of his own at Dmitri. All this happened in February; things have been quiet in Dmitri-land since. Young has revived his career and seems to have turned his life back around. The one pothole in the road so far happened just two days ago, when he had to leave the Nats game after a collision with Scott Rolen at first base. Young is hopeful that he will be able to play today, though I think he should take at least three days off and make sure he's fully healthy before coming back.
Seriously, if he can't play it will be a big blow to the Nats offense, such as it is. He leads the team in slugging percentage and on base percentage.
Ryan Matthew Church -- CF/LF
age: 28
bats: left
0.263 -- 0.372 -- 0.455
Church and Young are the only Nats with an OPS above 0.800. Church is one of the few bright spots on the Nats, a relatively young player who can really hit. And yet at age 28 he's never yet had a full year at the big league level. What gives?
Well, in 2005 after being named the NL rookie of the month for May, Church had injury troubles and ended up with only about 300 plate appearances. Yet he still had an OPS of 0.819 on the year and he seemed a lock to be the team's starting center fielder the next year. What happened next shows the utter incompetence and small-minded pettiness of the Nats GM Jim Bowden. Church was demoted to AAA at the start of 2006 after having a poor spring training; in his place Brandon Watson was promoted. Said Bowden: "Brandon Watson outplayed him, outhit him, got on base, stole bases, got a good percentage of stolen bases, did the things that we asked him to do." Church, who was understandably shocked, said, "I didn't think it was a competition." Why would he, after winning the starting job during the regular season the previous year?
Bowden doesn't seem to realize that spring training stats don't matter. Or he just felt like punishing a player who didn't have a spring as good as he thought he should have. Or maybe he honestly thought Brandon Watson was the better player. But if he really thought that, then he really mistreated Watson, because Watson got to play in all of 8 games after his great spring before being demoted again. What kind of chance is that? This makes me think Bowden either wasn't buying the snake oil he was selling about Watson being better than Church, and just wanted to punish Church, or that Bowden is just the stupidest, most arrogant GM to ever walk the earth.
When Watson was sent down, Church was called right back up, which I think confirms my "punishment for a bad spring" theory. But then after 23 games Church was sent down to AAA again, with a line of 0.215 -- 0.346 -- 0.452. Are you kidding me, Bowden? What does anyone want to bet that all Bowden looked at was the batting average, and didn't notice the great secondary averages? Once Church's batting average reverted to a more normal level his OPS would have been around 0.900. The Nats had a center fielder who was already putting up an OPS of 0.800 and a good bet to do a lot better, and Bowden threw it away because of a low batting average. Unbelievable.
Church finally was back up to the big leagues to stay on 22 July 2006, and on the year he ended up with an OPS of 0.891. I'm sure Bowden felt that his demotions were just the kick in the pants Church needed to reach this level of excellence, and would take credit for Church's success. While Church was languishing in AAA a collection of mostly stiffs played in center field for the Nats:
Player Name --- games --- OPS
Ryan Church --- 51 --- 0.892
Marlon Byrd --- 57 --- 0.667
Nook Logan --- 26 --- 0.726
Damien Jackson --- 22 --- 0.666
Alex Escobar --- 23 --- 0.969
Brandon Watson --- 8 --- 0.385
Marlon Anderson --- 7 --- 0.754
Escobar did his damage in less than 100 at bats; his career OPS is 0.743 in about 400 plate appearances. Is anyone else disturbed that a man named Damien ended up with an OPS of 0.666? There's just no excuse for letting this collection of players man center field when you have Ryan Church available.
I can't help but think of James Loney in all this. Now the situations aren't even close to being parallel, except in the sense that again there is a player not getting the chance at the big league level he deserves. Loney in 2007 is far younger than Church in 2006 was, and Loney doesn't have quite the big league track record Church had put together previously. Loney wasn't demoted because of a bad spring; he was demoted in spite of a great spring. And the players chosen over Church were all bad, while Nomar has been chosen over Loney. Nomar did have a good 2006 and ownership must have put considerable pressure on Colletti to resign this fan favorite.
Still, when I look at the sad abuse of Church by Bowden I do think of Colletti and Loney a little bit.
Ryan Wallace Zimmerman -- 3B
age: 22
bats: right
0.249 -- 0.306 -- 0.402
When I look at his name I am reminded of "Charles Wallace" from "A Wrinkle in Time". Zimmerman is scuffling along this year, and he had a good but not great OPS of 0.822 last year. Why all the hype surrounding him? Well, he's only 22. So yeah, he's really good if he's putting up an OPS of 0.800 at age 21.
No one else has played third base for the Nats this year. I think his biggest problem on the year so far is his strikeouts outnumber his walks 32 to 16. I'd like to see Dodger pitching keep up this trend.
Felipe Lopez Jr. -- 2B/SS
age: 27
bats: switch
0.255 -- 0.304 -- 0.363
I'm going to have a really hard time finding something interesting to say about all the awful Nats hitters to come. Lopez has an alarming number of strikeouts ( 40 ) for someone with not much power. There are a lot of Nat hitters with strikeout totals that exceed their walk totals by a wide margin, which typically produces low batting averages and low on base percentages. The Nats are 354-169 in strikeouts to walks, while the Dodgers are 252-183.
Lopez started the year as the regular shortstop, and then moved to second when Guzman became the regular shortstop.
Christian Antonio Guzman -- SS
age: 29
bats: switch
0.269 -- 0.326 -- 0.397
Yet another crappy switch hitter. He's not doing that bad, actually. I mean, this is the same guy who put up an OPS of 0.574 in 142 games back in 2005 for one of the worst offensive seasons in baseball history. Guzman missed all of 2006 after having shoulder surgery.
Ronald Belliard -- 2B
age: 32
bats: right
0.281 -- 0.323 -- 0.356
He lost his regular second base job after a hot April. He might start a game in this series, or see some action as a pinch hitter.
Austin Ryan Kearns -- RF
age: 27
bats: right
0.262 -- 0.324 -- 0.414
Same old story as so many other Nats: 37 strike outs, 15 walks. That's a good recipe for an OPB of only 0.320, which isn't quite good enough for a corner outfielder. He hits the occasional home run or double.
Kearns does a lot better on the road than at home, like many other Nats. I guess it's worth noting that the Nats aren't quite as bad offensively as these stats show, since their home stadium is a pitchers park. The Nats home OPS is 50 points lower than their road OPS.
Brian Duncan Schneider -- C
age: 30
bats: left
0.236 -- 0.320 -- 0.345
He's a regular old catcher. Makes me so glad to have Russ on the Dodgers.
Exavier Prente Logan -- CF
age: 27
bats: switch
0.265 -- 0.308 -- 0.367
Words fail me -- what a name! How did he get to be called "Nook"? I'm sure Vinny knows, and will tell us. He's probably told the story before, and I've forgotten. I know some people incorrectly say the name "Xavier" by pronouncing the intitial X like the letter X instead of with a Z sound: I guess Exavier's parents made this alternate pronunciation explicit, which I find rather bizarre.
He missed some time in April on the DL with a foot injury. Since he came back Church has moved over to left field to make way for Logan in center.
Jason William Simontacchi -- P
age: 33
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
4.37 -- 22.2 -- 16 -- 7 -- 2
Simontacchi pitched with the Cardinals from 2002-2004, then was out of the majors until this year. He gave up too many walks and home runs in his go arounds with the Cards, and why would anything really be different now?
He's not lasted longer than 6 innings in any of his 4 starts so far. The Dodgers should see plenty of the bullpen when he starts today. The Nats 'pen has been pretty average, with an ERA of 3.79 and a record of 9-7. The Dodger 'pen, in contrast, has an ERA of 3.20 and a record of 9-3.
One strange aside: the vaunted Padre bullpen, with a NL best ERA of 2.26, has a record of just 7-9. The Padre 'pen along with some limp late-inning offense has let some games get away.
Michael J. Bacsik -- P
age: 29
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
1.98 -- 13.2 -- 5 -- 2 -- 2
I'm willing to let that J. stay uninvestigated, since this way he reminds me of Michael J. Fox. Here is another pitcher whose last year in the big leagues before this one was 2004. Man, do the Nats suck. He's never shown anything previously at the big league level. He's allowed three runs so far on those two home runs. His ERA will soon be leaping up above 4, maybe even 5.
Bacsik has made just two starts; in his only home start he shut out the Orioles for 6 innings. That better not happen to the Dodgers.
Micah Andrew Bowie -- P
age: 32
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.91 -- 25.1 -- 18 -- 6 -- 4
Yet another pitcher with a two year gap in his big league resume! He pitched 19 inning with the Nats last year, then before that his last big league stint was in 2003. He's been thrust into the starting rotation after being in the 'pen to start the year. I don't feel so bad for not recognizing any of the Nat starters anymore.
What's with all these starters who weren't starters to start the year? Well, the Nats have had 4 pitchers go on the DL. Only Matt Chico is still standing from the start of the year; Patterson, Williams, Hill, and Bergmann have all gone on the DL.
The Dodgers have no excuse not to win at least 2 of 3 in this series, no matter how hot the Nats have been lately. Strike that: With the Padres and Snakes right with the Dodgers in the NL West standings, the Dodgers better sweep.
28 May 2007
The Rest of Russ
by Joshua Worley
Paul LoDuca was often called the "heart and soul" of the Dodgers, especially after he was traded away, but was he, really? He was a good hitter for average, a popular player, but ... did he ever mean as much to Dodgers as Russ Martin means to the Dodgers now? I don't think so. LoDuca was good, but not as good as Russ.
Russ leads the NL in OPS by a catcher at 0.838, and is fourth in the major leagues in OPS by a catcher. He's stolen 8 of 9 bases, which makes him the most valuable base stealer on the team, according to linear weights. I've used the linear weights formula that Andrew Grant at True Blue LA uses, which has a plus 0.178 for a steal and a minus 0.441 for a caught stealing. Juan Pierre has more steals, but his caught stealing number makes him less valuable than Russ as a base-stealer. In overall linear weights Russ is second on the Dodgers so far to Jeff Kent.
Yet there's so much more to Russ Martin than his offense, as every Dodger fan knows. In Sunday's 2-1 win over the Cubs, Martin made four outs in four plate appearances, and yet defensively he was brilliant. He threw out foolish Mike Barrett trying to steal third with two outs in the second inning. He saved several possible wild pitches from Wolf with a man on third in the fifth inning. He made a terrific over-the-rope-fence catch in the seventh inning.
Martin has thrown out 34% of base-stealers, good for seventh in the major leagues. His catcher ERA is second in the major leagues, for what that's worth ... which is probably nothing. But anecdotal evidence such as the famous story of him telling Lowe he would stay out at the mound until Lowe calmed down suggests that Martin is very good at handling pitchers. He has only 2 passed balls, but more importantly, the Dodgers as a team have only 12 wild pitches, putting them in the bottom ten in the major leagues in wild pitches thrown. Martin has saved a lot of wild pitches during the season.
Martin also leads the major leagues in games started among catchers, with 45. Jason Kendall is second with 43; most starting catchers have between 30-40 starts right now.
Before Sunday's game, Jon Weisman said: Don't want to hear any complaining about Russell Martin being in the lineup. He rested Thursday and he'll rest again Monday.
There has been a lot of talk in the comments at Dodger Thoughts about the rest Russ is getting, questioning if it's enough. To be honest, I hate it when Russ rests, though I know he absolutely has to have some. I'm more likely to complain if he isn't in the lineup, especially if it's a game I'm seeing in person.
So, how much rest has Russ received? Below is a text graphic showing each week of the season so far ( a week starts on a Monday here ). If Russ started at catcher, there is an X, if he didn't start at catcher, there is an underscore. There is a lowercase x for one game Russ started then came out of after Tomko kerploded. ( I was at that game. )
XXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
XX_XXXX
_XXXXXX
_XX_XX_
XXXXXXX
xXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
Russ has had 11 days off so far. The entire team had the day off 6 times; Lieberthal started at catcher 5 times. Russ was the DH once when Lieberthal started, but I've counted this as a day off. Russ has started 45 games in 56 days. That seems like enough rest to me.
Russ has had one long stretch of 10 days playing catcher in a row; otherwise he usually plays 4 or 5 in a row then gets a rest day. He's had at least one rest day in all but one week ( during his 10 in a row ) and multiple rest days in 3 separate weeks.
I don't think Russ should start 10 days in a row very often, but I don't have a problem if he does it 2 or 3 times in a season. The Dodgers may need him to start 10 in a row down the stretch; and it's good to see how he holds up doing that once early in the season. And he did get a half-game off in the middle of the 10 in a row, for what that is worth.
About the possible stretch drive: The Dodgers have every Monday off during the last three weeks of the season, so Martin could easily start every game of the last three weeks and still have enough rest during that time.
After today's off day the Dodgers have 16 games in a row. Martin should rest at least once during this stretch, probably twice, but no more. It's just not the same team without him in the lineup and behind the plate. I want to see him play!
Paul LoDuca was often called the "heart and soul" of the Dodgers, especially after he was traded away, but was he, really? He was a good hitter for average, a popular player, but ... did he ever mean as much to Dodgers as Russ Martin means to the Dodgers now? I don't think so. LoDuca was good, but not as good as Russ.
Russ leads the NL in OPS by a catcher at 0.838, and is fourth in the major leagues in OPS by a catcher. He's stolen 8 of 9 bases, which makes him the most valuable base stealer on the team, according to linear weights. I've used the linear weights formula that Andrew Grant at True Blue LA uses, which has a plus 0.178 for a steal and a minus 0.441 for a caught stealing. Juan Pierre has more steals, but his caught stealing number makes him less valuable than Russ as a base-stealer. In overall linear weights Russ is second on the Dodgers so far to Jeff Kent.
Yet there's so much more to Russ Martin than his offense, as every Dodger fan knows. In Sunday's 2-1 win over the Cubs, Martin made four outs in four plate appearances, and yet defensively he was brilliant. He threw out foolish Mike Barrett trying to steal third with two outs in the second inning. He saved several possible wild pitches from Wolf with a man on third in the fifth inning. He made a terrific over-the-rope-fence catch in the seventh inning.
Martin has thrown out 34% of base-stealers, good for seventh in the major leagues. His catcher ERA is second in the major leagues, for what that's worth ... which is probably nothing. But anecdotal evidence such as the famous story of him telling Lowe he would stay out at the mound until Lowe calmed down suggests that Martin is very good at handling pitchers. He has only 2 passed balls, but more importantly, the Dodgers as a team have only 12 wild pitches, putting them in the bottom ten in the major leagues in wild pitches thrown. Martin has saved a lot of wild pitches during the season.
Martin also leads the major leagues in games started among catchers, with 45. Jason Kendall is second with 43; most starting catchers have between 30-40 starts right now.
Before Sunday's game, Jon Weisman said: Don't want to hear any complaining about Russell Martin being in the lineup. He rested Thursday and he'll rest again Monday.
There has been a lot of talk in the comments at Dodger Thoughts about the rest Russ is getting, questioning if it's enough. To be honest, I hate it when Russ rests, though I know he absolutely has to have some. I'm more likely to complain if he isn't in the lineup, especially if it's a game I'm seeing in person.
So, how much rest has Russ received? Below is a text graphic showing each week of the season so far ( a week starts on a Monday here ). If Russ started at catcher, there is an X, if he didn't start at catcher, there is an underscore. There is a lowercase x for one game Russ started then came out of after Tomko kerploded. ( I was at that game. )
XXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
XX_XXXX
_XXXXXX
_XX_XX_
XXXXXXX
xXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
Russ has had 11 days off so far. The entire team had the day off 6 times; Lieberthal started at catcher 5 times. Russ was the DH once when Lieberthal started, but I've counted this as a day off. Russ has started 45 games in 56 days. That seems like enough rest to me.
Russ has had one long stretch of 10 days playing catcher in a row; otherwise he usually plays 4 or 5 in a row then gets a rest day. He's had at least one rest day in all but one week ( during his 10 in a row ) and multiple rest days in 3 separate weeks.
I don't think Russ should start 10 days in a row very often, but I don't have a problem if he does it 2 or 3 times in a season. The Dodgers may need him to start 10 in a row down the stretch; and it's good to see how he holds up doing that once early in the season. And he did get a half-game off in the middle of the 10 in a row, for what that is worth.
About the possible stretch drive: The Dodgers have every Monday off during the last three weeks of the season, so Martin could easily start every game of the last three weeks and still have enough rest during that time.
After today's off day the Dodgers have 16 games in a row. Martin should rest at least once during this stretch, probably twice, but no more. It's just not the same team without him in the lineup and behind the plate. I want to see him play!
Run Kneed In
by Joshua Worley
I think all baseball fans would agree that Sunday's Dodger win was one of the goofiest ways you can win a baseball game. Except Cubs fans, who would likely just sputter and curse if asked about it. And Lou Pinella. I'm really going to miss the shots of him after inexplicable things happen; the shot of him after Barret tried to steal third and after Ethier's homer on a 0-2 pitch were hilarious. Poor guy. This can't be worse than being the Tampa Bay manager or working alongside those Fox broadcast clowns, though, right?
I wish Torre had been fired from the Yankees and Pinella hired to replace him before the season, as some rumors said might happen. Pinella would have been so entertaining during this Yankee start.
After Pierre's anti-climactic RKI, I starting thinking about the best and worst ways to win a tie game in the bottom of an inning. Not that there's really any bad way to win, but there's a big aesthetic difference between seeing a double score the winning run from first and seeing Juan Pierre poke out his knee into the path of the ball on a check swing to get on base with bases loaded. It's even hard to describe what happened; what an awkward sentence that was!
I thought it would be fun to make a ranking of ways to win a game in the bottom of the ninth or later from a tie game. It's all about putting little Juan Pierre's heroics into perspective!
1. Inside-the-park home run
Obviously no one is on base when this happens, because if there was the batter could stop running once the man on base scored and secured the win. An inside-the-park home run is already the most exciting play in baseball; just add the possibility of the game-winning run to it and it gets even better. And if the batter ( or third base coach ) is wrong in his guess that he'll be safe at the plate, then everything is lost.
2. Runner on second scores on wild-pitch or passed ball
Without Kirk Gibson in 1988 I wouldn't even know this was possible. It's the sheer audacity of going for two bases on a wild pitch that makes this so great.
3. Runner on third steals home
Again, it's the unexpectedness of it, the sheer audacity.
4. Runner on first scores on extra-base hit
The more realistic version of the first place entry. The ball is still hit hard and far, and a runner still has to come almost all the way around to score with most likely an exciting, desperate play at the plate.
5. Runner on third scores on shallow fly ball
Twice the Astros were denied the winning run by the Dodgers on shallow fly balls in the 22 inning game these teams played. Both times Mike Scioscia blocked the plate perfectly to deny the winning run. This is the classic race between thrown ball and runner at its purest, because they each start the race at the same time ( because the runner has to tag up ).
6. Runner on third scores when batter beats out double play attempt
Another race between runner and throw.
7. Runner on second scores on single
You'll always have a desperation throw home in this situation. You never really know for certain until you see the throw coming in if the runner will be safe or not, even if it seems likely he will be safe based on where the ball was hit. There's nothing like seeing the single fall in and think that the game will be won, then worrying for a moment about the throw home, then seeing that it's not quite in time as the winning run slides home.
8. Home run
Home runs are great, but once they're over the wall the drama is gone.
9. Runner on third scores on base hit
Once the ball gets by the infield and falls safely in it's over.
10. Runner on third scores on wild pitch or passed ball
Usually there isn't a close play at the plate in this situation.
11. Runner on third scores on deep fly ball
If the fly out is deep enough there isn't any drama. Often in this situation the ball won't even be caught because the outfielder was so shallow.
12. Run scores on error
This could be more exciting, I suppose, depending on how it happens. There are so many ways for runs to score on errors that I decided to put them all in one category.
13. Run scores on bases loaded walk
At least the excitement builds with each ball thrown, until the crowd is going crazy with the three ball count. The look on the visiting manager's face when the count reaches three balls is always great too. And then when ball four comes, you get that rare situation when the winning run just walks home.
14. Run scores on bases loaded catcher's interference
It's always anti-climactic when the winning run walks in based on an umpires decision, rather than a ball hit by the batter.
15. Run scores on balk with man on third
I remember the Dodgers winning a few times this way. Again the game ends with an umpire's decision.
16. Run scores on bases-loaded hit by pitch
Welcome to last place, Pierre! This doesn't have the build-up of a walk or the sudden drama of an unusual umpire decision. Poor Pierre, even when he does well he's trod upon. At least you checked your swing and prevented yourself from striking out. I don't know what the ruling would have been, but my feeling is that if he had struck out then it would not have been a wild pitch because I believe the ball is dead once it hits the batter. I know that a man on third ( with no one on first or second ) wouldn't be allowed to score on a ball that hit a batter that got away; why should that change just because the batter swung at the pitch?
I think all baseball fans would agree that Sunday's Dodger win was one of the goofiest ways you can win a baseball game. Except Cubs fans, who would likely just sputter and curse if asked about it. And Lou Pinella. I'm really going to miss the shots of him after inexplicable things happen; the shot of him after Barret tried to steal third and after Ethier's homer on a 0-2 pitch were hilarious. Poor guy. This can't be worse than being the Tampa Bay manager or working alongside those Fox broadcast clowns, though, right?
I wish Torre had been fired from the Yankees and Pinella hired to replace him before the season, as some rumors said might happen. Pinella would have been so entertaining during this Yankee start.
After Pierre's anti-climactic RKI, I starting thinking about the best and worst ways to win a tie game in the bottom of an inning. Not that there's really any bad way to win, but there's a big aesthetic difference between seeing a double score the winning run from first and seeing Juan Pierre poke out his knee into the path of the ball on a check swing to get on base with bases loaded. It's even hard to describe what happened; what an awkward sentence that was!
I thought it would be fun to make a ranking of ways to win a game in the bottom of the ninth or later from a tie game. It's all about putting little Juan Pierre's heroics into perspective!
1. Inside-the-park home run
Obviously no one is on base when this happens, because if there was the batter could stop running once the man on base scored and secured the win. An inside-the-park home run is already the most exciting play in baseball; just add the possibility of the game-winning run to it and it gets even better. And if the batter ( or third base coach ) is wrong in his guess that he'll be safe at the plate, then everything is lost.
2. Runner on second scores on wild-pitch or passed ball
Without Kirk Gibson in 1988 I wouldn't even know this was possible. It's the sheer audacity of going for two bases on a wild pitch that makes this so great.
3. Runner on third steals home
Again, it's the unexpectedness of it, the sheer audacity.
4. Runner on first scores on extra-base hit
The more realistic version of the first place entry. The ball is still hit hard and far, and a runner still has to come almost all the way around to score with most likely an exciting, desperate play at the plate.
5. Runner on third scores on shallow fly ball
Twice the Astros were denied the winning run by the Dodgers on shallow fly balls in the 22 inning game these teams played. Both times Mike Scioscia blocked the plate perfectly to deny the winning run. This is the classic race between thrown ball and runner at its purest, because they each start the race at the same time ( because the runner has to tag up ).
6. Runner on third scores when batter beats out double play attempt
Another race between runner and throw.
7. Runner on second scores on single
You'll always have a desperation throw home in this situation. You never really know for certain until you see the throw coming in if the runner will be safe or not, even if it seems likely he will be safe based on where the ball was hit. There's nothing like seeing the single fall in and think that the game will be won, then worrying for a moment about the throw home, then seeing that it's not quite in time as the winning run slides home.
8. Home run
Home runs are great, but once they're over the wall the drama is gone.
9. Runner on third scores on base hit
Once the ball gets by the infield and falls safely in it's over.
10. Runner on third scores on wild pitch or passed ball
Usually there isn't a close play at the plate in this situation.
11. Runner on third scores on deep fly ball
If the fly out is deep enough there isn't any drama. Often in this situation the ball won't even be caught because the outfielder was so shallow.
12. Run scores on error
This could be more exciting, I suppose, depending on how it happens. There are so many ways for runs to score on errors that I decided to put them all in one category.
13. Run scores on bases loaded walk
At least the excitement builds with each ball thrown, until the crowd is going crazy with the three ball count. The look on the visiting manager's face when the count reaches three balls is always great too. And then when ball four comes, you get that rare situation when the winning run just walks home.
14. Run scores on bases loaded catcher's interference
It's always anti-climactic when the winning run walks in based on an umpires decision, rather than a ball hit by the batter.
15. Run scores on balk with man on third
I remember the Dodgers winning a few times this way. Again the game ends with an umpire's decision.
16. Run scores on bases-loaded hit by pitch
Welcome to last place, Pierre! This doesn't have the build-up of a walk or the sudden drama of an unusual umpire decision. Poor Pierre, even when he does well he's trod upon. At least you checked your swing and prevented yourself from striking out. I don't know what the ruling would have been, but my feeling is that if he had struck out then it would not have been a wild pitch because I believe the ball is dead once it hits the batter. I know that a man on third ( with no one on first or second ) wouldn't be allowed to score on a ball that hit a batter that got away; why should that change just because the batter swung at the pitch?
26 May 2007
Observer's Notes: 25 May 2007
by Joshua Worley
It was an exhausting game to cheer for. By the end it felt like an emotional triple-header, one mental game for each time the real game seemed decided. A Dodger win, followed by a Cubs win, followed by another Dodgers win.
Of the three, it's the middle game of the mental triple-header that's going to remain strongest in my memory. It's hard to shake that feeling of utter despair, the sick disbelief of seeing every ball crushed, then the dull resignation that every ball will be crushed, the moment when hope quits, faith surrenders. Even Broxton, the rock, crumbled. He was liquefied. Seeing that was the worst blow of the inning. Five straight batters laced the ball all over the stadium against him. The last three weren't having good years, but it didn't matter. The inning belonged to the Cubs. They were virtuous with the bats.
The Cubs fans made so much noise. The symphony of Cub line drives and the Cub fans' rising cheers were the sounds of the inning. Percussion and chorus, percussion and chorus, again and again, a beautiful joy; a comeback win in the enemy stadium. Every Dodger fan was silent, except for the occasional shouted plea for Broxton to return to us, to bring back his wicked fastball and restore order. He never did.
There were a lot of Cubs fans at the game, most of them transplanted Chicagoans no doubt, all cheering on their hard-luck Cubbies. They were loud when things went the Cubs way, but they were also loud at other random moments, as if to make a show of strength, to lay claim to the ballpark. Cubs fans sat in front of us and to the left of us; we felt surrounded. One fan to the left of us in particular was very loud. He consistently chanted, "Let's go Cubbies!", though because of his peculiar accent it often sounded to me as if he was shouting "Let's go Padres!".
The most entertaining player of the first emotional game was Juan Pierre. Every ball he hit was wildly entertaining. In the first inning he swung away but produced a lovely bunt down the first base line. The pitcher had to scoop it up and toss it from his glove all in one motion: a marvelous play that the umpire said beat Pierre. Removed from any context, that was the play of the game. Pierre racing down the line, the pitcher desperately heaving the ball out of his glove, the Dodger fans thinking surely it won't work, surely it will catch in the glove or Pierre will be too fast: all decided in a moment by the umpire. That was the first time the Cubs fans around us really got to cheer. "He's safe," I grumbled. They showed a replay on diamondvision: I guess it was defensible to call him out.
In Pierre's second at bat he seemed to be going for redemption, or revenge, for his lost hit from his swinging bunt in his first at bat. This time he really did bunt, and again the ball went up the first base line creating a tough play for the pitcher. But this bunt was not quite as good as that first swinging bunt. The pitcher had time to pick up the ball and throw, and he had Pierre beat ... but the throw was too high. The first baseman leapt, Pierre passed first base, and the first baseman came down with the ball. The first baseman clearly lost contact with the bag for a moment, right around the time Pierre hit the bag, but did he have the ball in his glove a moment before his toes left the bag, or did he come down a moment before Pierre hit the bag? It was impossible to say. This time the umpire called him safe, and inexplicably the scorer called it a single. A decent major league throw would get Pierre there; it had to be an error. But it was a hit, and Pierre was on first, ready to do his thing. After a very obvious throw to first Griffster remarked that this pitcher's move to first wasn't very good; I said that surely that was his commercial move, as Vinny would call it. He had to have one better than that, I said. What I assumed, and did not say, is that Pierre would be aware of this too. Yet on the very next pitch Pierre went, except that it wasn't a pitch but a throw to first, and Pierre was then gunned down at second. I'll give Pierre this: he's plenty fast, and nearly had that thing beat anyway. But he was out, his luck in getting an unearned hit was thrown away. We heartily cursed his stupidity, then decided that there should be a ghost runner in place of him. We cursed his stupidity again after Nomar walked, and said the ghost runner, the "ghost Pierre" was on second. We cheered and cheered when Kent hit his home run, a no doubt about it bomb nearly half way up the bleachers, and then joked that the ghost Pierre had come around and scored. Alas, the ghost run didn't count, and it was only 3-0 Dodgers, not 4-0.
In Pierre's third at-bat he just poked the ball over the heads of the infield; the center fielder raced in to catch it, the shortstop and second baseman raced out to catch it, but finally a patch of grass between all three caught it and Pierre had another of his typical bloop hits. They are such cheap little hits, but it's such fun to watch the fielders race to catch these frustrating little hits. This time Pierre didn't fool around out there, and he came in to score on Kent's lovely double to the gap. Kent was clearly the player of the first half of the game, the offensive hero that seemed to lodge this game firmly in the Dodger win column. After it was 5-0, I had the game mentally as a win, which of course made the seventh inning massacre that much more devastating when it came.
The second most entertaining player of the first six innings of the game was Ted Lilly at the bat. I think he was the worst hitter I have ever seen. The first time he came up he had a man to bunt over, but he couldn't made contact on a bunt even once. It was as if he just held the bat out there and closed his eyes and hoped for the best. How hard is it to at least foul off a bunt? I mean, it's so easy to foul off a bunt that there is a special strikeout rule about it. The second time he came up there were runners in scoring position with two outs, so now he had to swing. His first swing made contact, but it was the weakest contact I've ever seen. He awkwardly brought the bat around and hit the ball about as late as it can be hit, producing a little foul dribbler. His next two swings were pathetic lunges at the ball, each one worse than the last. After that at-bat my mother remarked that she could have done better at the plate. I think she was right.
Lowe was brilliant in his typical ground-out way for five innings, and it seemed that he might be able to pitch another complete game masterpiece with us in attendance, as he did a year ago. But it was not to be; in the sixth inning his outs were fly balls and his ground balls were hits; he had clearly lost it. I don't fault Little for any of his moves in the seventh inning. He could have left in Beimel longer, perhaps, though Biemel's one out was a long fly ball. The 'pen just kerploded ... there's nothing else to say about it. It was stunning that it took Rudy Seanez to restore order.
I had lost all hope and will to cheer on the Dodgers after Broxton's kerplosion and that final horrible error by Abreu that gave the Cubs yet another run. The three-run deficit felt final: the Dodgers might be able to reel in two, but three was out of reach, especially after the impossible seventh. So it was that I sat stoic and bitter as Martin came to the plate in the bottom of the eighth. I had been thinking about leaving early for the last inning or so; though I normally loathe the thought of leaving any game early. But I just wanted to get out of there. I wanted to shut it out, just get on the long road home.
Then I heard it, the first sound of hope. It was from a Cubs fan, no less. "Come on, Howry!" he shouted, to newly inserted Cubs reliever Bobby Howry. It was the way he shouted it that produced a spark of hope. It was a plea, a prayer, almost. I know you suck, but please be good just this once. 4-11. The record of the Cubs bullpen. I knew the Cubs 'pen had struggled at time, but I didn't have any sort of feel for who was really vulnerable. Now I knew; this was one of the vulnerable ones.
I still wasn't quite ready to have faith again, though. When Martin got to two balls in the count, I was just hoping he could work a walk. Just get some baserunners and see what happens. I always hope for walks in that sort of situation, because hits can be stolen; a walk has no defense. But more importantly I lose my trust in the batters to hit the ball well; it seems like a gift from the opposing pitcher is needed. But Martin singled the other way, and then Luis Gonzalez singled as I was muttering "double play" as if to make that feared outcome sting less when it happened. Now with two runners on I had my faith in the game back; I was dragged back from that bitter despair. When Abreu singled the bases loaded I turned to Griffster and said, "Now it's over, they can't do anything with the bases loaded." She would have none of that, though so often in the past she had said it to me.
The Saenz at bat was the most exciting moment of the game for me. The possibility of a grand slam was so real; it saturated the air. All of us, Dodger fans and Cubs fans alike could feel it. It felt like this at bat was the moment the game would turn on, and what a game, what a wild and unpredictable game! I was clapping and stomping the whole at bat, and what an at bat it was. Saenz battled and fouled off some sliders, once ripping one foul that would have been a fair line drive if the pitch had been a fastball. I don't know what species of pitch he hit up the middle for his single. I just remember thinking at that point that we had them. I no longer doubted that the Dodgers would win.
And then, at the end, I finally got to see Saito pitch live. Back when the Dodgers were up 5-0 I had a momentary wistful thought that yet again I wouldn't get to see him; lately it seemed that every Dodger game I attended was a blowout either way. Saito did not disappoint when I finally got to see him. He had a strikeout, but what I'll most remember about his perfect ninth was the way Aramis Ramirez lunged off-balance at an 0-2 pitch. He was completely flummoxed and sent up a lovely little mini-pop-fly to Furcal for the first out. I think Saito has the nastiest outside strike I've ever seen from a Dodger.
My one regret from this game is that I didn't watch Saito after the last out. I wanted to see that great, happy smile, but I was just too caught up in cheering the win, the impossible win, after Clark caught the last out to look down. I just forgot. I'm guessing my smile was nearly as big as his, though.
What a game.
It was an exhausting game to cheer for. By the end it felt like an emotional triple-header, one mental game for each time the real game seemed decided. A Dodger win, followed by a Cubs win, followed by another Dodgers win.
Of the three, it's the middle game of the mental triple-header that's going to remain strongest in my memory. It's hard to shake that feeling of utter despair, the sick disbelief of seeing every ball crushed, then the dull resignation that every ball will be crushed, the moment when hope quits, faith surrenders. Even Broxton, the rock, crumbled. He was liquefied. Seeing that was the worst blow of the inning. Five straight batters laced the ball all over the stadium against him. The last three weren't having good years, but it didn't matter. The inning belonged to the Cubs. They were virtuous with the bats.
The Cubs fans made so much noise. The symphony of Cub line drives and the Cub fans' rising cheers were the sounds of the inning. Percussion and chorus, percussion and chorus, again and again, a beautiful joy; a comeback win in the enemy stadium. Every Dodger fan was silent, except for the occasional shouted plea for Broxton to return to us, to bring back his wicked fastball and restore order. He never did.
There were a lot of Cubs fans at the game, most of them transplanted Chicagoans no doubt, all cheering on their hard-luck Cubbies. They were loud when things went the Cubs way, but they were also loud at other random moments, as if to make a show of strength, to lay claim to the ballpark. Cubs fans sat in front of us and to the left of us; we felt surrounded. One fan to the left of us in particular was very loud. He consistently chanted, "Let's go Cubbies!", though because of his peculiar accent it often sounded to me as if he was shouting "Let's go Padres!".
The most entertaining player of the first emotional game was Juan Pierre. Every ball he hit was wildly entertaining. In the first inning he swung away but produced a lovely bunt down the first base line. The pitcher had to scoop it up and toss it from his glove all in one motion: a marvelous play that the umpire said beat Pierre. Removed from any context, that was the play of the game. Pierre racing down the line, the pitcher desperately heaving the ball out of his glove, the Dodger fans thinking surely it won't work, surely it will catch in the glove or Pierre will be too fast: all decided in a moment by the umpire. That was the first time the Cubs fans around us really got to cheer. "He's safe," I grumbled. They showed a replay on diamondvision: I guess it was defensible to call him out.
In Pierre's second at bat he seemed to be going for redemption, or revenge, for his lost hit from his swinging bunt in his first at bat. This time he really did bunt, and again the ball went up the first base line creating a tough play for the pitcher. But this bunt was not quite as good as that first swinging bunt. The pitcher had time to pick up the ball and throw, and he had Pierre beat ... but the throw was too high. The first baseman leapt, Pierre passed first base, and the first baseman came down with the ball. The first baseman clearly lost contact with the bag for a moment, right around the time Pierre hit the bag, but did he have the ball in his glove a moment before his toes left the bag, or did he come down a moment before Pierre hit the bag? It was impossible to say. This time the umpire called him safe, and inexplicably the scorer called it a single. A decent major league throw would get Pierre there; it had to be an error. But it was a hit, and Pierre was on first, ready to do his thing. After a very obvious throw to first Griffster remarked that this pitcher's move to first wasn't very good; I said that surely that was his commercial move, as Vinny would call it. He had to have one better than that, I said. What I assumed, and did not say, is that Pierre would be aware of this too. Yet on the very next pitch Pierre went, except that it wasn't a pitch but a throw to first, and Pierre was then gunned down at second. I'll give Pierre this: he's plenty fast, and nearly had that thing beat anyway. But he was out, his luck in getting an unearned hit was thrown away. We heartily cursed his stupidity, then decided that there should be a ghost runner in place of him. We cursed his stupidity again after Nomar walked, and said the ghost runner, the "ghost Pierre" was on second. We cheered and cheered when Kent hit his home run, a no doubt about it bomb nearly half way up the bleachers, and then joked that the ghost Pierre had come around and scored. Alas, the ghost run didn't count, and it was only 3-0 Dodgers, not 4-0.
In Pierre's third at-bat he just poked the ball over the heads of the infield; the center fielder raced in to catch it, the shortstop and second baseman raced out to catch it, but finally a patch of grass between all three caught it and Pierre had another of his typical bloop hits. They are such cheap little hits, but it's such fun to watch the fielders race to catch these frustrating little hits. This time Pierre didn't fool around out there, and he came in to score on Kent's lovely double to the gap. Kent was clearly the player of the first half of the game, the offensive hero that seemed to lodge this game firmly in the Dodger win column. After it was 5-0, I had the game mentally as a win, which of course made the seventh inning massacre that much more devastating when it came.
The second most entertaining player of the first six innings of the game was Ted Lilly at the bat. I think he was the worst hitter I have ever seen. The first time he came up he had a man to bunt over, but he couldn't made contact on a bunt even once. It was as if he just held the bat out there and closed his eyes and hoped for the best. How hard is it to at least foul off a bunt? I mean, it's so easy to foul off a bunt that there is a special strikeout rule about it. The second time he came up there were runners in scoring position with two outs, so now he had to swing. His first swing made contact, but it was the weakest contact I've ever seen. He awkwardly brought the bat around and hit the ball about as late as it can be hit, producing a little foul dribbler. His next two swings were pathetic lunges at the ball, each one worse than the last. After that at-bat my mother remarked that she could have done better at the plate. I think she was right.
Lowe was brilliant in his typical ground-out way for five innings, and it seemed that he might be able to pitch another complete game masterpiece with us in attendance, as he did a year ago. But it was not to be; in the sixth inning his outs were fly balls and his ground balls were hits; he had clearly lost it. I don't fault Little for any of his moves in the seventh inning. He could have left in Beimel longer, perhaps, though Biemel's one out was a long fly ball. The 'pen just kerploded ... there's nothing else to say about it. It was stunning that it took Rudy Seanez to restore order.
I had lost all hope and will to cheer on the Dodgers after Broxton's kerplosion and that final horrible error by Abreu that gave the Cubs yet another run. The three-run deficit felt final: the Dodgers might be able to reel in two, but three was out of reach, especially after the impossible seventh. So it was that I sat stoic and bitter as Martin came to the plate in the bottom of the eighth. I had been thinking about leaving early for the last inning or so; though I normally loathe the thought of leaving any game early. But I just wanted to get out of there. I wanted to shut it out, just get on the long road home.
Then I heard it, the first sound of hope. It was from a Cubs fan, no less. "Come on, Howry!" he shouted, to newly inserted Cubs reliever Bobby Howry. It was the way he shouted it that produced a spark of hope. It was a plea, a prayer, almost. I know you suck, but please be good just this once. 4-11. The record of the Cubs bullpen. I knew the Cubs 'pen had struggled at time, but I didn't have any sort of feel for who was really vulnerable. Now I knew; this was one of the vulnerable ones.
I still wasn't quite ready to have faith again, though. When Martin got to two balls in the count, I was just hoping he could work a walk. Just get some baserunners and see what happens. I always hope for walks in that sort of situation, because hits can be stolen; a walk has no defense. But more importantly I lose my trust in the batters to hit the ball well; it seems like a gift from the opposing pitcher is needed. But Martin singled the other way, and then Luis Gonzalez singled as I was muttering "double play" as if to make that feared outcome sting less when it happened. Now with two runners on I had my faith in the game back; I was dragged back from that bitter despair. When Abreu singled the bases loaded I turned to Griffster and said, "Now it's over, they can't do anything with the bases loaded." She would have none of that, though so often in the past she had said it to me.
The Saenz at bat was the most exciting moment of the game for me. The possibility of a grand slam was so real; it saturated the air. All of us, Dodger fans and Cubs fans alike could feel it. It felt like this at bat was the moment the game would turn on, and what a game, what a wild and unpredictable game! I was clapping and stomping the whole at bat, and what an at bat it was. Saenz battled and fouled off some sliders, once ripping one foul that would have been a fair line drive if the pitch had been a fastball. I don't know what species of pitch he hit up the middle for his single. I just remember thinking at that point that we had them. I no longer doubted that the Dodgers would win.
And then, at the end, I finally got to see Saito pitch live. Back when the Dodgers were up 5-0 I had a momentary wistful thought that yet again I wouldn't get to see him; lately it seemed that every Dodger game I attended was a blowout either way. Saito did not disappoint when I finally got to see him. He had a strikeout, but what I'll most remember about his perfect ninth was the way Aramis Ramirez lunged off-balance at an 0-2 pitch. He was completely flummoxed and sent up a lovely little mini-pop-fly to Furcal for the first out. I think Saito has the nastiest outside strike I've ever seen from a Dodger.
My one regret from this game is that I didn't watch Saito after the last out. I wanted to see that great, happy smile, but I was just too caught up in cheering the win, the impossible win, after Clark caught the last out to look down. I just forgot. I'm guessing my smile was nearly as big as his, though.
What a game.
25 May 2007
Cubs Preview: Good Middle Names, Bad Middle Relief
by Joshua Worley
Some teams really do seem cursed, at least for a season. The Cubs have a better run differential than the Brewers ( and the Dodgers ) and yet they are 6 games back and 3 games below 0.500. The chart below tells the story of the Cubs woes, compared with how things have gone for the Brewers and Dodgers:
Team --- W/L --- RS --- RA --- ExW/L -- 1Run
MIL-- (28-19) -- 221 -- 200 -- (26-21) -- (7-5)
LA -- (27-20) -- 205 -- 189 -- (26-21) -- (9-4)
CHC -- (21-24) -- 211 -- 184 -- (26-19) -- (2-10)
The Cubs record in 1-run games has ruined their season so far.
The last team to come into LA with a positive run differential and bad record was Cincinatti. It seemed likely at the time that they were overachieving, and indeed since then the Reds have collapsed and now have a negative run differential more in line with their awful record. So it bears remembering that run differential, especially so early in the season, is no sure indicator of true team strength.
The Cubs 'pen looks rather average, with a 4.00 ERA. Dempster has 10 saves with only 1 blown. Here's the nasty kicker, though: the bullpen record is 4-11, by far the worst in the NL. It appears that perhaps the Cubs poor record has a lot to do with the bullpen breaking down at crucial moments before the ninth inning.
The pitching matchups for the series are: Lilly v Lowe, Zambrano v Hendrickson, Hill v Wolf.
And now a look at the players, and I'll try to answer the question of how good the Cubs really are.
Derrek Leon Lee -- 1B
age: 31
bats: right
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.371 -- 0.448 -- 0.543
Leon Lee ... I love it! He should have gone by his middle name; that would have been great. I can just hear Vinny saying, "Leon Lee laces one to left field!" On second thought, I don't want to hear about him getting a hit against the Dodgers. Say, did Lee Lacy ever lace one to left?
He's had plenty of hits this year, which is what's fueling his great batting line. It's tempting to think it's going to come down a bit, and it probably will. His line drive percentage is a lovely 25.4% so far this year, but he still strikes out a lot ( with 28 so far ) so his batting average may end up closer to 0.310 for the rest of the year. If Lee's batting average is abnormally high, his power is abnormally low. He only has 3 home runs so far. Usually his slugging is more than 0.200 above his batting average; not this year.
Lee recently had neck spasms, which caused him to miss almost a week of games. He came back against San Diego and was only 1-12 with a walk in that series. It's possible the injury is still nagging him. It's a pity, because before the injury came he was batting 0.390! It would have been cool to see him reach 0.400 for awhile, though not against the Dodgers.
Lee has a great defensive reputation, though the zone rating numbers don't really back it up. He was below average on turning balls hit into his zone into outs in 2005. He was a bit better in 2006, though he only played about 50 games that year due to injury.
Lee is by the numbers the Cubs best hitter; in spite of his power numbers I think he remains a potent home run threat as well. Since he came back from the neck injury he's been batting third again, with Soriano moving back to the leadoff spot. If the Dodgers are lucky he'll continue his struggles from the Padre series.
Aramis Nin Ramirez -- 3B
age: 28
bats: right
0.293 -- 0.350 -- 0.557
How come there aren't any rumours about the Dodgers trading for this guy? And is he a Nine Inch Nails fan?
This line he's putting up is pretty much what he's done the last three years with the Cubs. I'd say it's a better than 60% chance that he'll go deep on either Hendrickson or Wolf. Ramirez has hit 5 of his 11 home runs against lefties this year, and Hendrickson and Wolf have given up 11 of the 27 homers allowed by Dodger pitchers this year. Now Ramirez's career splits aren't nearly as dramatic as this year's, but still, I'm really worried about him bombing the Dodgers.
He's not a great fielder; by zone rating he's been in the bottom half of third basemen the last 3 years, though he's never been truly awful. I don't know if he's good at charging in, but if not maybe Pierre should think about bunting down the third base line. Speaking of Pierre, by the way, this really made me laugh.
Alfonso Guilleard Soriano -- LF
age: 31
bats: right
0.288 -- 0.345 -- 0.472
Let's get to the most important thing first: after just three names the Cubs are threatening to have the coolest middle name collection of any team in the majors. These are all fantastic!
I'm not sure it's worth 17 million a year for 8 years, though. Even with his 46 home runs his OPS was only 0.911 last year. He was caught stealing 17 times last year as well, to go with 41 steals. And that was his career year; his stats this year seem more in line with what he'll do the next few years. Good, but not great. Let's put this into perspective: he's not doing very much better than Luis Gonzalez right now.
He's basically a decent lead-off hitter with above average power. He has lots of doubles. Not a hitter to be messed with, but not that scary either.
In the outfield he was actually above average in zone rating last year. An eye-popping aside: Manny Ramirez was horrifically brutal in left field last year. He was, like, 150 points worse than the next worst guy. Andre Ethier had a great zone rating of 0.920; Manny was at 0.643!
Daryle Lamar Ward -- 1B, Scapegoat
age: 31
bats: left
0.303 -- 0.465 -- 0.424
You're dead to me, Daryle Ward!
Look, this line is only in 33 at bats; he's the backup first baseman and occasional outfielder and pinch hitter, after all. But this glittering line just galls; if you look at his career he puts up an OPS of at least 0.700 every year, usually close to 0.800. Every year but 2003, with the Dodgers, when he has an OPS of bloody 0.404 in 109 at bats. If he had just been half-way decent maybe he could have been that little bit of offense the run-starved 2003 Dodgers needed to help push them into the playoffs. But no, he was sub-abysmal. What a waste of a great pitching staff that year was. It's not really all Ward's fault, not even close, but man what a great symbol of that year's awful offense he is.
Mark Thomas DeRosa -- 2B
age: 32
bats: right
0.263 -- 0.368 -- 0.474
Thomas? How ... boring.
He had something of a blossoming when he went from Atlanta to Texas in 2005, actually putting up decent numbers in 2005 and 2006 after an early career of putting up backup numbers in a backup role in Atlanta.
He's either overachieving or one of those rare players who actually gets better in his 30's.
Cornelius Clifford Floyd -- RF
age: 34
bats: left
0.280 -- 0.323 -- 0.387
No wonder he goes by his middle name ... I'm going to be at Friday's game, and maybe I'll try to get a "Cornelius" chant going if he's in the lineup.
Will he be in the lineup Friday? Probably, since this will be his only chance to face a righty in the series. But staying in the lineup has been a career-long problem for Cornelius; he's always been injury prone. He also appears washed up at this point. I think one of the reasons the Cubs got him and are still playing him is that they don't otherwise have any lefty power threats. But he's not really a power threat any more. Should the Cubs have gone and acquired him? Let's see, he's an injury plagued player who's entering his mid-30s after a bad year last year. Ugh, pass. I hope the Dodgers hold him hitless. They surely can.
Matthew Henry Murton -- OF
age: 25
bats: right
0.283 -- 0.340 -- 0.370
You know what middle name would have been great? Munson. That would be an all time great full name.
He's the Cubs super-utility outfielder, though in fairness he plays about as much as Floyd. His age, and batting lines of last year and this year sort of remind me of Andre Ethier.
Ryan Stewart Theriot -- 2B, SS
age: 27
bats: right
0.282 -- 0.350 -- 0.345
No power, but gets on base a decent amount. Not enough data to say anything about his defense; this is his first full year in the majors after a nice two months last year. He shares time at second and short, but gets more playing time than either DeRosa or Izturis.
Cesar David Izturis -- SS
age: 27
bats: switch
0.266 -- 0.328 -- 0.330
Man, it sucks that he's putting up a better line than Pierre. Weak.
Has the names of a Roman Emporer and Jewish King; swanky. His defense is also swanky, with excellent zone rating numbers from 2005, his last full year at short.
He is what he is; a slick fielding shortstop who hits like Alfredo Griffin. Izturis was another offensive anti-hero of the 2003 Dodgers. Please retire him many times, Dodger pitchers.
Jacque Dewayne Jones -- CF
age: 32
bats: left
0.243 -- 0.295 -- 0.333
Maybe he's good defensively, but he's not good at the plate. No walks, no power, not even that many singles. At least he's a contributor to the middle name battle.
These stats are actually low for him; he may well end up better. Overall I have to say I don't think the Cubs are overachieving on offense.
Michael Patrick Barrett -- C
age: 30
bats: right
0.252 -- 0.301 -- 0.437
He should end up slightly better than these numbers as well. He's started six games coming into the series with the Dodgers, so we may see light hitting backup Henry Ramon Blanco start one of the games.
Theodore Roosevelt Lilly -- P
age: 31
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
2.69 -- 60.1 -- 54 -- 10 -- 3
Yes! A presidential middle name ... I'm stoked. I think SOSG needs to add him to the Abes team on the strength of his first and middle names. But of course, he's already on the Babes team thanks to Evangeline Lilly ... I say having the full name of a president embedded in your own name wins out. I think he should betray the babes at the last possible moment and hand victory to the Abes.
Lilly's stats are very nice. Will they last? His strikeout rate isn't too much out of line with career norms, though it is a bit higher than normal this year. But usually his walks are about half his strikeouts, and right now he's doing a lot better than that.
But even if his walk reduction is lasting, he's still overachieving. He's always been a fly ball pitcher, and this year he's allowing even more than usual, and yet his homeruns are way down from last year, when he gave up 28 in 180 innings. He's on pace for 9 in 180 innings this year, and that won't happen.
I really want to see the Dodgers hit a home run tonight, so please, Dodgers, don't be intimidated by his misleading home run allowed rate. The only pitcher who is allowed to wildly outperform his expected homers allowed is Penny!
In any case, he will be tough to hit, and Lowe better have his good sinker going tonight.
Carlos Alberto Zambrano -- P
age: 25
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
5.61 -- 61.0 -- 43 -- 31 -- 12
His strikeouts are down, almost to parity with his walks. Just like Zito ... no wonder he wants Zito money!
His biggest immediate concern is those home runs, though. He's given up at least one in every single start save for one against, of all teams, the Reds! I just hope the Dodgers can take advantage of him. He's going up against Hendrickson, who actually has a better ERA than Zambrano.
There is speculation that he's carrying a shoulder injury, which the Cubs deny. I won't be surprised if there's something wrong with him, though.
Richard Joseph Hill -- P
age: 27
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.38 -- 58.2 -- 54 -- 21 -- 10
I'll say this about the Cubs pitchers: they log a pretty decent amount of innings. Like Zambrano, Hill is allowing a lot of home runs, but he's mostly getting away with it. And the difference isn't in runners on when the home run is hit: Hill has given up 4 multi-run homers, Zambrano only 3. The thing is Hill shouldn't be giving up this many home runs based on his fly ball rate, which is high but not that high. So his luck sort of evens out.
Hill has been poor in his last three starts, but his K rate in those starts is still very good, so it's not as if he's going all Hendrickson on the Cubs after a nice April. The problem has been the home runs; 7 of his 10 have been allowed in the last three games.
I really think Wolf should be able to outpitch Hill in the battle of lefties on Sunday.
So, is the Cubs pitching overachieving? Maybe, even with Zambrano as bad as he's been. If the poor May performances of Hill and Marquis are an indication of things to come for them, and if Lilly regresses, then they may be in trouble, and never get a shot at climbing out of their unlucky hole. I don't think this team is quite as dangerous as their run differential would indicate.
Predictions:
I think I need to set more reasonable goals for the Dodgers. Even though they took 2 of 3 from the Brewers they didn't hit most of my goals for them in the last series. How about this: they win a game for me Friday night after I attended two straight Monday stinkers; Hendrickson doesn't fall off the mound on Saturday, and Sunday ends with a huge Saito smile in celebration.
Some teams really do seem cursed, at least for a season. The Cubs have a better run differential than the Brewers ( and the Dodgers ) and yet they are 6 games back and 3 games below 0.500. The chart below tells the story of the Cubs woes, compared with how things have gone for the Brewers and Dodgers:
Team --- W/L --- RS --- RA --- ExW/L -- 1Run
MIL-- (28-19) -- 221 -- 200 -- (26-21) -- (7-5)
LA -- (27-20) -- 205 -- 189 -- (26-21) -- (9-4)
CHC -- (21-24) -- 211 -- 184 -- (26-19) -- (2-10)
The Cubs record in 1-run games has ruined their season so far.
The last team to come into LA with a positive run differential and bad record was Cincinatti. It seemed likely at the time that they were overachieving, and indeed since then the Reds have collapsed and now have a negative run differential more in line with their awful record. So it bears remembering that run differential, especially so early in the season, is no sure indicator of true team strength.
The Cubs 'pen looks rather average, with a 4.00 ERA. Dempster has 10 saves with only 1 blown. Here's the nasty kicker, though: the bullpen record is 4-11, by far the worst in the NL. It appears that perhaps the Cubs poor record has a lot to do with the bullpen breaking down at crucial moments before the ninth inning.
The pitching matchups for the series are: Lilly v Lowe, Zambrano v Hendrickson, Hill v Wolf.
And now a look at the players, and I'll try to answer the question of how good the Cubs really are.
Derrek Leon Lee -- 1B
age: 31
bats: right
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.371 -- 0.448 -- 0.543
Leon Lee ... I love it! He should have gone by his middle name; that would have been great. I can just hear Vinny saying, "Leon Lee laces one to left field!" On second thought, I don't want to hear about him getting a hit against the Dodgers. Say, did Lee Lacy ever lace one to left?
He's had plenty of hits this year, which is what's fueling his great batting line. It's tempting to think it's going to come down a bit, and it probably will. His line drive percentage is a lovely 25.4% so far this year, but he still strikes out a lot ( with 28 so far ) so his batting average may end up closer to 0.310 for the rest of the year. If Lee's batting average is abnormally high, his power is abnormally low. He only has 3 home runs so far. Usually his slugging is more than 0.200 above his batting average; not this year.
Lee recently had neck spasms, which caused him to miss almost a week of games. He came back against San Diego and was only 1-12 with a walk in that series. It's possible the injury is still nagging him. It's a pity, because before the injury came he was batting 0.390! It would have been cool to see him reach 0.400 for awhile, though not against the Dodgers.
Lee has a great defensive reputation, though the zone rating numbers don't really back it up. He was below average on turning balls hit into his zone into outs in 2005. He was a bit better in 2006, though he only played about 50 games that year due to injury.
Lee is by the numbers the Cubs best hitter; in spite of his power numbers I think he remains a potent home run threat as well. Since he came back from the neck injury he's been batting third again, with Soriano moving back to the leadoff spot. If the Dodgers are lucky he'll continue his struggles from the Padre series.
Aramis Nin Ramirez -- 3B
age: 28
bats: right
0.293 -- 0.350 -- 0.557
How come there aren't any rumours about the Dodgers trading for this guy? And is he a Nine Inch Nails fan?
This line he's putting up is pretty much what he's done the last three years with the Cubs. I'd say it's a better than 60% chance that he'll go deep on either Hendrickson or Wolf. Ramirez has hit 5 of his 11 home runs against lefties this year, and Hendrickson and Wolf have given up 11 of the 27 homers allowed by Dodger pitchers this year. Now Ramirez's career splits aren't nearly as dramatic as this year's, but still, I'm really worried about him bombing the Dodgers.
He's not a great fielder; by zone rating he's been in the bottom half of third basemen the last 3 years, though he's never been truly awful. I don't know if he's good at charging in, but if not maybe Pierre should think about bunting down the third base line. Speaking of Pierre, by the way, this really made me laugh.
Alfonso Guilleard Soriano -- LF
age: 31
bats: right
0.288 -- 0.345 -- 0.472
Let's get to the most important thing first: after just three names the Cubs are threatening to have the coolest middle name collection of any team in the majors. These are all fantastic!
I'm not sure it's worth 17 million a year for 8 years, though. Even with his 46 home runs his OPS was only 0.911 last year. He was caught stealing 17 times last year as well, to go with 41 steals. And that was his career year; his stats this year seem more in line with what he'll do the next few years. Good, but not great. Let's put this into perspective: he's not doing very much better than Luis Gonzalez right now.
He's basically a decent lead-off hitter with above average power. He has lots of doubles. Not a hitter to be messed with, but not that scary either.
In the outfield he was actually above average in zone rating last year. An eye-popping aside: Manny Ramirez was horrifically brutal in left field last year. He was, like, 150 points worse than the next worst guy. Andre Ethier had a great zone rating of 0.920; Manny was at 0.643!
Daryle Lamar Ward -- 1B, Scapegoat
age: 31
bats: left
0.303 -- 0.465 -- 0.424
You're dead to me, Daryle Ward!
Look, this line is only in 33 at bats; he's the backup first baseman and occasional outfielder and pinch hitter, after all. But this glittering line just galls; if you look at his career he puts up an OPS of at least 0.700 every year, usually close to 0.800. Every year but 2003, with the Dodgers, when he has an OPS of bloody 0.404 in 109 at bats. If he had just been half-way decent maybe he could have been that little bit of offense the run-starved 2003 Dodgers needed to help push them into the playoffs. But no, he was sub-abysmal. What a waste of a great pitching staff that year was. It's not really all Ward's fault, not even close, but man what a great symbol of that year's awful offense he is.
Mark Thomas DeRosa -- 2B
age: 32
bats: right
0.263 -- 0.368 -- 0.474
Thomas? How ... boring.
He had something of a blossoming when he went from Atlanta to Texas in 2005, actually putting up decent numbers in 2005 and 2006 after an early career of putting up backup numbers in a backup role in Atlanta.
He's either overachieving or one of those rare players who actually gets better in his 30's.
Cornelius Clifford Floyd -- RF
age: 34
bats: left
0.280 -- 0.323 -- 0.387
No wonder he goes by his middle name ... I'm going to be at Friday's game, and maybe I'll try to get a "Cornelius" chant going if he's in the lineup.
Will he be in the lineup Friday? Probably, since this will be his only chance to face a righty in the series. But staying in the lineup has been a career-long problem for Cornelius; he's always been injury prone. He also appears washed up at this point. I think one of the reasons the Cubs got him and are still playing him is that they don't otherwise have any lefty power threats. But he's not really a power threat any more. Should the Cubs have gone and acquired him? Let's see, he's an injury plagued player who's entering his mid-30s after a bad year last year. Ugh, pass. I hope the Dodgers hold him hitless. They surely can.
Matthew Henry Murton -- OF
age: 25
bats: right
0.283 -- 0.340 -- 0.370
You know what middle name would have been great? Munson. That would be an all time great full name.
He's the Cubs super-utility outfielder, though in fairness he plays about as much as Floyd. His age, and batting lines of last year and this year sort of remind me of Andre Ethier.
Ryan Stewart Theriot -- 2B, SS
age: 27
bats: right
0.282 -- 0.350 -- 0.345
No power, but gets on base a decent amount. Not enough data to say anything about his defense; this is his first full year in the majors after a nice two months last year. He shares time at second and short, but gets more playing time than either DeRosa or Izturis.
Cesar David Izturis -- SS
age: 27
bats: switch
0.266 -- 0.328 -- 0.330
Man, it sucks that he's putting up a better line than Pierre. Weak.
Has the names of a Roman Emporer and Jewish King; swanky. His defense is also swanky, with excellent zone rating numbers from 2005, his last full year at short.
He is what he is; a slick fielding shortstop who hits like Alfredo Griffin. Izturis was another offensive anti-hero of the 2003 Dodgers. Please retire him many times, Dodger pitchers.
Jacque Dewayne Jones -- CF
age: 32
bats: left
0.243 -- 0.295 -- 0.333
Maybe he's good defensively, but he's not good at the plate. No walks, no power, not even that many singles. At least he's a contributor to the middle name battle.
These stats are actually low for him; he may well end up better. Overall I have to say I don't think the Cubs are overachieving on offense.
Michael Patrick Barrett -- C
age: 30
bats: right
0.252 -- 0.301 -- 0.437
He should end up slightly better than these numbers as well. He's started six games coming into the series with the Dodgers, so we may see light hitting backup Henry Ramon Blanco start one of the games.
Theodore Roosevelt Lilly -- P
age: 31
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
2.69 -- 60.1 -- 54 -- 10 -- 3
Yes! A presidential middle name ... I'm stoked. I think SOSG needs to add him to the Abes team on the strength of his first and middle names. But of course, he's already on the Babes team thanks to Evangeline Lilly ... I say having the full name of a president embedded in your own name wins out. I think he should betray the babes at the last possible moment and hand victory to the Abes.
Lilly's stats are very nice. Will they last? His strikeout rate isn't too much out of line with career norms, though it is a bit higher than normal this year. But usually his walks are about half his strikeouts, and right now he's doing a lot better than that.
But even if his walk reduction is lasting, he's still overachieving. He's always been a fly ball pitcher, and this year he's allowing even more than usual, and yet his homeruns are way down from last year, when he gave up 28 in 180 innings. He's on pace for 9 in 180 innings this year, and that won't happen.
I really want to see the Dodgers hit a home run tonight, so please, Dodgers, don't be intimidated by his misleading home run allowed rate. The only pitcher who is allowed to wildly outperform his expected homers allowed is Penny!
In any case, he will be tough to hit, and Lowe better have his good sinker going tonight.
Carlos Alberto Zambrano -- P
age: 25
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
5.61 -- 61.0 -- 43 -- 31 -- 12
His strikeouts are down, almost to parity with his walks. Just like Zito ... no wonder he wants Zito money!
His biggest immediate concern is those home runs, though. He's given up at least one in every single start save for one against, of all teams, the Reds! I just hope the Dodgers can take advantage of him. He's going up against Hendrickson, who actually has a better ERA than Zambrano.
There is speculation that he's carrying a shoulder injury, which the Cubs deny. I won't be surprised if there's something wrong with him, though.
Richard Joseph Hill -- P
age: 27
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.38 -- 58.2 -- 54 -- 21 -- 10
I'll say this about the Cubs pitchers: they log a pretty decent amount of innings. Like Zambrano, Hill is allowing a lot of home runs, but he's mostly getting away with it. And the difference isn't in runners on when the home run is hit: Hill has given up 4 multi-run homers, Zambrano only 3. The thing is Hill shouldn't be giving up this many home runs based on his fly ball rate, which is high but not that high. So his luck sort of evens out.
Hill has been poor in his last three starts, but his K rate in those starts is still very good, so it's not as if he's going all Hendrickson on the Cubs after a nice April. The problem has been the home runs; 7 of his 10 have been allowed in the last three games.
I really think Wolf should be able to outpitch Hill in the battle of lefties on Sunday.
So, is the Cubs pitching overachieving? Maybe, even with Zambrano as bad as he's been. If the poor May performances of Hill and Marquis are an indication of things to come for them, and if Lilly regresses, then they may be in trouble, and never get a shot at climbing out of their unlucky hole. I don't think this team is quite as dangerous as their run differential would indicate.
Predictions:
I think I need to set more reasonable goals for the Dodgers. Even though they took 2 of 3 from the Brewers they didn't hit most of my goals for them in the last series. How about this: they win a game for me Friday night after I attended two straight Monday stinkers; Hendrickson doesn't fall off the mound on Saturday, and Sunday ends with a huge Saito smile in celebration.
23 May 2007
The Third Man
by Joshua Worley
06 May --- LaRoche
07 May --- LaRoche
08 May --- LaRoche
09 May --- LaRoche
10 May --- Betemit
11 May --- LaRoche
12 May --- LaRoche
13 May --- Betemit
14 May --- Betemit
15 May --- LaRoche
16 May --- LaRoche
18 May --- LaRoche
19 May --- Betemit
20 May --- Betemit
21 May --- LaRoche
22 May --- Abreu!!!
Andy LaRoche has started 10 of 16 games since his callup. I believe prospects need to play at least 2/3 of the time, to get experience and a chance to prove themselves, so this is right on the edge of being acceptable. But now that there is a third man at third, it seems likely that LaRoche's playing time will dwindle to half the time or less.
Grady Little has said that the Dodgers may go with all three players at third base, and that LaRoche might see some action in the outfield. If LaRoche plays in the outfield, it might be to give Luis Gonzalez a day off, but most likely it would be in place of Andre Ethier. Now Ethier is struggling, and not hitting at a level acceptable for a corner outfielder, but I don't think he should be benched when he's out-OPSing the man next to him by over 100 points. And even if we just accept that Pierre is untouchable, I don't think Ethier should be benched for anyone but an established 0.850 OPS outfielder ( which the Dodgers don't have ) or an A-level outfield prospect. The only person currently in the Dodger organization whom I would play ahead of Ethier in the outfield would be Matt Kemp, and by rights he should get his shot at the expense of Pierre, not Ethier.
Tony Abreu is playing out of position at third base; why compound the problem by playing another player, LaRoche, out of position? It doesn't make sense. None of this makes sense. Why is there a third man at third?
I understand why the Dodgers sent down Kuo and are going with only 11 pitchers. I've never thought they needed to carry 12 pitchers. I hate 12-man staffs; if a bullpen is managed properly you don't need to shorten the pinch hitting bench. And I do think Grady does a good job managing the 'pen overall. But why call up Abreu, of all people? The answer is a month of batting average, apparently.
If there is a movement to give Nomar some days off, then far better to call up Loney than to play Abreu at second and Kent at first. If there is a movement to give Ethier some days off, then far better to call up Matt Kemp than to play Abreu at third and LaRoche in the outfield. If there is a movement to demonstrate to young players that only what they've done for us lately matters, then Bravo! this is a wonderful decision.
Let's be clear about what lately is. In the case of LaRoche, it's 10 games; 30 at bats. He only has 7 hits in those at bats, and for that failing he is now one of three at third. If just two more hits had fallen in, he would be batting 0.300 and he might not be viewed as a sort of dud right now, ready to give way to the newest flavor of the moment. In the case of Abreu, Loney, and Kemp, lately is two months. Never mind what they've done in previous years; for a month and a half in 2007 Abreu is batting better, likely based largely on luck, so he is the third man, and Kemp and Loney are the forgotten men.
The Dodgers are either going to try squeezing 3 prospects into one lineup spot, or 4 into two lineup spots if LaRoche begins to play in favor of Ethier occasionally. This is not acceptable, especially when Garciaparra and Pierre continue to get free passes for their horrible play. If the standard is to be "what have you done for me lately?", then why are they still playing every day?
The answer is that the Dodgers aren't yet following the golden rule of building a good baseball team:
Don't give higher paid veterans any preferential treatment in the battle for playing time.
I'm going to keep saying this until it is the Dodger motto.
06 May --- LaRoche
07 May --- LaRoche
08 May --- LaRoche
09 May --- LaRoche
10 May --- Betemit
11 May --- LaRoche
12 May --- LaRoche
13 May --- Betemit
14 May --- Betemit
15 May --- LaRoche
16 May --- LaRoche
18 May --- LaRoche
19 May --- Betemit
20 May --- Betemit
21 May --- LaRoche
22 May --- Abreu!!!
Andy LaRoche has started 10 of 16 games since his callup. I believe prospects need to play at least 2/3 of the time, to get experience and a chance to prove themselves, so this is right on the edge of being acceptable. But now that there is a third man at third, it seems likely that LaRoche's playing time will dwindle to half the time or less.
Grady Little has said that the Dodgers may go with all three players at third base, and that LaRoche might see some action in the outfield. If LaRoche plays in the outfield, it might be to give Luis Gonzalez a day off, but most likely it would be in place of Andre Ethier. Now Ethier is struggling, and not hitting at a level acceptable for a corner outfielder, but I don't think he should be benched when he's out-OPSing the man next to him by over 100 points. And even if we just accept that Pierre is untouchable, I don't think Ethier should be benched for anyone but an established 0.850 OPS outfielder ( which the Dodgers don't have ) or an A-level outfield prospect. The only person currently in the Dodger organization whom I would play ahead of Ethier in the outfield would be Matt Kemp, and by rights he should get his shot at the expense of Pierre, not Ethier.
Tony Abreu is playing out of position at third base; why compound the problem by playing another player, LaRoche, out of position? It doesn't make sense. None of this makes sense. Why is there a third man at third?
I understand why the Dodgers sent down Kuo and are going with only 11 pitchers. I've never thought they needed to carry 12 pitchers. I hate 12-man staffs; if a bullpen is managed properly you don't need to shorten the pinch hitting bench. And I do think Grady does a good job managing the 'pen overall. But why call up Abreu, of all people? The answer is a month of batting average, apparently.
If there is a movement to give Nomar some days off, then far better to call up Loney than to play Abreu at second and Kent at first. If there is a movement to give Ethier some days off, then far better to call up Matt Kemp than to play Abreu at third and LaRoche in the outfield. If there is a movement to demonstrate to young players that only what they've done for us lately matters, then Bravo! this is a wonderful decision.
Let's be clear about what lately is. In the case of LaRoche, it's 10 games; 30 at bats. He only has 7 hits in those at bats, and for that failing he is now one of three at third. If just two more hits had fallen in, he would be batting 0.300 and he might not be viewed as a sort of dud right now, ready to give way to the newest flavor of the moment. In the case of Abreu, Loney, and Kemp, lately is two months. Never mind what they've done in previous years; for a month and a half in 2007 Abreu is batting better, likely based largely on luck, so he is the third man, and Kemp and Loney are the forgotten men.
The Dodgers are either going to try squeezing 3 prospects into one lineup spot, or 4 into two lineup spots if LaRoche begins to play in favor of Ethier occasionally. This is not acceptable, especially when Garciaparra and Pierre continue to get free passes for their horrible play. If the standard is to be "what have you done for me lately?", then why are they still playing every day?
The answer is that the Dodgers aren't yet following the golden rule of building a good baseball team:
Don't give higher paid veterans any preferential treatment in the battle for playing time.
I'm going to keep saying this until it is the Dodger motto.
22 May 2007
The Dodgerama Prescription for Fixing the Dodgers
by Joshua Worley
After Monday's 9-5 loss to the Brewers, the Dodgers are now on a four game losing streak, which feels like the end of the world. Changes are needed, right now! Managers need to be fired! Players need to be benched! Trade rumors need to be started!
No, none of this needs to happen because of four games. Four games is a mere 2.5 percent of the season. That's nothing. Nothing worth panicking over. The proper response to a four game losing streak is to wake up on a new day, forget about all the frustration, and win the next game.
However, let's look at the entire season so far, in which the Dodgers have a record of 25-20. That's not a record worth panicking over, though it's nothing great either. These 45 games are 27.8 percent of the season, more than a quarter of the games. I think that's a significant part of the season. If we look at how certain players have performed during this quarter season, in conjunction with how they've performed in previous seasons and their potential for future success, we do have reason for concern, dismay, or even measured panic.
Below I list the players that fall into each of these categories of concern, dismay, and measured panic. "Measured Panic" players are obvious duds, players who need to replaced yesterday. "Dismay" players are sneaky duds, whose need to either improve or be replaced in the next few months. "Concern" players are ones to have an eye on, whose performance may fall off, but for whom replacement wouldn't yet yield much overall improvement.
Measured Panic
Brett Tomko
He falls behind in the count, then gives up and throws a pitch that is easily clobbered. Last week I backed off from calling his performance cowardly, but now that feels about right. I don't think it's unfair to call someone out for throwing what amount to give-up pitches. Tomko gave up two home runs, but it was a few foul feet from being three. He was charged with 5 runs last night, but he was worse than that. His ERA is now above 6. His last two starts have been brutal, burying the Dodgers twice in 8-0 holes at home, ruining the game for two Monday night home crowds. ( Once with some help from Billingsley, alas. )
What's the prognosis for Tomko being booted from the rotation? I think it's pretty good. He's already been swapped with Lowe to keep him from pitching sooner. Management has to see how awful he's been. In spite of some bumpy relief appearances, Billingsley is ready to be a starter again. He surely won't do any worse than Tomko, and his upside is so much better. I think, or perhaps just hope, that there is a good chance Tomko is gone from the rotation by the end of this month.
Juan Pierre
His line on the season is 0.271 -- 0.302 -- 0.307. Back at the start of May I said I would give him a fresh chance, voiding April. Fair enough: his May line is 0.280 -- 0.308 -- 0.307. Jon Weisman already excellently written most of what there is to say about the Pierre situation, actually, so I need not go on much about this sad subject.
I'll just say this: the way management handles the Pierre situation, more than anything, will determine what I think of their overall competence. The mistake has been made. Will they pretend it hasn't been made, pretend that everything is okay as long as Pierre gets close to his 200 singles and 60 stolen bases? Or will they own up to the mistake and do something? There is a solution sitting right there in AAA in Matt Kemp. It won't cost them but a pittance to bring him up and end the Pierre fiasco. Will they do the right thing? I'm almost certain they won't.
Dismay
Nomar Garciaparra
He's a lot like Pierre these days, in that so much of his batting value is tied up in his batting average. His power is mostly gone, and he doesn't walk enough to turn a sub-0.300 batting average into a plus-0.350 on-base percentage. With his BA now at 0.288, his OPS has dipped below 0.700. That's just awful for a first baseman. He might improve, which is why he's only in the dismay category. But he has a long way to go to get to respectability. Nomar, you're really hurting the team right now.
Again, the upgrade is free, and will cost the Dodgers no players, almost no money. James Loney is there in AAA, ready to take over at first base. It will only cost them the discomfort of benching a highly paid player, the discomfort of admitting a mistake.
Mark Hendrickson
How soon until his ERA climbs back to 5? Three more starts, three more Dodgers losses, maybe?
I sure hope the Dodgers don't lose Hendrickson's next three starts. They may not, since he does tend to barely keep the team in the game if they're willing to score a lot of runs. He doesn't just give up and serve homer balls the way Tomko does.
The upgrade here is the returned health and effectiveness of either Kuo or Schmidt. I know that Schmidt will bump either Hendrickson or Tomko when he's healthy again, and I suspect Kuo will get his chance too. I think management is much more likely to do the right thing when it comes to pitching than hitting.
Andre Ethier
This is a tough one, but he's just not getting it done yet, with a line of 0.276 -- 0.322 -- 0.410. That's not acceptable from a corner outfielder. There was always a chance the Dodgers were getting a cat in a bag when they traded for him; his minor leauge track record wasn't that great, or terribly consistent. Milton Bradley is surely the greater talent in the deal that brought Ethier to LA, though Ethier is the far more durable of the two.
If there was a good trade that could bring in a 0.850 OPS right fielder, I would say the Dodgers should take it in an instant. Ethier should not be considered unbenchable or untouchable. But I don't think such a trade will happen. He may improve if he keeps playing; he certainly did much better for a lot of last year. Management might bring up Kemp to compete for the right field job, but this would be so frustratingly obtuse in the sense that Pierre clearly needs replacing far more than Ethier does.
Concern
Wilson Betemit and Andy LaRoche
The cumulative stats of the Dodger third-basemen aren't very good right now, though they aren't awful, either. If they both didn't hit for the next two months, then it might be time to think about an upgrade. But such an upgrade would likely come at a high price and not make sense over the long term. I believe one of the two will come around and give the Dodgers decent production out of third base.
I mention the third base situation more to say that it isn't worthy of panic or sudden moves than to say something needs to be done. I want too see LaRoche and Betemit keep playing.
Luis Gonzalez
His OPS is 0.787 right now; that's about as much as we could have expected, right? The reason for concern is that he might tail off from this, and become a real liablity out there. But for now there wouldn't be much to gain from replacing him in the lineup. The sad truth is that he's been the Dodgers best outfielder so far.
Rudy Seanez
His stats this year are fine, after some trouble early in the year. But he's a good bet to regress, and when he does it should be easy to replace him with a better AAA pitcher. I could say the same about Joe Beimel, but he's the only lefty in the 'pen besides Kuo ( who doesn't really count for 'pen purposes ) and I think we're pretty much stuck with him.
All of the above can be summarized in a one sentence prescription for fixing the Dodgers. It is a simple, fair, cost-effective and intuitive principle that management so far seems incapable of grasping or following.
Don't give higher paid veterans any preferential treatment in the battle for playing time.
Update: Dodgerthoughts almost simultaneously put up a post with the nearly the same conclusion as this one: Play the kids.
Update-update: On this same theme, a very good argument for Billingsley instead of Tomko in the rotation is made at True Blue LA.
After Monday's 9-5 loss to the Brewers, the Dodgers are now on a four game losing streak, which feels like the end of the world. Changes are needed, right now! Managers need to be fired! Players need to be benched! Trade rumors need to be started!
No, none of this needs to happen because of four games. Four games is a mere 2.5 percent of the season. That's nothing. Nothing worth panicking over. The proper response to a four game losing streak is to wake up on a new day, forget about all the frustration, and win the next game.
However, let's look at the entire season so far, in which the Dodgers have a record of 25-20. That's not a record worth panicking over, though it's nothing great either. These 45 games are 27.8 percent of the season, more than a quarter of the games. I think that's a significant part of the season. If we look at how certain players have performed during this quarter season, in conjunction with how they've performed in previous seasons and their potential for future success, we do have reason for concern, dismay, or even measured panic.
Below I list the players that fall into each of these categories of concern, dismay, and measured panic. "Measured Panic" players are obvious duds, players who need to replaced yesterday. "Dismay" players are sneaky duds, whose need to either improve or be replaced in the next few months. "Concern" players are ones to have an eye on, whose performance may fall off, but for whom replacement wouldn't yet yield much overall improvement.
Measured Panic
Brett Tomko
He falls behind in the count, then gives up and throws a pitch that is easily clobbered. Last week I backed off from calling his performance cowardly, but now that feels about right. I don't think it's unfair to call someone out for throwing what amount to give-up pitches. Tomko gave up two home runs, but it was a few foul feet from being three. He was charged with 5 runs last night, but he was worse than that. His ERA is now above 6. His last two starts have been brutal, burying the Dodgers twice in 8-0 holes at home, ruining the game for two Monday night home crowds. ( Once with some help from Billingsley, alas. )
What's the prognosis for Tomko being booted from the rotation? I think it's pretty good. He's already been swapped with Lowe to keep him from pitching sooner. Management has to see how awful he's been. In spite of some bumpy relief appearances, Billingsley is ready to be a starter again. He surely won't do any worse than Tomko, and his upside is so much better. I think, or perhaps just hope, that there is a good chance Tomko is gone from the rotation by the end of this month.
Juan Pierre
His line on the season is 0.271 -- 0.302 -- 0.307. Back at the start of May I said I would give him a fresh chance, voiding April. Fair enough: his May line is 0.280 -- 0.308 -- 0.307. Jon Weisman already excellently written most of what there is to say about the Pierre situation, actually, so I need not go on much about this sad subject.
I'll just say this: the way management handles the Pierre situation, more than anything, will determine what I think of their overall competence. The mistake has been made. Will they pretend it hasn't been made, pretend that everything is okay as long as Pierre gets close to his 200 singles and 60 stolen bases? Or will they own up to the mistake and do something? There is a solution sitting right there in AAA in Matt Kemp. It won't cost them but a pittance to bring him up and end the Pierre fiasco. Will they do the right thing? I'm almost certain they won't.
Dismay
Nomar Garciaparra
He's a lot like Pierre these days, in that so much of his batting value is tied up in his batting average. His power is mostly gone, and he doesn't walk enough to turn a sub-0.300 batting average into a plus-0.350 on-base percentage. With his BA now at 0.288, his OPS has dipped below 0.700. That's just awful for a first baseman. He might improve, which is why he's only in the dismay category. But he has a long way to go to get to respectability. Nomar, you're really hurting the team right now.
Again, the upgrade is free, and will cost the Dodgers no players, almost no money. James Loney is there in AAA, ready to take over at first base. It will only cost them the discomfort of benching a highly paid player, the discomfort of admitting a mistake.
Mark Hendrickson
How soon until his ERA climbs back to 5? Three more starts, three more Dodgers losses, maybe?
I sure hope the Dodgers don't lose Hendrickson's next three starts. They may not, since he does tend to barely keep the team in the game if they're willing to score a lot of runs. He doesn't just give up and serve homer balls the way Tomko does.
The upgrade here is the returned health and effectiveness of either Kuo or Schmidt. I know that Schmidt will bump either Hendrickson or Tomko when he's healthy again, and I suspect Kuo will get his chance too. I think management is much more likely to do the right thing when it comes to pitching than hitting.
Andre Ethier
This is a tough one, but he's just not getting it done yet, with a line of 0.276 -- 0.322 -- 0.410. That's not acceptable from a corner outfielder. There was always a chance the Dodgers were getting a cat in a bag when they traded for him; his minor leauge track record wasn't that great, or terribly consistent. Milton Bradley is surely the greater talent in the deal that brought Ethier to LA, though Ethier is the far more durable of the two.
If there was a good trade that could bring in a 0.850 OPS right fielder, I would say the Dodgers should take it in an instant. Ethier should not be considered unbenchable or untouchable. But I don't think such a trade will happen. He may improve if he keeps playing; he certainly did much better for a lot of last year. Management might bring up Kemp to compete for the right field job, but this would be so frustratingly obtuse in the sense that Pierre clearly needs replacing far more than Ethier does.
Concern
Wilson Betemit and Andy LaRoche
The cumulative stats of the Dodger third-basemen aren't very good right now, though they aren't awful, either. If they both didn't hit for the next two months, then it might be time to think about an upgrade. But such an upgrade would likely come at a high price and not make sense over the long term. I believe one of the two will come around and give the Dodgers decent production out of third base.
I mention the third base situation more to say that it isn't worthy of panic or sudden moves than to say something needs to be done. I want too see LaRoche and Betemit keep playing.
Luis Gonzalez
His OPS is 0.787 right now; that's about as much as we could have expected, right? The reason for concern is that he might tail off from this, and become a real liablity out there. But for now there wouldn't be much to gain from replacing him in the lineup. The sad truth is that he's been the Dodgers best outfielder so far.
Rudy Seanez
His stats this year are fine, after some trouble early in the year. But he's a good bet to regress, and when he does it should be easy to replace him with a better AAA pitcher. I could say the same about Joe Beimel, but he's the only lefty in the 'pen besides Kuo ( who doesn't really count for 'pen purposes ) and I think we're pretty much stuck with him.
All of the above can be summarized in a one sentence prescription for fixing the Dodgers. It is a simple, fair, cost-effective and intuitive principle that management so far seems incapable of grasping or following.
Don't give higher paid veterans any preferential treatment in the battle for playing time.
Update: Dodgerthoughts almost simultaneously put up a post with the nearly the same conclusion as this one: Play the kids.
Update-update: On this same theme, a very good argument for Billingsley instead of Tomko in the rotation is made at True Blue LA.
21 May 2007
Brewers Preview
by Joshua Worley
The Brewers are 27-17, good for first place in the NL Central. Actually, 22-22 would be good for first in that division. They've faced a lot of weak competition so far this year, so it's an open question as to how good they really are. They've scored 209, mostly on home runs ( in which they lead the league ) and have given up 187 with a bunch of decent starters and some high strikeout artists in Turnbow and Cordero to lead the 'pen.
It's also an open question as to how good the Dodgers really are. Against the Angels all the fears about them seemed to come true. The offense was exposed as being overly reliant on hitting with runners in scoring position, while the starting pitching seemed to regress back to what the naysayers have been saying it is all along. Penny's low ERA couldn't last, not with his K-rate and walk-rate and it didn't. Hendrickson continued his slide back to an ERA of 5, his brilliant April now completely irrelevant. Lowe was exposed as a pitcher who goes as the infield defense goes, and the infield defense was found wanting.
We've seen the worst of the Dodgers, but it is the worst. They can do better than they did against the Angles. They're at home now, facing another first place team. The Brewers have their own weaknesses that can be exposed, their own fears that can be made to come true. It's going to be up to the Dodger pitchers and hitters to force the action. This series won't be won with Dodger walks and Brewer fly outs. It will be won with Dodger base hits and Brewer strike outs.
Prince Semien Fielder -- 1B
age: 23
bats: left
0.290 -- 0.374 -- 0.574
There's a common theme with these Milwaukee Brewers: home runs and strikeouts. I'm not talking about the team totals, though they do lead the league in home runs. I'm talking about the profile of their most dangerous hitters. They are strikeout prone power hitters. None of the Brewers hitters, Fielder included, will get on base a prodigious amount. There's no one who will end the year with a OBP above 0.400. Fielder has their highest OBP right now, followed by Hardy, and then everyone else is below 0.360.
Fielder is the Brewers most dangerous hitter, even though Hardy has more home runs now. Fielder is the hitter you want to be most careful with. He's the only one I ever want to see walk. The rest of them can strike out or hit a grounder.
William Hall III -- CF
age: 27
bats: right
0.261 -- 0.325 -- 0.451
He strikes out a lot. The more he strikes out the lower his batting average gets, but the more home runs he hits. Last year he hit 35 home runs and struck out 162 times. He also walks more when he hits home runs, but it's never been enough to make his on base percentage look very good.
James Jerry Hardy -- SS
age: 24
bats: right
0.320 -- 0.364 -- 0.619
He leads the NL in home runs. That's amazing, because he's a shortstop, he's in his first full big league season at 24, he missed most of last year with ankle surgery, and he doesn't walk very much. Yeah, he has only 13 walks to go with his 14 home runs.
You know what I think, Dodgers? I think you should live on the outside of the plate. Don't ever throw your pitches anywhere else, unless it's way down and in. You've got to make him prove he can beat you with the walk before you give him a chance to beat you with the home run.
But I know what will happen. A Dodger pitcher, maybe Tomko, will try something like this, only miss too much and fall behind 2-0 or 3-1, and then he will give in, try to make a perfect pitch. And that pitch will end up being perfect for Hardy.
Geoffrey Scott Jenkins -- LF
age: 32
bats: left
0.310 -- 0.360 -- 0.595
He's an old hand by now. He's the slugging left fielder who strikes out a lot. He's the left handed hitter who can't hit lefties very well. He's 32, at the tail of his prime, but still in his prime, good for at least 25 home runs, a 0.350 on base percentage. He might be the star of a series, but he probably won't be. What he is, most of all, is yet another power threat in the stacked Brewer lineup.
Randy Wolf, the lefty, strikeout pitcher, should make him whiff every time! This is what you have to do to win, you Dodgers. Do what the percentages say you should be able to do. Who knows, maybe Ned Yost will blink and have Jenkins sit against Wolf.
Craig John Counsell -- 3B
age: 36
bats: left
0.224 -- 0.350 -- 0.306
He's the opposite of the dangerous Brewer hitters, with no home runs and not many strikeouts. That line above, the small batting average, the decent on base percentage, and tiny slugging? That's what he is. He is what he is, and the Dodgers know who he is, and if the Dodgers let Counsell be a part of beating them, they need to turn around and give the Denny Green rant, the one about "crowning someone's ass". Don't let that happen, Dodger pitchers. Don't crown his ass. By which I mean, um, don't walk him.
Anthony Joseph Graffanino -- 3B/2B
age: 34
bats: right
0.198 -- 0.268 -- 0.248
Graffanino was in a third base platoon with Counsell, but after Richie Weeks went down with a day-to-day injury Graffanino had to take over at second base. That's good ... I hope that arrangement keeps up for the series with the Dodgers.
Jon Corey Hart -- RF
age: 25
bats: right
0.262 -- 0.323 -- 0.393
Wait a minute, his first name isn't Corey? It's Jon? So, basically, he's chosen to be known by a middle name that will make him the butt of stupid jokes about wearing his sunglasses at night?
Now, he was born in 1982, and Corey Hart first charted ( with Sunglasses at Night ) in 1983, so we know his parents didn't duplicate the pop singer's name on purpose. But ... perhaps they saw their opportunity after Corey Hart became popular and started calling their son by his middle name. Maybe they are the sickos in this scenario! In any case, someone in that family has a lot to answer for.
Corey does appreciably worse at the plate at night, by the way. I'd like to think this is because he gets that song stuck in his head ... he can't help it. He is Corey Hart, and it is night ... one thing leads to another, and soon enough he's got the line "Don't switch the blade on the guy in shades, oh no" going through his head, and he's wondering what the heck that even means ... and then he strikes out.
The fact is he hasn't been playing much lately. A certain man named Tony Gwinn has been in right field a lot lately.
One last thing ... if Nancy Bea Hefley doesn't play Sunglasses at Night on the Organ at some point before he bats, she's got some explaining to do.
Anthony Keith Gwynn Jr. -- CF/RF
age: 24
bats: left
0.360 -- 0.429 -- 0.420
Yes, he's that Tony Gwynn's son. He's even hitting like his dad so far, though in only 50 at bats. Gabriel Jordan Gross, another young lefty hitter is also seeing some action in the outfield, as is righty Kevin Ford Mench, who looks rather washed up, an old 29 at this point. The Brewers seem to have a bit of turmoil in their lineup for a first place team.
Johnny Pulado Estrada III -- C
age: 30
bats: switch
0.281 -- 0.302 -- 0.467
Like Hardy, he has more home runs than walks. Unlike Hardy, he's not leading the league in home runs. He should be the source of a lot of outs.
His backup is Damien Donald Miller, aged 37, with stats worse than his. Well, except for walks. Miller has 4 to Estrada's 3. In any case, the catcher spot better be treated as a weak point in the Brewer lineup by the Dodger pitchers.
Richie Darnell Weeks Jr -- 2B
age: 24
bats: right
0.232 -- 0.341 -- 0.430
The Brewers have four players named after their fathers, including two named after their grandfathers.
Weeks should become a good hitter; once that batting average goes up a bit he'll be a solid offensive second baseman. Even as it is he's not doing too poorly. It's not certain if he'll play, though. He had surgery on his right wrist last August, and that wrist has been sore the last few days. He's missed the last four games because of it, and even if he does come back his play may be hampered by it.
Christopher Frank Capuano
age: 28
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.72 -- 48.1 -- 35 -- 19 -- 4
He's a solid 4-ERA pitcher; in fact his ERA the last two years have been 3.99 and 4.03. Though last year he actually lowered his walks almost in half with almost no change in his strikeouts, home runs or innings pitched, yet didn't see any improvement in his ERA. His walk rate has climbed back up to 2005 levels this year, and his strikeout rate has gone down just a bit.
The bottom line is that if the Dodgers swing the bats well, they can beat him. If they don't swing the bats well, he probably won't beat himself. Which Dodger offense will show up?
Jeffrey Scott Suppan
age: 32
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.25 -- 61.0 -- 32 -- 12 -- 5
Two men named "Jeffrey Scott" on the same team, only with different spellings of the first name. I'm with Suppan on this one. Using the "ge" for a "j" sound is just wrong.
My conclusion about Capuano goes even more so for Suppan. It's up to the Dodger hitters to beat him. Suppan gets by with a low walk rate; he just doesn't strike guys out. If the Dodgers win this series it will be with lots of singles and maybe the occasional double. Just hit the ball hard, get lucky, whatever. Do whatever you can to pile up those singles, especially when you get men on base.
Ben M. Sheets
age: 28
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.86 -- 56.0 -- 34 -- 12 -- 8
Same deal as the first two pitchers, really. These are all good pitchers, but none of them dominate. The Dodgers should have a chance against all of them, but it won't be easy.
I'm not sure what's up with Sheets. As recently as last year he was still striking out a batter an inning, though he missed three month with arm trouble. His strikeouts are way down, and his home runs allowed are on pace for a career high. Whatever it is, he's not dominant. He just set his season high for strikeouts at eight. The Dodger batters aren't going to walk or strikeout a lot this series. It's going to come down to balls in play.
Prediction:
No way, I'm not making any predictions. Last two times I did that the Dodgers got swept. I will make some conditional predictions, though, things that need to happen for the Dodgers to win the series. I'm not saying they will happen, only that they need to.
The Dodger pitchers need to strike out 30 Brewers in this series.
Tomko must avoid the 2-0 and 2-1 count.
The Dodgers batters need to strike out less than 15 times in the series.
The Dodger batting average when they hit the ball needs to be around 0.333.
Wolf has to keep the ball down.
Penny needs to go pitch for the strikeout against the power hitters, and to contact against the weak hitters. ( Ideally he could try to strikeout everyone, but I think this will jack up his pitch count too fast. )
The Dodger infield play needs to be perfect.
And finally: Grady needs to wear a real Dodger jersey, not that blue jacket he always wears. That blue jacket is bad luck. Instill some team spirit, dude.
The Brewers are 27-17, good for first place in the NL Central. Actually, 22-22 would be good for first in that division. They've faced a lot of weak competition so far this year, so it's an open question as to how good they really are. They've scored 209, mostly on home runs ( in which they lead the league ) and have given up 187 with a bunch of decent starters and some high strikeout artists in Turnbow and Cordero to lead the 'pen.
It's also an open question as to how good the Dodgers really are. Against the Angels all the fears about them seemed to come true. The offense was exposed as being overly reliant on hitting with runners in scoring position, while the starting pitching seemed to regress back to what the naysayers have been saying it is all along. Penny's low ERA couldn't last, not with his K-rate and walk-rate and it didn't. Hendrickson continued his slide back to an ERA of 5, his brilliant April now completely irrelevant. Lowe was exposed as a pitcher who goes as the infield defense goes, and the infield defense was found wanting.
We've seen the worst of the Dodgers, but it is the worst. They can do better than they did against the Angles. They're at home now, facing another first place team. The Brewers have their own weaknesses that can be exposed, their own fears that can be made to come true. It's going to be up to the Dodger pitchers and hitters to force the action. This series won't be won with Dodger walks and Brewer fly outs. It will be won with Dodger base hits and Brewer strike outs.
Prince Semien Fielder -- 1B
age: 23
bats: left
0.290 -- 0.374 -- 0.574
There's a common theme with these Milwaukee Brewers: home runs and strikeouts. I'm not talking about the team totals, though they do lead the league in home runs. I'm talking about the profile of their most dangerous hitters. They are strikeout prone power hitters. None of the Brewers hitters, Fielder included, will get on base a prodigious amount. There's no one who will end the year with a OBP above 0.400. Fielder has their highest OBP right now, followed by Hardy, and then everyone else is below 0.360.
Fielder is the Brewers most dangerous hitter, even though Hardy has more home runs now. Fielder is the hitter you want to be most careful with. He's the only one I ever want to see walk. The rest of them can strike out or hit a grounder.
William Hall III -- CF
age: 27
bats: right
0.261 -- 0.325 -- 0.451
He strikes out a lot. The more he strikes out the lower his batting average gets, but the more home runs he hits. Last year he hit 35 home runs and struck out 162 times. He also walks more when he hits home runs, but it's never been enough to make his on base percentage look very good.
James Jerry Hardy -- SS
age: 24
bats: right
0.320 -- 0.364 -- 0.619
He leads the NL in home runs. That's amazing, because he's a shortstop, he's in his first full big league season at 24, he missed most of last year with ankle surgery, and he doesn't walk very much. Yeah, he has only 13 walks to go with his 14 home runs.
You know what I think, Dodgers? I think you should live on the outside of the plate. Don't ever throw your pitches anywhere else, unless it's way down and in. You've got to make him prove he can beat you with the walk before you give him a chance to beat you with the home run.
But I know what will happen. A Dodger pitcher, maybe Tomko, will try something like this, only miss too much and fall behind 2-0 or 3-1, and then he will give in, try to make a perfect pitch. And that pitch will end up being perfect for Hardy.
Geoffrey Scott Jenkins -- LF
age: 32
bats: left
0.310 -- 0.360 -- 0.595
He's an old hand by now. He's the slugging left fielder who strikes out a lot. He's the left handed hitter who can't hit lefties very well. He's 32, at the tail of his prime, but still in his prime, good for at least 25 home runs, a 0.350 on base percentage. He might be the star of a series, but he probably won't be. What he is, most of all, is yet another power threat in the stacked Brewer lineup.
Randy Wolf, the lefty, strikeout pitcher, should make him whiff every time! This is what you have to do to win, you Dodgers. Do what the percentages say you should be able to do. Who knows, maybe Ned Yost will blink and have Jenkins sit against Wolf.
Craig John Counsell -- 3B
age: 36
bats: left
0.224 -- 0.350 -- 0.306
He's the opposite of the dangerous Brewer hitters, with no home runs and not many strikeouts. That line above, the small batting average, the decent on base percentage, and tiny slugging? That's what he is. He is what he is, and the Dodgers know who he is, and if the Dodgers let Counsell be a part of beating them, they need to turn around and give the Denny Green rant, the one about "crowning someone's ass". Don't let that happen, Dodger pitchers. Don't crown his ass. By which I mean, um, don't walk him.
Anthony Joseph Graffanino -- 3B/2B
age: 34
bats: right
0.198 -- 0.268 -- 0.248
Graffanino was in a third base platoon with Counsell, but after Richie Weeks went down with a day-to-day injury Graffanino had to take over at second base. That's good ... I hope that arrangement keeps up for the series with the Dodgers.
Jon Corey Hart -- RF
age: 25
bats: right
0.262 -- 0.323 -- 0.393
Wait a minute, his first name isn't Corey? It's Jon? So, basically, he's chosen to be known by a middle name that will make him the butt of stupid jokes about wearing his sunglasses at night?
Now, he was born in 1982, and Corey Hart first charted ( with Sunglasses at Night ) in 1983, so we know his parents didn't duplicate the pop singer's name on purpose. But ... perhaps they saw their opportunity after Corey Hart became popular and started calling their son by his middle name. Maybe they are the sickos in this scenario! In any case, someone in that family has a lot to answer for.
Corey does appreciably worse at the plate at night, by the way. I'd like to think this is because he gets that song stuck in his head ... he can't help it. He is Corey Hart, and it is night ... one thing leads to another, and soon enough he's got the line "Don't switch the blade on the guy in shades, oh no" going through his head, and he's wondering what the heck that even means ... and then he strikes out.
The fact is he hasn't been playing much lately. A certain man named Tony Gwinn has been in right field a lot lately.
One last thing ... if Nancy Bea Hefley doesn't play Sunglasses at Night on the Organ at some point before he bats, she's got some explaining to do.
Anthony Keith Gwynn Jr. -- CF/RF
age: 24
bats: left
0.360 -- 0.429 -- 0.420
Yes, he's that Tony Gwynn's son. He's even hitting like his dad so far, though in only 50 at bats. Gabriel Jordan Gross, another young lefty hitter is also seeing some action in the outfield, as is righty Kevin Ford Mench, who looks rather washed up, an old 29 at this point. The Brewers seem to have a bit of turmoil in their lineup for a first place team.
Johnny Pulado Estrada III -- C
age: 30
bats: switch
0.281 -- 0.302 -- 0.467
Like Hardy, he has more home runs than walks. Unlike Hardy, he's not leading the league in home runs. He should be the source of a lot of outs.
His backup is Damien Donald Miller, aged 37, with stats worse than his. Well, except for walks. Miller has 4 to Estrada's 3. In any case, the catcher spot better be treated as a weak point in the Brewer lineup by the Dodger pitchers.
Richie Darnell Weeks Jr -- 2B
age: 24
bats: right
0.232 -- 0.341 -- 0.430
The Brewers have four players named after their fathers, including two named after their grandfathers.
Weeks should become a good hitter; once that batting average goes up a bit he'll be a solid offensive second baseman. Even as it is he's not doing too poorly. It's not certain if he'll play, though. He had surgery on his right wrist last August, and that wrist has been sore the last few days. He's missed the last four games because of it, and even if he does come back his play may be hampered by it.
Christopher Frank Capuano
age: 28
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.72 -- 48.1 -- 35 -- 19 -- 4
He's a solid 4-ERA pitcher; in fact his ERA the last two years have been 3.99 and 4.03. Though last year he actually lowered his walks almost in half with almost no change in his strikeouts, home runs or innings pitched, yet didn't see any improvement in his ERA. His walk rate has climbed back up to 2005 levels this year, and his strikeout rate has gone down just a bit.
The bottom line is that if the Dodgers swing the bats well, they can beat him. If they don't swing the bats well, he probably won't beat himself. Which Dodger offense will show up?
Jeffrey Scott Suppan
age: 32
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.25 -- 61.0 -- 32 -- 12 -- 5
Two men named "Jeffrey Scott" on the same team, only with different spellings of the first name. I'm with Suppan on this one. Using the "ge" for a "j" sound is just wrong.
My conclusion about Capuano goes even more so for Suppan. It's up to the Dodger hitters to beat him. Suppan gets by with a low walk rate; he just doesn't strike guys out. If the Dodgers win this series it will be with lots of singles and maybe the occasional double. Just hit the ball hard, get lucky, whatever. Do whatever you can to pile up those singles, especially when you get men on base.
Ben M. Sheets
age: 28
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.86 -- 56.0 -- 34 -- 12 -- 8
Same deal as the first two pitchers, really. These are all good pitchers, but none of them dominate. The Dodgers should have a chance against all of them, but it won't be easy.
I'm not sure what's up with Sheets. As recently as last year he was still striking out a batter an inning, though he missed three month with arm trouble. His strikeouts are way down, and his home runs allowed are on pace for a career high. Whatever it is, he's not dominant. He just set his season high for strikeouts at eight. The Dodger batters aren't going to walk or strikeout a lot this series. It's going to come down to balls in play.
Prediction:
No way, I'm not making any predictions. Last two times I did that the Dodgers got swept. I will make some conditional predictions, though, things that need to happen for the Dodgers to win the series. I'm not saying they will happen, only that they need to.
The Dodger pitchers need to strike out 30 Brewers in this series.
Tomko must avoid the 2-0 and 2-1 count.
The Dodgers batters need to strike out less than 15 times in the series.
The Dodger batting average when they hit the ball needs to be around 0.333.
Wolf has to keep the ball down.
Penny needs to go pitch for the strikeout against the power hitters, and to contact against the weak hitters. ( Ideally he could try to strikeout everyone, but I think this will jack up his pitch count too fast. )
The Dodger infield play needs to be perfect.
And finally: Grady needs to wear a real Dodger jersey, not that blue jacket he always wears. That blue jacket is bad luck. Instill some team spirit, dude.
20 May 2007
Should Kent swing at that first pitch?
By Griffster
Following on from my previous post, I had a look at the situational stats for a few guys. I left out the hitters that doesn't interest me ( Pierre, Betemit and the handful of bench guys ) and the guys with only a few at bats ( LaRoche ) and picked the ones that should be the meat of the lineup. Here we go:
Russel Martin:
First pitch swinging: 16 at bats, seven hits
AVG OBP SLG
.438 .412 .563
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 15 at bats, six hits
.400 .400 .600
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, two hits
.500 .500 1.000
The 3-0 sample sizes are so tiny that I'm not including them unless they are really interesting. Martin is well-advised to take a hack at the first strike he sees. He bats
.231 .560 .308
from count 3-2, in 13 at bats.
Jeff Kent:
First pitch swinging: 28 at bats, five hits
.179 .172 .429
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 14 at bats, eight hits
.571 .571 1.214
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, four outs
Count 3-2
.154 .476 .154
in thirteen at bats.
Now, this is interesting. Kent is, quite frankly, horrible when swinging at the first pitch. Stop doing that, Kent! When he at least sees a pitch, he does better. Even when that pitch is a strike and not a ball, he's managed six singles in 19 at bats, for a .316 line, which is better than his first pitch swinging record.
Luis Gonzalez:
First pitch swinging: 20 at bats, six hits
.300 .300 .350
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 16 at bats, two hits
.125 .125 .313
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, two hits
Count 3-2
.250 .591 .500
in 12 at bats.
Gonzalez does better swinging at the first pitch than Kent does, but he doesn't do that well swinging at the first strike. Gonzalez is on the decline everywhere, a liability in the field and at the plate ( but hey! He's great in the clubhouse! ). His best bet at this point is to swing at the first pitch, or swing after count 0-1, when he has seven singles from twenty at bats.
Andre Ethier:
First pitch swinging: 18 at bats, six hits
.333 .316 .444
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 12 at bats, three hits
.250 .231 .417
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, four hits
Count 3-2
.250 .538 1.000
in eight at bats.
Ethier does well when he goes first pitch swinging, though he doesn't do it as often as Kent or Gonzalez does. I'd say he's more selective in what he swings at, perhaps. His first strike swinging is a mixed bag.
Rafael Furcal:
First pitch swinging: 18 at bats, eight hits
.444 .444 .444
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 13 at bats, seven hits
.538 .538 .846
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 5 at bats, one hit
Count 3-2
.091 .333 .091
in eleven at bats.
Furcal is a leadoff hitter, so you'd expect him to see some pitches. Yet he still does much better ( like everybody else! ) than Kent when it comes to first pitch swinging. Furcal is worryingly awful trying to swing on the 3-2 count, although he cashes a third of those in for walks. Furcal does best from the 1-0 and 1-1 counts, with 12 hits from 23 at bats.
Nomar Garciaparra:
First pitch swinging: 27 at bats, eleven hits
.407 .407 .444
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 11 at bats, two hits
.182 .167 .182
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 7 at bats, two hits
Count 3-2
.143 .429 .143
in eleven at bats.
Nomar is the quintessential first pitch swinger. And it still works for him. Rock on, Nomar! If only his away batting average of .227 was closer to his home average of .365! At home Nomar gets on base at a lovely .427 clip, too, compared to .265 away.
So, does Kent do badly when he goes first pitch swinging, or what?
Well, actually, it depends. Over the preceding three years, Kent has a line of
.345 .348 .608
when he goes first pitch swinging. That's good! It is just this year that he's fallen off so badly.
Kent likes to go first pitch swinging. Over the last three years, he hit that first pitch 255 times to compile the above line. He hasn't loved any other count more than 0-0. His second favourite, 2-2, is a distant second with 174 times for an iffy .207 batting average.
Historically, Kent is a first pitch swinger stud, even better that Nomar's .336 .350 .556 line. So far this year, he isn't. I hope he works out the kink, because he hurts the team otherwise.
Also go and read the article at the L.A Times if you haven't already. If that's the take on Kent's hitting right out the horse's mouth, it is a lot better than I can do.
Following on from my previous post, I had a look at the situational stats for a few guys. I left out the hitters that doesn't interest me ( Pierre, Betemit and the handful of bench guys ) and the guys with only a few at bats ( LaRoche ) and picked the ones that should be the meat of the lineup. Here we go:
Russel Martin:
First pitch swinging: 16 at bats, seven hits
AVG OBP SLG
.438 .412 .563
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 15 at bats, six hits
.400 .400 .600
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, two hits
.500 .500 1.000
The 3-0 sample sizes are so tiny that I'm not including them unless they are really interesting. Martin is well-advised to take a hack at the first strike he sees. He bats
.231 .560 .308
from count 3-2, in 13 at bats.
Jeff Kent:
First pitch swinging: 28 at bats, five hits
.179 .172 .429
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 14 at bats, eight hits
.571 .571 1.214
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, four outs
Count 3-2
.154 .476 .154
in thirteen at bats.
Now, this is interesting. Kent is, quite frankly, horrible when swinging at the first pitch. Stop doing that, Kent! When he at least sees a pitch, he does better. Even when that pitch is a strike and not a ball, he's managed six singles in 19 at bats, for a .316 line, which is better than his first pitch swinging record.
Luis Gonzalez:
First pitch swinging: 20 at bats, six hits
.300 .300 .350
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 16 at bats, two hits
.125 .125 .313
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, two hits
Count 3-2
.250 .591 .500
in 12 at bats.
Gonzalez does better swinging at the first pitch than Kent does, but he doesn't do that well swinging at the first strike. Gonzalez is on the decline everywhere, a liability in the field and at the plate ( but hey! He's great in the clubhouse! ). His best bet at this point is to swing at the first pitch, or swing after count 0-1, when he has seven singles from twenty at bats.
Andre Ethier:
First pitch swinging: 18 at bats, six hits
.333 .316 .444
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 12 at bats, three hits
.250 .231 .417
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 4 at bats, four hits
Count 3-2
.250 .538 1.000
in eight at bats.
Ethier does well when he goes first pitch swinging, though he doesn't do it as often as Kent or Gonzalez does. I'd say he's more selective in what he swings at, perhaps. His first strike swinging is a mixed bag.
Rafael Furcal:
First pitch swinging: 18 at bats, eight hits
.444 .444 .444
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 13 at bats, seven hits
.538 .538 .846
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 5 at bats, one hit
Count 3-2
.091 .333 .091
in eleven at bats.
Furcal is a leadoff hitter, so you'd expect him to see some pitches. Yet he still does much better ( like everybody else! ) than Kent when it comes to first pitch swinging. Furcal is worryingly awful trying to swing on the 3-2 count, although he cashes a third of those in for walks. Furcal does best from the 1-0 and 1-1 counts, with 12 hits from 23 at bats.
Nomar Garciaparra:
First pitch swinging: 27 at bats, eleven hits
.407 .407 .444
First strike swinging, count 1-0: 11 at bats, two hits
.182 .167 .182
First strike swinging, count 2-0: 7 at bats, two hits
Count 3-2
.143 .429 .143
in eleven at bats.
Nomar is the quintessential first pitch swinger. And it still works for him. Rock on, Nomar! If only his away batting average of .227 was closer to his home average of .365! At home Nomar gets on base at a lovely .427 clip, too, compared to .265 away.
So, does Kent do badly when he goes first pitch swinging, or what?
Well, actually, it depends. Over the preceding three years, Kent has a line of
.345 .348 .608
when he goes first pitch swinging. That's good! It is just this year that he's fallen off so badly.
Kent likes to go first pitch swinging. Over the last three years, he hit that first pitch 255 times to compile the above line. He hasn't loved any other count more than 0-0. His second favourite, 2-2, is a distant second with 174 times for an iffy .207 batting average.
Historically, Kent is a first pitch swinger stud, even better that Nomar's .336 .350 .556 line. So far this year, he isn't. I hope he works out the kink, because he hurts the team otherwise.
Also go and read the article at the L.A Times if you haven't already. If that's the take on Kent's hitting right out the horse's mouth, it is a lot better than I can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)