Dodgerama

Last Place

2010-04-27T08:30:00.000-07:00

But only two and a half games out. This is a very good division, even if it doesn't show up in the overall division record of 49-46.

Check out these on base percentages achieved and allowed by each NL West team, along with differential.

SFG --- 0.335 -- 0.290 (+45)
AZD --- 0.346 -- 0.333 (+13)
SDP --- 0.317 -- 0.306 (+11)
LAD --- 0.360 -- 0.352 (+08)
COL --- 0.336 -- 0.332 (+04)

All positive! There is a similar story for slugging achieved and allowed.

SFG --- 0.415 -- 0.326 (+89)
COL --- 0.449 -- 0.364 (+85)
LAD --- 0.455 -- 0.425 (+30)
SDP --- 0.392 -- 0.375 (+17)
AZD --- 0.465 -- 0.471 (-06)

Only the Snakes are doing worse than their opponents. I suppose the Giants come out as the best team in the early going, if you look at OBP and SLG differentials, but it's early. Things will change. I don't think all these positive number will remain all year. The Dodgers have time to turn it around, though I often doubt that they will.

Doubt is not certainty, though. I wouldn't say I have given up, or anything like that. I've shifted into a different mode of thinking, though. I've shifted the Dodgers from favorite to win the division to long-shot. Or perhaps medium-shot. The pitching is so uneven, and where will help come from? Unless there is a shocking mid-season acquisition, help can only come from internal improvement. I'm looking at you, Chad Billingsley. And he's looking back, or his Sunday box score is, anyway, asking if I saw that game. I did not, unfortunately, but I heard some of it, and I know he had a strong and efficient game. I almost think I would rather have had that 0-1 loss in which Billingsley set the foundation for a May resurgence than a 9-8 win in which he stunk again. Even better would have been a 9-1 win, I suppose, but the Dodgers don't appear to be that kind of team this year.

I take comfort in getting a lot of these east coast games out of the way. It would be nice if the Dodgers could do better than 1-2 in one of these series, but at least they don't get swept. They're still in the race. They are 4-2 when Vinny calls the games. Just get back to the west coast and play at a decent hour and get Vinny behind the mic and all will be well agian, I feel. In the meantime, maybe they can win the series against the Mets.

Maybe. And maybe Juan Pierre will collect an extra base hit before the year is over. So far, for the White Sox, with 72 at bats, Juan Pierre is batting 0.222, and slugging 0.222. If there was a way to slug lower than one's batting average I think Juan Pierre would find a way to do it. Pierre only has 1 RBI on the season, too. But he does have 9 stolen bases, so he is playing his game. Pierre knows how to play his game. I think Pierre is going to have the most Juan Pierre-like season he's ever had this year. Remember that day last year when he collected four extra base hits in the same game? Remember that home run he hit a couple years ago? I find, as time passes, that I only remember the good things about Juan Pierre. I wonder why?

Deep Dodger Analysis

2010-04-19T14:13:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I saw an NBA analyst declare that the Lakers were headed to the NBA Finals. His evidence? One home playoff game against the Oklahoma Thunder. Isn't this conclusion a bit premature? After one game, how much can really be said about the Lakers? After a dozen games, how much can be said about the Dodgers?

And yet, what is the alternative? Should we all just sit around staring at each other, saying "I don't know" and shaking our heads? The public wants conclusions and strong opinions. We want it. I want it. I guess I have to admit it. It is as if, at the conclusion of each game, I need to construct the feeling of a just concluded season. I am not content to wait to see what happens months from now. My despair or euphoria must be validated. NOW. Events cannot validate, so strong predictions must suffice. If the Dodgers lose, especially in a gruesome, tragic way, then the season is over, OVER, and we are free to conduct an autopsy of the team. If the Dodgers win, and if the winning has seemed like a habit, then we are free to imagine champagne showers.

You, who are reading this, can no doubt place yourself above such base psychological needs. Whether or not you participate in such strong reactions to wins and losses, you can surely see how irrational they are. I can. And yet, in unguarded moments, I will still have them. At times it is a juvenile catharsis. Back in the 90's my favorite method was to cast away any Dodger who failed, even over the space of just one at bat, so long as I deemed that at bat important enough. I don't know how many times I told Eric Karros that he was "off the team". Even Piazza was probably released several dozen times. Then after the century turned I became fond of saying, "The Season is OVER." This is the most richly arrogant way to react to a loss, I think. I am unhappy, and therefore I wish everyone else to pick up their gloves and bats and go home. What do I do now, in 2010? I write strange stuff in an obscure Dodger blog.* I think this is progress.

It is amazing how much one pinch hit Manny home run will alter one's predictions. Without that home run, my projected DEEP** record for the Dodgers is 77-85, but with it, my projected DEEP record for the Dodgers is 90-72. That's a 13 game swing, based on one swing! Isn't that great?

I actually wonder if I dreamed that home run. I hit a mid-day wall right about the eighth inning on Sunday, and I lay down on the sofa, and one thing led to another and I had an unintentional micro-nap. I remember Manny being announced as the pinch hitter, or something, and then there was darkness, and then I remember looking at the TV and seeing that the score was 2-1, in favor of the Dodgers, and then watching a replay of Manny's home run. Boy did that wake me up.

As for Saturday's game, I missed it completely, and so I am unburdened by any memories of what may or may not have occurred that day in Dodger Stadium. Don't tell me! My DEEP projections do not factor in anything that happened on Saturday at all. All I know is the Dodgers won the series from the Giants and the season is most assuredly not over. Thank you, Manny. ( Uh, and also thanks to Kershaw and Broxton too, I guess. )

* --- No, not this blog. Come on now, Dodgerama isn't obscure. My other Dodger blog, the obscure one, is called Dodgerbeardandsideburnanalysis dot com.

** --- DEEP = Dodgerama Emotion Engine Predictor

Panic Averted

2010-04-16T08:05:00.000-07:00

I was so ready to panic. 3-6 loomed like a death sentence. The Dodger bullpen had failed again. The Dodgers offense had failed in crucial moments, again. The Dodgers played defense like they were wearing high heels. Failure, a broken season. I knew I couldn't write that, that overreaction, but my imagination failed me. My early season reserve was gone. What would I call the post I would make, when I pretended that I wasn't panicking? The only title I had in my mind was an evasion of the doom before us, a wish --- they still might win --- panic averted. That was the only title I had. And I get to use it!

From the perspective of a Snakes fan it is also a failure of defense and relief and clutch hitting. Funny how that works. For the fans it is their teams that are the primary agents of change. Qualls and Drew and Boyer too. Oh, and what about Hinch? His decision to walk Kemp to get to Ethier and then not walk Ethier when the runners advanced was a bit like doubling Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom but leaving Kobe wide open at the buzzer. I think a legitimate defense of Hinch can be organized but his decisions just felt wrong at the time. Wrong for his team, anyway.

The Dodger bullpen is still a mess, but maybe help is on the way. As Vinny last night reminded us Kuo and Belisario may be back soon. Oh, what a boon it would be to have a healthy Kuo. If these two come back, I suppose the most likely candidates to leave are the Ortizes. Unless the Dodgers decide to cut loose Monasterios, but that seems premature.

The Giants come into Los Angeles with a 7-2 record. It would be rash for me to say the Dodgers have to win two of three in this series, but it would be dishonest for me to say that I could stay in the neighborhood of a rational perspective if they don't take two of three. The Giants have strode confidently into the NL West saloon and declared themselves contenders. The Dodgers are stammering in a corner, too self conscious to declare anything about themselves. "Maybe we're contenders" the Dodgers mumble, as they nervously chew on some licorice. Wake up, Dodgers, or you'll get punched in the jaw and laid out on the floor with the Giants cackling over you. Four straight years the Dodgers have looked down on the Giants. That's not enough. We need at least three more years of the Dodgers finishing over the Giants to make up for what happened between these teams from 1997-2003. The Dodgers open the series with Vicente Padilla. This is a bit like walking up to the Giants in the NL West saloon and offering them some licorice. "Be my friend?" say the Dodgers meekly, as they offer the licorice like a nerd. Slam! Onto the floor. I sure hope not. The Giant starter tonight is Todd Wellenmeyer, who has an early season earned run average (ESERA) of 5.68. Sounds promising for the Dodgers, except Padilla's ESERA is more than twice that! Sigh. The lesson here? Never bring a stick of licorice to a knife fight.

Who Gets This Loss?

2010-04-15T09:40:00.000-07:00

We can start with Russ Ortiz, who gave up the deciding runs to the Snakes and was tagged with the official loss. He had some bad luck, and threw some bad pitches. Two walks, half his pitches out of the strike zone. No strikeouts. Pretty typical stuff from him. He'll have better games; he'll have luckier games. But he'll also have a lot more games exactly like last night. The moment he took the mound in the eleventh the game seemed lost.

We need to shift our perspective, because Russ Ortiz may be the technical answer but he is not the answer that matters. If not him it would have been someone else from the back end of the bullpen giving up runs. It's just not a very good 'pen right now. Broxton is good, and the Troncuilizer is steady, and Weaver seems to get the job done more than one would think, and then? The Ortizes and the Rule 5 guy and Sherrill the peril. It's not a bullpen you want to see a lot of, and yet they're always needed, and often early, because the starters usually don't go deep into games. And that brings us to Billingsley.

If any pitcher really deserved this loss it was Billingsley. What happened to him? He was so great through three innings, and then --- what? I notice that he threw everything low, especially late in the game. Keep the ball down in the zone, analysts often say, and I think this is probably good advice, but maybe the hitters just got locked into all this low stuff. Maybe his pitches lost their bite later in the game. I wonder if his fastball got straighter as he tired? There must be some explanation. Billingsley has the ability to dominate, as the first three innings show. The answer isn't just that he's not a good pitcher. But something happened. Maybe it is mental, but what changed in the fourth inning to turn him into a mental wreck? I just don't see it. The mid-game fade has become standard for Billingsley, that is clear, but less clear is an explanation, a reason. For all his ability it appears to me his career is in peril. Early stage peril.

The offense is in peril too, peril of being wasted. 2010 may be the opposite of 2003, when the Dodgers squandered brilliant pitching because they just couldn't score any runs. The 2010 offense looks so good, but it just can't keep up with the awfulness of the pitching. The pitching will probably get better, but the offense will also get worse. The Dodgers aren't going to score 6.5 runs a game all year. As much as the offense can blame the pitching last night, the offense is not without blame; they left plenty of chances unfulfilled. That will happen, though. Seven runs in nine innings is enough. The blame must go to the pitching. But how did the pitching get into this state? That, perhaps, is where the true blame must lie.

There is a malaise around this team. It comes from ownership, from the divorce. There was, perhaps, nothing sensible for the Dodgers to do this offseason, but if there was, if you think there was, would the Dodgers have been in a position to do it? What about now? Is there any chance that the team would pay any money to improve the pitching staff in the middle of this year? This is the team we get in 2010, it seems. No ace is going to join the team. The pitchers will have to improve, or the Dodgers will finish around 0.500.

At least, if the Dodgers end up losing 80 or more games, I hope they don't all take four hours.

How These Dodgers Opened

2010-04-13T09:04:00.000-07:00

age	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29
_________	____	_____	_____	_____	_____	_____	_____	_____	_____	____	____	____
Ellis	-	C	C	C	C	1+	1+	2	2	3,4	3,4	3,4?
Carroll	-	C	C	C	1	1+	1+,2	2	2,3	3	3,4	4
Sherrill	-	C	C	C	In	In	In	In	In	3,4	3,4	4
Blake	-	C	C	C	1	1+	1+,2	3,4	3,4	3,4	3,4	4
Ra. Ortiz	-	-	-	-	-	R	1	2	2,3,4	3,4	4
Johnson	-	C	C	C	1	1,1+	2	3	3,4	4
Haeger	R	-	R,1	1+,2	3,4	3,4	3,4	3,4	4?
Troncoso	-	DSL	DSL	DSL	R,1	1,1+	1+,2	3,4	4
Ru. Ortiz	-	C	C	C,1	1+,2	2,3	3,4	4
Ethier	-	C	C	C,1	1+	2	3,4	4
Monaster	-	-	R	1	1+	1+,2	4?
Anderson	R,1	1	1+,2	3	3	3,4	4
DeWitt	R	1	1+,2	1+,2	3,4	3,4	4
Loney	R,1	1+	2	2	3,4	3,4	4
Martin	-	R	R,1	1	2	3,4	4
Padilla	-	-	-	1,3,4	3,4	3,4	4
Belliard	1	2	3	3	3,4	4
Furcal	-	R	R	1,1+	2,4	4
Weaver	-	C	C	C,1	2,4	4
Kemp	-	1	1+	2,3,4	3,4	4
Broxton	R	-	1+	2,4	3,4	4
Ramirez	-	R	1+	2,3,4	4
Billingsley	-	1+	2	3,4	4
Kershaw	R	1,2	2,4	4

Chart Legend

C = College
R = rookie league
1 = A
1+ = high A
2 = AA
3 = AAA
4 = The Show!

DSL = Dominican Summer League
In = Independent Leagues
- = injured, or in high school, or other
italics = short stint at that level, usually a month or less
? = not established as a major leaguer yet

All ages and minor league levels are taken from data at thebaseballcube.com. Minor League stints after a player becomes an established major leaguer are not shown. The chart for each player ends in the year he put in a full year at the major league level. Hiroki Kuroda is not in the chart. His first full season in the Japanese Central League came in his age 22 season.

I've had some trouble formatting the chart correctly, but I think it should be fine now. The rightmost column should be the age 29 column.

The Narrative

2010-04-12T16:39:00.000-07:00

I'm going to again respond to a comment in a new post, because it is just so fascinating, and so representative of certain ways of thinking about baseball players. I think it bears further investigation. The argument is about Russ Ortiz and whether he belongs on the Dodger pitching staff. On one side is me, maternal basement dwelling blogger* and on the other side is an anonymous commenter. Basically, my case against Russ Ortiz is that the last time he pitched well was 2004. My opponent replies to the stats with a narrative, and I respect that. This is the only rational way to argue Russ Ortiz's case, I think. Here is the narrative in support of Russ Ortiz:

I'm sure you don't know much about Ortiz' pre-Tommy John injury to the rib cage when with the Diamondbacks that affected his mechanics. I'm also sure you don't know how eager Leo Mazzone (who worked with Ortiz when he was with the Braes) was to pick him up with the Orioles, still before his surgery. You can't possibly know how he was jerked around by the Astros, yanked in and out of the bullpen (which doesn't work for a lifetime starter), then waived -- then Cooper (the real problem) was fired himself by management for mis-management of the staff. You probably didn't see how quick both New York and Colorado (both competing for playoff spots) wanted to secure Ortiz in their systems last spring. You also have no idea how his arm is now, how much he's recovered, and how well he's throwing -- like hie did when he had the type of experience most Dodgers just dream of...of pitching critical games in the World Series - VERY effectively.

This, to me, reads much as a Spring Training Piece would. We are given all the reasons why a player is about to turn it around, why he hasn't been able to fulfill his potential before, but now! Now! Things are different. And, you know, they might be. I like a good turn-around story. But I never would have cast Russ Ortiz as the lead in that turn-around story.

Ortiz is the hero in this proposed story, and like any good story the hero must face adversity. Injuries. Surgery. Teams jerking him around. He's had a fall, from near World Series hero** to yet another example of the folly of giving out big free agent contracts to starting pitchers. So, fate has been unkind to him. But also, people believe in him! Contenders wanted him last year. Legendary pitching coach Leo Mazzone wanted him. And now the Dodgers want him. So there is this tension, between what he could be and what he was made to be by circumstance. The end to this story is supposed to be that Russ Ortiz has had it in him all along to be a good pitcher, and this season he will finally show it. Something like that, right?

But I just don't buy this story. I don't find the proposed ending believable. Because, you know, I've seen it before. You can tell the same story ( or a similar one ) about lots of washed up pitchers every year. He's finally healthy. He's finally fixed his mechanics. He's finally away from the assholes on that other team who just didn't use him right, who didn't really believe in him. This is not a new story. I know how it ends, more than 90% of the time, at least. It ends with the pitcher still not being very good. And the thing is, I can't remember any other pitcher coming in to the Dodgers with a worse track record in his previous 5 years than Russ Ortiz. It's epic! I've seen pitchers come in and do well after one or two years in the wilderness. But it needs to be one hell of a narrative to convince me that Ortiz has something left and this one just doesn't do it.

Is there any possible rebutting narrative that could convince me to ignore five years of terrible stats? It would have to be a drastic change. Maybe if he had suddenly become a knuckleballer, and worked on perfecting his command of the chaos pitch all offseason. Or if they had invented some new kind of surgery to fix him, Russ Ortiz surgery, and now he was coming back with a fully repaired arm, a modern day Tommy John. But he's just a 36 year old pitcher who hasn't pitched well since he was 30.

So there it is. The Narrative is just not compelling enough. I think the commenter has done about as well as he or she could do with the material there is to work with, but it just wasn't to be. We will see how well Ortiz pitches this year, and I am sure he will have games where he gets the job done. He already has. But I think the Dodgers could have done better, even with all the injuries to relievers they have faced. I think he will have a lot of bad games.

If he does turn out to be a good pitcher, I think that will be one hell of a story.

* -- It is a huge basement, and also completely above ground, and miles away from the rest of my mother's house, but there are those who say that we never really escape the shadow of our parents, so maybe in some symbolic way it is my mother's basement. But I don't have dialup. I mean, come on.

** -- Shouldn't Russ Ortiz have some responsibility for the jinx game ball that Dusty Baker gave him in game 6 of the 2002 World Series? He could have refused it, right? He could have said, "Dusty, what are you doing? The game isn't over yet! You can't give me a game ball! You'll invite the wrath of the baseball dryads and we'll lose!" Instead he took the ball and the doom of the Giants was sealed. Let no one say that I don't appreciate Russ Ortiz's intangible role in the Giants coughing up the World Series in 2002. ( On a more serious note, as long as what he did in the World Series counts, he was terrible in game 2. Gave up 7 runs. )

Hammering Russ Ortiz

2010-04-11T08:00:00.000-07:00

Comments are a rarity around here, and combative comments even rarer, so I thought it might be fun to rebut this one in a separate post:

Why are you hammering on Russ Ortiz? He's had ONE bad inning since the beginning of spring - two lights-out appearances in Pittsburgh, and one tough inning at Florida - it was Broxton who gave up the double. And it has been Sherrill who has sucked all spring, and now again tonight. Russ Ortiz has been GREAT this year, and a great find for the Dodgers. Why hacks like you, on blogs like this, can't do your homework - it's beyond me.

From 2001 to 2004, Russ Ortiz had a better than average ERA every year. His ERA+ numbers those years, according to baseballreference.com: 122, 107, 113, 105. Or if you prefer straight ERA: 3.29, 3.61, 3.81, 4.13. But there was a warning sign already in Ortiz's performance, for anyone willing to heed it, and I'm not just talking about the rising ERAs. His strikeout to walk ratio was 1.5 to 1 in 2003 and 1.3 to 1 in 2004. Those are not good ratios. Eventually they will catch up to you. Even in the offseason after 2004, if you really did your homework, you could tell that Russ Ortiz wasn't as good as he appeared. The Arizona Diamondbacks didn't heed the warnings. The Snakes signed him to a 4 year, 33 million contract, and the next phase of Russ Ortiz's career began.

In 2005 at age 31, Russ Ortiz posted a 6.89 ERA for the Snakes. In 2006 he was even worse, and the Snakes released him even though they owed him another 20 million or so. His ERA between the Snakes and the Orioles in 2007 was 8.14. In 2007, he returned to the Giants, the team of his youth, but he didn't find the fountain of youth. He posted an ERA of 5.51. Which was a huge improvement, and yet still awful! His 2007 season was actually cut short by Tommy John surgery, and he missed all of 2008 recovering, and then in spring training of 2009 he posted an ERA of 3.18. So --- maybe the surgery had fixed whatever was wrong with him? No. He ended 2009 with an ERA of 5.57 and the Astros released him. His spring training ERA in 2009 was irrelevant to his performance when it counted in 2009.

So why should his spring training performance this year matter? Why should a small sample of good performance in games that don't matter partially against non-major league players count more than four years of terrible results in games that do matter? His combined ERA in those four years is 6.56. His ERA+ is 68. He has walked a total of 173 and struck out 182. That is just awful. It is really unfathomable that a pitcher can be so awful over a period of four years ( with one year completely missed ) and yet still be in the big leagues. Russ Ortiz's last good season came when he was 30. He is 36 now. It is madness to think he can be a contributing pitcher this year.

I am asked why I am hammering Russ Ortiz. The problem isn't that I'm hammering Russ Ortiz. The problem is that batters have been hammering him since 2005 and there is no reason to think they won't continue in 2010.

Dodgers Lose, Brain Cells Riot

2010-04-10T19:55:00.000-07:00

After catching and surpassing a Marlin's lead twice, and taking their own two run lead into the ninth inning, the Dodgers yak up the game and fall 6-7, bringing their tally on the season to 2-3. The Dodgers still look like a 0.500 team, maybe even worse, and the twin problems dragging down this dynamic offensive club are starting pitchers who can't pitch deep into games and a thinly stretched relief corps that isn't up to the job.

It is perhaps accurate to say that Broxton should have been ready for tonight's game, that he could have closed tonight if either Torre had managed his outings better or if Russ Ortiz hadn't been so awful last night, but of more importance is that the combination of Troncoso and Sherrill should have been enough to get the job done anyway. They didn't, and we are left wondering just what kind of bullpen we have this year. Belisario should show up at some point, and maybe Kuo, and there are young arms to be called up, perhaps, or inadvisable trades for middle relievers or overpriced closers to be made. There are ways to attempt to improve a bullpen, should that prove necessary. But there are never any guarantees with relievers. They are inherently volatile.

Which is part of why it would be foolish to draw any firm conclusions after five games, except the ones we could have made before the season. Russ Ortiz has no place in the Dodgers pen. Ramon Ortiz should hang on only as long as there are no better options. ( Why does not the same apply to Russ Ortiz? Because there are always better options to Russ Ortiz. It's a law of space and time. ) Jeff Weaver continues to be a middle innings dream-weaver and we can only hope he doesn't regress and turn into a nightmare-weaver. I thought before the season started that Sherrill was a candidate to be a bad pitcher this year and that he might not even finish the season with the Dodgers and so far he is right on track for that. Except who would want him if he keeps pitching like this?

Sherrill may yet turn it around; we can't rule that out yet. Can we say the same for Vicente Padilla? I don't see why we should have to, given that there was so little evidence beyond appealing to small sample sizes and the magic of changing uniforms to support his being a good starting pitcher. I don't think the Dodgers have a chance at winning 90 games again if he stays in the rotation all season.

But even if the Dodgers can improve on Padilla's spot in the rotation they still need the bullpen to be stronger. And I think it will, but --- I am worried, even after five games. The thing about a bad 'pen is that a couple of times a week it gives up just enough runs to lose the game, no matter how well the offense played. It becomes a loss-seeking missile whose collateral damage is the good will and sanity of the team's fans. Boy, I sure don't want to go insane.

Judgement Time

2010-04-08T15:00:00.000-07:00

If you really think about it, almost any reaction to the opening series of a season is an overreaction. Just think, in a just a week we'll have tripled our sample size of 2010 game action on this team. In a month, this series will seem utterly insignificant. After the season, it will be completely forgotten.

But right now this series is all we got, and it would be awfully boring to just take the sanitary and sane long view that avoids hasty judgments. Judgments are fun. Overreaction makes us feel alive. Let us indeed be hasty! Let emotion rule the day! Let no one utter the heresy of sample size!

So, here it is: this Dodger team is no better than a 0.500 team. The talent is there but the will to win is not. Oh sure, they want to win, but that is not the same as the will to win. How do you know the will to win? You know it by clutch moments. Runners are not left stranded at second or third. Starting pitchers avoid walks and go deep into games. Managers don't allow more than one Ortiz to pitch in the same game.

The offense should be good, but you can see how it could be worse than last year's, right? The old players may decline, some may even plummet, and if the young players do not improve and pick up the slack, then there is trouble. Can Kemp and Ethier be better than they were last year? Most likely they'll just be the same as they were last year, which would be plenty good, but being the same is not enough to reverse an offensive slide caused by the likes of Blake and Furcal and Manny getting worse. If you're looking for hope that the offense won't be worse you need to hope Martin or Loney improves. Possible, yes. But not a comfortable thing to have to hope for. Martin is the better bet. Loney I fear will just get worse. Oh, and Blake Dewitt needs to replace what Hudson did last year. But maybe that will be easier with an assist from Belliard and his belly full of improbable extra-base hits picking up the slacks at second.

In truth though the offense is not the big worry. Overall it was pretty good in the opening series, if one can overlook for a moment all the stranded runners in games 1 and 2. Six runs a game will usually get it done, unless the pitching isn't up to the job. And it wasn't. It is pitching, then, that drags the Dodgers down to 0.500 in this instantaneous projection.

The Dodger starters threw a combined 14.1 innings in the three game series, while walking 13. Wow, bad luck. And bad pitching. You won't go deep into games with that many walks. Someone is going to have to improve. The team can't handle 5 innings a start the rest of the year.

Kuroda may do well. Haeger is intriguing and a little scary. We can hope for improvement from Billingsley and Kershaw, though, truly, their starts in the past series were nothing very out of ordinary. They will have more games like that. Both were mildly effective, in spite of the walks, but that is little comfort when you are thrown upon the mercy of a bullpen full of Ortizes so early in a game. There is a Broxton in there too, but he must not pitch unless it is a save situation ( or at least a ninth inning lead ) so he might as well not be in there. But at least Billingsley and Kershaw give us reason to hope. Padilla just appears to be a disaster. I don't rue the Dodgers not going out and getting an ace, I rue them not getting anything better than Padilla. He's going to drag this team down. Padilla is like a quesadilla, except filled with walks instead of cheese. Those walks are going to melt all over the place and put stains in the team's record, and nothing will get those stains out, not with the budget the Dodgers are on.

So that's the story after three games. The Dodgers are doomed. Check back in a week and I'll have them winning 95 games, I guarantee it.

Opining Day

2010-04-05T08:11:00.000-07:00

The line between fact and opinion in baseball is as fuzzy as this metaphor. The numbers describing certain facets of baseball are so comprehensive and deep that statements which might usually be seen as opinion take on the characteristics of fact. In baseball, there is truth, damned truth, and VORP. Players are numbers, governed by known equations, easily ordered by value.

But no, this is too much. Fact has not overtaken opinion that much.

Even hitting, the most numerically mapped athletic discipline in existence, is not easily pinned under a single matrix of numbers. The year to year fluctuations of player stats are proof enough of that. But even if each player was reducible to a single number, the games would still be living things, unpredictable, unknowable, endlessly debatable. An opportunity for fun, a playground for opinion. Even Juan Pierre can hit a home run. Even Chan Ho Park can pitch a scoreless inning.

Except he didn't. Did you see that? That was great. Last night it wasn't just an opinion that Chan Ho Park is a terrible pitcher who will give up home runs and make you weep if he's on your team. It was a stone cold fact. I love that even a team like the Yankees who pay for only the finest players still have to rely on someone like Chan Ho Park in the seventh inning. Middle relief is the great leveler. Even the best and richest teams will sometimes struggle to find quality middle relief. There's just no stability there, in performance and in team personnel, not year to year, often not even from month to month! Still, Chan Ho Park? Really, Yankees? Ha ha ha!

I couldn't believe it when my wife said, "Isn't that Chan Ho Park pitching for the Yankees?" I scoffed. But it was him. That made my night. I don't know, maybe I'm being too hard on him. He was great for the Dodgers in 2008, and not too bad for the Phillies in 2009. But still, does anyone really think Chan Ho Park can handle the AL East this year? The only thing more desperate a team could do would be to employ Russ Ortiz as a relief pitcher.

Sigh.

The 2010 Opening Day Russter

2010-04-04T14:30:00.000-07:00

For every player there is a story. Sometimes it is a boring story, in which case it's best to make something up.

Here are the stories of the 25 players most likely to make the opening roster for the Dodgers.

Matt Kemp

What do we want to see more of from Matt Kemp? More steals? More home runs? Could he be a 40-40 guy? Yes! What else? More great plays in center field? More cannon throws to exterminate runs at the plate? Indeed, yes. More moments when he seems the most physically gifted player to ever wear the Dodger Blue? Absolutely. It's all possible.

But then there is one more thing, and it isn't a "more" at all, it's a "less". Or a "fewer", if we wish to be grammatically correct. We want to see fewer outs. It's not very exciting but when I look at what he did last year this is where it appears the Bison can make the most improvement. 0.352 OBP last year, and 0.340 the year before. These are not bad numbers, not for a good defensive center fielder with power. But if he is to become a superstar, he needs to improve, I think. Can he? I have no idea.

Even if he never does, he's still the most fun Dodger to watch in a long time.

Andre Ethier

This year his clutch hits will come before the ninth inning. That's usually when they come. Think of how often the three run home run in the third inning ends up being the crucial moment in a game. Can you think of how often this happens? Maybe not, because it's just not a memorable way for a game to be decided. But it happens all the same. If Andre hits well, that's clutch enough, isn't it?

Manny Ramirez

He removes himself from the ordinary circles of the baseball world without even trying. His hits are art. His slumps are drama. His words are comic theatre. His silence is a window to the soul. His hair is Bob Marley. His fielding is Cosmo Kramer. His name is Manny. And that's who he is.

Garret Anderson

This might mean something --- to someone who likes the Angels --- or has a sense of solidarity --- with our Metropolitan baseball cousins --- but I don't care --- he's just another old guy --- just a guy with a bat --- and a glove, I guess --- I don't know his stats --- or his hopes --- all I know is that he's washed up --- just filling out his baseball time --- filling out a roster --- filling outfield spaces --- when the outfield isn't full.

Reed Johnson

Oh man, I got nothing. Really. I can't even make anything up. How about a game? Let's see who ends up with a better Dodger career --- him or Brady Clark? Do you remember Brady Clark? Perhaps, but is there a compelling reason to remember him? I think Reed Johnson is going to be the same way.

Russell Martin

So here he is, back from injury early, ready to play on opening day. Will the lack of playing time this spring hurt him? Will it give him an excuse to get off to a slow start, thereby taking the pressure off to produce, thereby allowing him to instead get off to a fast start?

Brad Ausmus

Bad Ausmus, I call him, when he makes an out in a game. Would it be more creative to call him Brad Outmas instead? How about Brad Ausmiss if he strikes out? At least he doesn't get turned into a boy named Sue ( or some other female name ) when he does poorly. My wife still calls JD Drew "Judy Drew". Sometimes this will annoy me because he's a pretty good player but other times I think it's pretty funny. Some people prefer to feminize Drew by calling him Nancy, but really do people even read Nancy Drew books anymore? I think Nancy Drew grew up and became Mary Worth.

James Loney

What keeps James in the big leagues? He doesn't hit a whole lot of home runs or doubles. He's not fast. He doesn't pitch, not anymore. He doesn't walk a whole lot. He doesn't play catcher or shortstop or some other tough defensive position. Basically he plays a good defense at first base and makes a lot of contact. That's about it. Is that really enough for a first baseman? Maybe it is when you have a outfield like the Dodgers have and you're getting paid low arbitration dollars. But soon, if he doesn't improve, I don't think it will be enough.

Rafael Furcal

I'm not really expecting much out of the Furbolg this season. Maybe get on base at a 0.340 clip, don't make too many bad throws, hit a few random home runs and please don't get hurt! Oh, and no more DUIs, please.

Blake DeWitt

How long a leash do you think Blake has? How long can he struggle without Joe Torre playing ~~Angel Berroa~~ Ronnie Belliard too much? I wish Torre could undergo psychological conditioning to make him think that Blake DeWitt was a veteran.

Jamey Carroll

Good signing. Seems like a solid bench guy. Doesn't he make Ronnie Belliard unnecessary?

Ronnie Belliard

Just to remind you ( I had forgotten ) but Ronnie Belliard was amazing for the Dodgers last year. He had an OPS of 1.034. Five home runs in a month of games. He was Marlon Anderson version 2. I kind of wish his all time career OPS as a Dodger could have stayed above 1.000. Instead --- how low will it go? Belliard has had some decent seasons fairly recently, but his age and his weight problems make it seem likely he'll crash into uselessness one of these years.

Casey Blake

I think the Dodgers should be allowed to void his contract if he's clean shaven. His beardlessness reduces his value to the fans by at least 50%. They should start selling "Free Casey Blake's Beard" shirts outside Dodger Stadium.

Clayton Kershaw

All the stuff I was going to say about him has been ruled a "jinx" by the jinxing committee.

Chad Billingsley

Order of importance that certain parties believe in the ability of Chad Billingsley:

1. Chad Billingsley
2. Joe Torre
3. Ned Colletti
4. Some gambler in Vegas who bet lots of money on the "over" on Billingsley wins
5. Teammates
...
46. The fans
...
103. Sportswriters
104. Bill Plaschke

It's interesting how many people focus on Billingsley when trying to figure out how good the Dodgers will be in 2010. Are the likely upper and lower limits of his performance really any wider than they are for most of the other Dodgers? Does a bad season from Chad hurt more than a bad season from Loney or Martin? If Chad pitches worse than expected, or hoped, the difference could still be made up by another player having a better than expected season. And yet people talk about his performance this year like it will make or break the team.

Vicente Padilla

In 39 Dodger innings last year Padilla struck out 38 batters. That is the kind of ratio that would indeed make him worthy of being the opening day starter. Unfortunately he had never posted a ratio anything like that over a full season, and he's not about to start now at age 32. But if he keeps his walks down he might yet be league average this season, which would be great.

Hiroki Kuroda

How can you not root for a guy who comes back weeks after giving up a ground rule double off of his own head? Why didn't he get the opening day start, if it couldn't go to Billingsley or Kershaw?

Kuroda had an ERA of 3.73 in 2008. He had an ERA of 3.76 in the 2009 regular season. He had an ERA of 40.50 in the 2009 postseason. So, running a linear regression analysis on these numbers I find that his predicted ERA in 2010 is 89.57. Ah, so that's why he isn't being given the opening day start.

Charlie Haeger

Tom Candiotti was the last knuckleball pitcher in the Dodger starting rotation. Candiotti lasted 6 years with the Dodgers, and they were mostly good years. His ERA+ in those six years were 116, 124, 97, 109, 87, and 108. A better than average pitcher more often than not, and never truly awful, unless he was pitching in Denver. But he only made three starts in Denver. The Dodgers learned quickly that the knuckleball just didn't work in the thin air.

What chance does Haeger have of a Dodger career as good as Candiotti's? Not much, I guess. But I'm rooting for him. I just hope the Dodgers have the sense not to pitch Haeger in Coors field.

Ramon Troncoso

The Troncuilizer returns! I'm expecting good things from him this year. With a few exceptions, relievers are very unpredictable, so I think the most you can ask of them entering a season is that their best case scenarios be good ones. I think that is the case with Troncoso.

Jeff Weaver

What is his best case scenario? Just below league average ERA, I think. But that's not so bad for a long relief man.

George Sherrill

I just have a feeling he won't end the year as a Dodger.

Carlos Monasterios

This is the perfect name for a rule 5 guy. These guys just come out of nowhere, like they were living at a monastery before, right? I mean, if they didn't seem like they were coming out of nowhere I guess they couldn't be rule 5 guys.

Jonathan Broxton

Can he forget? Can we forget? Should there be any forgetting at all? I think with Broxton, will all the talent he has, it is fair to say that he still has the majority of his career ahead of him. So, let's not conclude right now what kind of pitcher he is. Don't close the book on him being a great, clutch pitcher. He's already had some great moments. He's also had some awful moments. Oh yes. But that's not necessarily what will define his career, even if one accepts that they should define his career up to this point.

Ramon Ortiz

What? He made the team? Russ Ortiz made the team? What? Oh, Ramon Ortiz. Oh. Well, that's okay, I guess.

Wait, his last major league season was 2007? He spent 2008 in Japan and 2009 in AAA with the Giants? How could the Dodgers say Fresyes to a pitcher who pitched in Fresno last year?

Well, I guess it could be worse. They could have put Russ Ortiz on the roster. At least they picked the right Ortiz, if they had to pick one.

Russ Ortiz

Nooooooooooooo!

Russell Unathletic

2010-03-08T08:29:00.000-08:00

When there is real news in Spring Training, it's usually bad. The Dodger news of the weekend ( and the new week ) is that Russell Martin is expected to be out for four to six weeks with a strained adductor, otherwise knowns as a groin strain. Given that timetable, our young catcher in search of baseball redemption would miss opening day and opening week, at least. Given that he would probably need a rehab assignment, the whole month of April might be lost.

But I wonder if it might be more. Could this be the middle of the end for Russell Martin as a Dodger? I don't really believe that it is, and yet, my thoughts do go there. This is the sort of pessimistic speculation that is sure to infuriate some people. I think it would infuriate me if I had not heard it from the dire whispering of my own thoughts.

The beginning of the end for Russell Martin as a Dodger, if there is an ongoing end to be spoken of, and I really hope there isn't, would have come in 2008, when his offensive statistics began their decline. He was still good that year, very good offensively for a catcher, even, and he was a deserving all star selection that year, and yet -- it seemed like he could have done better. I thought he would be better in 2009, or at least not worse, and Martin talked about a renewed focus and dedication that spring, but instead he slumped to offensively average at best for a catcher that year. By his standards it was a genuinely bad year. That year was when a lot of Dodger fans began to question the previously unshakable assumption that Martin was the catcher of the future, a long term fixture as Dodger catcher, as long as we didn't lose him to free agency. But if 2009 was the new normal, then maybe we would want him to leave in free agency? What a horrible thought, and yet also true to being a fan. We love you if you are good.

And now, the groin strain. The middle of the end, maybe. This is the kind of injury that can linger. Isn't it? I am not Will Carroll, injury expert, so what I say here is based on feel, on half-memories, perhaps false memories. This seems like the kind of injury that might keep a player always two weeks from recovery. There's not that much wrong at any one time, but something small keeps going wrong. Remember Rafael Furcal's back injury in 2008? I worry that it might be like that. Setbacks, false recoverings, and then revelation that the injury was more extensive than thought. New timetables. Polite yet frustrated quotes from management. Do you have to, do you have to let it linger? There is no reason to think it will go like this, though! Except, maybe Martin will push it. We know how he is. Wanting to play everyday. Wanting to push through pain and slumps and common sense. He's already talking about it. Martin: "My goal is to not miss one game ... They gave me a time frame. If I keep bugging them, maybe then I'll get it down." Nooooooo! You have to get it completely healed! But wait, there's more: "Odds are it won't work. You'd rather be safe than sorry. One thing I have to understand, even though I don't like it, it's what I have to do." That's better. It's clear he gets this, in his head. But will he take it to heart?

Maybe the bigger point here is that this is something else Martin has to fight. He has to fight his slump of last year, and now on top of that he has this injury. But is a slump something you fight? Maybe it's better if he just focuses on being healthy. Maybe this injury could work to his advantage, in the long run. The pressure isn't on to perform anymore, it's simply to get healthy.

There is more. This injury is not only a potential blow against the Dodger career of Martin, but against the Dodger hopes in 2010. In the worst case for 2010 Martin is never able to come back, and Ellis and Ausmus give the Dodger something close to nothing from catcher. Maybe Colletti makes a terrible trade for a veteran "upgrade" catcher at the deadline at the cost of a good young prospect. Maybe Vinny retires in disgust because the catching is so bad!

Yeah, it's easy to overreact. This is one bad thing, maybe a very mild bad thing. If Martin misses one or two weeks, and then comes back at full strength, it barely qualifies as a bad thing. There will be good things that happen too. And more bad things. Expectations are set to be defied. Odds are the odds are wrong. Kemp slumps, Loney breaks out, Manny joins a monastery. It could happen, or something crazier. Even the things we know, we don't really know. People talk about known unknowns, which are the things that you know you don't know, and the unknowns unknowns, which are the things you don't even realize that you don't know, but there are also the unknown knowns, which are the things you think you know but you really don't.

So this injury to Martin is the first entry in the ledger of surprises for 2010. It won't be the last.

How Tiger Woods is Like Spring Training

2010-02-23T15:33:00.000-08:00

I think that Tiger Woods apology conference was a lot like the start of spring training. A lot of hoopla and no substance. Does the return of Eric Gagne to the fringes of the Dodger roster count as substance?

There are really only two questions that matter in the Tiger Woods situation, and he answered neither of them. First, is he going to stay married to Elin? He did not say. You might argue that this is none of my business, but the state of being married or not married to someone is a basic public fact. And I'm not going to pretend to be above wanting to know if he and Elin are going to stay together, not after the bizarre car accident and all that followed. I'm not asking for details, for what has been said and all that. It's a basic question. Give us an answer, instead of just a long self-serving apology.

Second, and the appropriateness and relevance of this question is beyond debate, I should think -- when is he going to start playing golf again? Golf is the only reason Tiger Woods is important or famous. But he wouldn't answer that question either. I suppose his position is that he doesn't know. He doesn't know any of the answers to the important questions. Then why is he speaking to us? Don't waste our time if you have nothing of substance to say.

The Tiger apology speech last week really was like a Spring Training puff piece. Full of platitudes and the fake shine of vague optimism that now a trajectory to improvement and better times is being followed. Oh sure. Who is more believable, Tiger saying he's sorry to all the kids who looked up to him, or the journeyman pitcher saying this is the spring that the mechanical adjustment turns it all around for him? What about the middle infielder who will strike out less because he meditates?

In the battle of baseball and Tiger Woods, baseball wins, because I know when baseball substance will return. We drink baseball's spring moonshine because it's ultimately harmless, a manifestation of the desire we all have, to reach the pinnacle and take that pennant. Why would we drink Tiger's moonshine? He's just a guy desperate to hang on to the sponsorships he has left.

Into the Arms of America

2010-01-25T08:43:00.000-08:00

Based on the 2009 regular season, you could debate which was the better team between the Dodgers and the Phillies, but based only on the 2009 NLCS ( which is all that really mattered ) it was clear that the Phillies played better. So, for a Dodger fan, it was a bad loss, but it was not a senseless loss. The pain of the loss came from the feeling that the team should have played better. It could have been worse. It could have been the kind of contest after which the losing fans feel that a cruel script has been drawn up for them, been laid upon them, like an old world curse, that strange chance and untimely weakness has tragically unwound all skill and achievement and delivered, at the end of struggle, bitter defeat.

And that was the fate of Viking fans yesterday. Better, by far, to have been a Jets fan yesterday, and know that your team played well, achieved beyond sensible dreams, but just wasn't as good as the Colts. But for the Vikings, what logic determined their fate? They outgained the Saints by over 200 yards, but could not hold on to the ball. Both teams, in fact, had trouble handling the football. The Vikings fumbled six times, and lost the ball three of those times, while the Saints fumbled three times, and lost the ball once. In spite of this barrage of fumbles, the Vikings were in position to win the game as regulation came to a close. The game was tied 28 apiece, and Brett Favre has driven the Vikings to the doorstep of a make-able, game-winning field goal. Third and 10, and maybe a run up the middle for five yards would be just the thing to set up the field goal and win the game. But before anything like that could happen then there was a senseless penalty for 12 men in the huddle. Suddenly the field goal was a little too long, and it was third and 15, and a play had to be made to save the chance at the game-winning kick. I'm sure that's what he was thinking, Mr. Favre, as he came out of the huddle for that fateful play. He had to make a throw. He had to make something happen. I think maybe Brett Favre was the greatest ever at making something happen in the history of sports. And here, finally, in a game full of fumbles and muffs and strange plays was the inner logic that would guide the game to its conclusion. What had to happen, happened.

The Saints came after Favre, and he was chased to his right. Thinking, probably, that he had to make something happen, Favre threw back to his left, against the grain, as they say, against sanity, they might just as well say, for those poor Vikings fans. But for the rest of us? It was the greatest throw of Brett Favre's career.

I would like to think he made that throw for us, the rest of us. The ones who were tired of the how much announcers gushed over him. The ones who were sick of his yearly retirement dance, which first began in 2006 and has become worse and worse with each passing year, culminating in the sleazy farce this year where he said he was retired for good at the start of training camp only to then suddenly come out of retirement after training camp was over. That throw was for us, intended or not. It revealed the truth, that Favre is still an overrated gunslinger. Everything that came after, the overtime coin flip won by the Saints, the overtime penalties, the pure field goal for the win by the shaky young kicker, it all seemed to flow from that throw. That beautiful throw. An interception, from Brett Favre's hand, across the field, into the arms of America.

The Two Year Plan

2010-01-22T09:16:00.000-08:00

I look forward to the season. I look forward to the games, so much, because they will drive away the feeling of hopelessness I have about the Dodger franchise right now. It was not a second loss to the Phillies in the playoffs that took away my spirit for the Dodgers. I was the revelation of the deep cracks in the Dodger foundation. There is a crisis in the Dodger ownership. The divorce. Revelations of personal greed that undermined the franchise. Insincere assurances. Arrogant proclamations that everything is fine. Financial decisions that point to looming ruin for the product on the field. The wretchedly dysfunctional Dodger ownership passed up on free draft picks because there was a small chance that it might cost them some money. So yes, I look forward to the season, because while the Dodger name has been tarnished, the Dodger team that takes the field for this season is not yet been ruined.

I look forward to the season because this, right now, is my favorite Dodger team of all time. These Dodgers haven't won the most, but they're the ones I've grown fondest of, the ones I've watched break in and thrive on the big stage. These Dodgers, who have never been anything else. These Dodgers, Kemp and Ethier and Kershaw and Billingsley and Broxton and Loney and Dewitt and McDonald. We've had two years of these Dodgers, and we'll have two more, at least. And two more years at most, probably. For some of them. A team too cheap to make a play for valuable draft picks that might very well save money in the long run is not going to be able to keep Kemp and Ethier and Billingsley around when their service time strikes midnight.

I think of it as a two year plan. All my favorite players will be around two years more. Vinny will be around for another year at least, but maybe also two years. I hope. And then, after two years, when Vinny is probably retired, and the oldest of the young players start leaving --- what? I don't know. It's a two year plan. I don't have the emotional budget for year three right now.

A Pitcher With No Name

2010-01-21T21:11:00.000-08:00

The Dodgers can do better than Vicente Padilla for their fourth starter. He's more of a fifth starter, or even a fifth-point-five starter, the kind of guy you bring in at the end of a season when you've lost too many other pitchers to injury and regression and curious head games. He was that kind of guy last year. Padilla is Eric Stults with a resume and a briefcase full of service time. But really Padilla is the horse with no name. He'll give you some innings, make you glad to be out of the rain, get you through the metaphorical desert, but that's it.

But you know what? Orel Hershiser is not walking through that door. Sandy Koufax is not walking through that door. ( Unless Kershaw counts for that, but we're talking about the fourth starter here, remember. ) There are no shiny free agents walking through that door. Let's give thanks for that, probably. How often, really, is giving a pitcher a multi-year deal a good idea? With Padilla it's just one year, five million dollars. That's less than they're paying Juan Pierre to go away. And Padilla is a horse, by which I mean, a functional pitcher. It's better to have a horse with no name than no horse at all. I don't know who the Dodgers fourth starter would be if it wasn't Padilla. But I know who the fifth starter would be. Russell Reid Ortiz.

Are you scared yet? Or just skeptical? Maybe it really wouldn't be, but not having Padilla would make us one step closer to having Ortiz in the rotation. Remember Jose Lima? He was another washed up pitcher who was a spring training invitee. Yeah, Lima worked out, but that doesn't make him fundamentally a good pitcher or at the time a good bet, it makes him a gateway drug. Lima was the gateway drug that convinced the Dodgers that drugs were cool ( in other words, that inviting terrible terrible washed up pitchers to spring training is cool ). And Ortiz is the terrible, awful drug at the harrowing end of the drug journey, the cautionary tragedy at the heart of an ABC afterschool special, or the centerpiece of a very special episode of Diff'rent Strokes. Anything that helps keep Ortiz away from the mound of Dodger Stadium is fine by me.

Maybe Not

2009-10-19T20:57:00.000-07:00

Maybe they'll win game five, I don't know. It's not out of the question.

It's going to be hard with Joe Torre managing. His reflexes are shot. He reacts too late. He leaves pitchers in too long, such as Kershaw, or Wolf. From now on, no starting pitcher can falter. They just have to turn in six good innings. If they don't the Dodgers will almost certainly lose.

It's going to be hard with Broxton feeling the pressure. Four straight balls, then a hit batter, against so-so hitter. That was pressure getting to him. From now on, he has to forget about the pressure. The Dodgers have already blown the series and all but gone down. There's nothing left to worry about. Broxton is their best reliever and he has to start pitching like it.

Maybe they'll win game six after they win game five. It's not impossible.

It's going to be hard with the pitcher the Phillies can turn to the rest of the series. Martinez, Hamels, and Lee. I don't know what order they'd go in, but that's tough. Hamels the Dodgers got to, but he can be good. The other two dominated the Dodgers. What are the odds that none of them have another great start against the Dodgers? That might be the odds that the Dodgers can get back into the series. Then again, they did win in the game when Martinez dominated them. But will something like that happen again?

It's going to be hard with Howard destroying Dodger pitching. They can strike him out, sometimes. But so often they make a tiny mistake and up go a few more runs for the Phillies on the scoreboard. He's in there every game, making the Dodgers bleed. It's like waking up trailing 0-2, going into a game facing Howard. Is it possible to avoid the season ending loss if Howard keeps driving in runs?

Maybe they'll win the next three games. It's not going to happen.

Not all at once, anyway. It's too bad it had to come to this. It's too bad the Dodgers had to lay another egg against the Phillies. The only good thing I can say at this point is that rotten egg hasn't hatched just yet.

Reset

2009-10-16T21:31:00.001-07:00

I found game one on the radio just in time. I wasn't quite in the right frame of mind for a playoff game, an opening game against the rival Phillies. The question around the game was not what chance the Dodgers had to win, but if I would even be able to follow the game. I was out of my element, in a strange place, and then I found Vinny's voice.

That was something. I don't think I've ever been happier to hear Vinny. The first three innings were like a vacation. A vacation within a vacation. Not much happened in the game during his first shift. The Dodgers scored a run and Kershaw sailed along. I wish the whole game could have been like that --- something like a visit with an old friend, and when it's done --- the Dodgers have won! No stress, no real excitement, just a slow and steady progression to a win. I would have like that Thursday night. Look, usually I love exciting games, back and forth contests, comebacks, near comebacks, but sometimes comfort is better.

But it wasn't to be, Vinny left and shortly after things started to happen. Exciting things, mostly exciting for Phillie fans at first. Like everyone else I couldn't understand why Kershaw was left in after walking Hamels. By the time it was 5-1 I sort of relaxed again, and just accepted the loss. Not being able to see the game, it was just easier that way. I gave up.

And then I had to take it back because of Chase Utley and Manny Ramirez. I suppose if I had really had the guts to give up I would have just turned it off, and spared myself the theatrics to come. By the end of the Dodgers somewhat bizarre and frustrating 8-6 loss I was kind of exhausted and wondering if the pitching would get any better. The Phillies hit very well, but it is also undeniable that the Dodgers gave them plenty too. All those walks. No way to play in the playoffs.

I did get to see today's game, arriving home in time for the opening pitch with just a few minutes to spare. I wasn't really in a proper playoff baseball frame of mind for this one either. Around the seventh inning I started thinking about what it would be like to lose a series to the Phillies for a second consecutive year. I thought about how the Dodgers should have hit at least one of their many balls in the air against Pedro for a home run. I thought about --- I don't know, not much, really. What do you think about as you watch the season come to a slow and certain end? The win arrived like an unexpected gift. And it is a gift, because now I can watch game 3 with a clear mind, in proper playoff mode, not thinking of it as a must win or anything like that, just enjoying the tension and the randomness of playoff baseball. I think the Dodgers have a great chance, even against Cliff Lee. I mean, they just survived seven shutout innings from the pitcher who got away --- what could Lee possibly do to them that is worse?

The Irrefutable Argument

2009-10-10T20:59:00.000-07:00

Nine of ten ESPN writers picked the Cardinals to win the series. I don't find this appalling or shocking or stupid, even though they were wrong. The argument for the Cardinals was so smooth, so natural, so hard to fault. The Cardinals were names that carried weight, a team of four. One, the transcendent hitter, two, the essential sidekick, three and four, the aces, new and old.

Pujols. You can't argue with that. Speak Manny and you are laughed at. I would laugh at that. Anyone would. Speak Kemp and my heart would be moved but my mind cold, my head shaking. Not a chance. Ethier, no. Pujols is the force that has no equal. Whisper it, because it is too terrifying to say in normal voice: the Cardinals have Pujols. It's like saying they have Babe Ruth, almost. That's not true, but you have to reach for Ruth to really explain what it's like. Pujols. How can a team with him lose?

Holliday. He was the multiplier, the second leg of the fearsome Cardinal beast. Pujols is the ridiculously high score in the video game, and Holliday is the 2x multiplier that takes the score into a new order of magnitude. With Holliday there was no escape from Pujols. Walk Pujols and Holliday would crush you. He completed the lineup. The Cardinal lineup has Pujols AND Holliday. Wow, that's all you need to say. You don't even need to say the other names. Talk about the Dodgers, with Blake who has okay numbers and Loney and Martin with pretty good on base percentages and Furcal and Belliard who won't drag a lineup down too far and it feels like walking through frozen Minnesota after a holliday in Hawaii. There is no argument. Arguing for the Dodger lineup, the whole thing, takes too long. It fills up too much mental energy, presents too many moments to pause. Arguing for the Cardinal lineup takes all of two words. What weakness? We didn't even have to talk about those other players.

Carpenter, Wainwright. How large they loomed over the series. Cy Young A and Cy Young B. Two aces. How many times have you heard that you need aces to win in the postseason? The Dodgers need an ace, we were always told. They never got one. They had internal candidates try out but none made the cut. They tried to hire outside help and were rebuffed. They were left with none. And the Cardinals had two. Baseball Playoff Hold 'Em, the strongest hand to be dealt is a pair of aces. Of course the Cardinals had to be picked. But then the flop came, and the Dodgers ended up with three Jacks. That beats two Aces. Series over, just like that. 3-0.

The games are played, and all the players count, beyond just the front four. Padilla counts. Can you believe that? Belliard counts. What a country. Ethier counts. Well of course he does. Kemp counts. The golden boy! Manny counts! Kershaw counts! Even Loretta counts! I still can't believe that. What a moment.

I don't fault the predictions. But they were wrong. Why? Because the Dodgers won. A tautology, yes, but also the only wholly honest way to explain it. Explanations are like predictions: sure to be wrong, and miss the point too. The score is the only thing that matters. Winning is the irrefutable argument.

Fan Interference

2009-10-09T15:15:00.000-07:00

While I think about maybe changing the unfair loss share allocation from game 2 ( Holliday doesn't really deserve two ) I thought it would be fun to talk about the fan interference aspect of that infamous play where he couldn't catch Loney's fliner.

Now, I think this post by Jon Weisman pretty much debunks the notion that the waving of towels had anything to do with Holliday's misplay, so this is more of a hypothetical discussion, a meandering exploration, if you will.

My reaction was fascination when I first read Adam Wainwright's comment that "he lost the ball in the 50,000 white towels shaking in front of his face." That such a thing could happen never occurred to me. They have the batting eye in center field, of course, so something similar doesn't occur to hitters. Hitters get a black backdrop so they can pick up the ball out of the pitcher's hand and not lose it in bright colors or motion. This both helps the hitters hit and helps them get out of the way of balls thrown at them. But fielders get no fielding eye, else there would be no stands at all! They are at the mercy of fan motion and color, but since the initial flight of the ball usually starts much farther away than it does for batters, and since the path of the ball is usually above or below the plane of the stands, it usually isn't a problem. The lights or the sun are much more likely to be the problem, as was the case for Holliday in game 2.

Is there is a pitcher's eye, so hurlers can pick up the flight of the ball without fan interference, and duck out of the way of a ball hit right back at the head? I'm not really sure about that, but in a lot of cases the ball is hit back hard it wouldn't matter. I don't think anything could have saved Kuroda back when he gave up a ground rule double off his head.

Is there anything the fans could do to really interfere with the fielders, short of climbing onto the field? I don't really think so. I'm not sure I believe that there is a great risk of losing a ball in a sea of waving towels. The motion is too fast, too much like static. It reminds me of the wholly ineffective tactic of NBA fans trying to distract free throw shooters by shaking those snake things behind the basket. It's just random background static to the shooter. If they wanted to really distract the shooter they would have one fan hold up a long pole with a target or streamer at the end and move in a back-and-forth or circular pattern behind the basket. Give the basket some competition for a solid thing to aim at. You could try something similar in baseball against the road pitcher. Have a fan behind the plate wave around a target to compete with the catcher's glove. I think neither the NBA or MLB would allow these kinds of shenanigans, and rightly so.

In football the crowd can interfere by being really noisy and drowning out the snap count. They used to enforce a 5-yard penalty on the home crowd being too noisy and interfering with the game, but everyone hated that so they got rid of it. Well, almost everyone. Paul Zimmerman ( Dr. Z ) of Sports Illustrated hates the fact that the crowd would influence the game like that, and he advocated for the rule, had a bee in his bonnet about it, really. I kind of was swayed by his arguments, very logical and principled, but, well, it was a losing cause.

I remember back when baseball fans started doing the wave some players would complain about it being distracting, and coming at inappropriate times in the game. And that's the thing -- there was no sense of timing with the wave -- no real plan to use it to disrupt the opposing team. Who does it hurt more, anyway? The defense, pitcher, or hitters? I have noticed that a home team home run can kill a wave. On field events can interfere with fan games, it seems.

Ah, speaking of fan games, what about the dreaded beach ball? Now there is something that could interfere with the game. I'm still waiting to see one of these drop into the outfield just as a fielder is going back to make a catch. There could be a nasty injury if a player stumbled over one of those. Or it might just prevent an out. What would the umpires rule? Would the call be different depending on which team home or road was at the plate?

The fans can always interfere by reaching over the wall for a batted ball. Forgot about that earlier. Jeffrey Maier, and Bartman, though in his case he didn't reach over the wall, so it wasn't really interference except in a more poetic sense. Except for the famous postseason cases this kind of fan interference is routine and regrettable. Just kick the fan out and move on.

Daaaaarrrrryyyyylllll Daaaarrrryyyyyyllllll --- old enough to remember how opposing fans would greet Darryl Strawberry? Did this distract him in the field? Surely not. Maybe only in that Simpson's episode. And it also seems to me that sometimes home fans would chant his name this way, so it seems unlikely this rather soothing chant could have been an issue. I think, overall, a chant wouldn't be distracting, again, too much like static. Maybe a randomly heard outburst from the crowd could distract, if it was sufficiently provactive --- either offensive, or funny, perhaps. Wouldn't it have been something to shout something really funny at Barry Bonds and make him laugh just as a ball was hit to him? But probably most fielders are too zoned in on the ball to really hear what is being said. That's what they say, anyway. Not sure if I believe it. I know that when I played outfield in little league my attention span was terrible out there. Once I didn't see a fly ball until the very last minute and it nearly quite literally caught me. I was so lucky. When I came in to the dugout after the inning someone asked me if I had fallen asleep out there and I denied it, saying I saw it the whole way. What a lie. I'm sure major leaguers don't have this happen to them, though. Right? They're being paid, after all.

Two Down, One to Go

2009-10-09T08:44:00.000-07:00

My first thought is that the Cardinals outplayed the Dodgers in yesterday's game 2 thriller. Then I wonder if they really did, if they couldn't close out the game. I finally conclude that it doesn't matter.

The Cardinals won the on-base battle 11-9, which might be one indication that they outplayed the Dodgers. That 9 for the Dodgers doesn't include Loney reaching on Holliday's error. If Holliday catches that ball then the on-base battle would have been 11-5 in favor of the Cardinals. That's kind of incredible, that the Dodgers had 4 men reach base after Holliday's error.

Kershaw only walked one, and than intentionally given, to Pujols. He did everything you could want from a postseason starter except pitch very deep into the game. Torre tried to have him pitch deep into the game, electing to have him hit in the bottom of the sixth and pitch the top of the seventh when he was already close to 100 pitches, an odd decision that seemed likely to cost the Dodgers the game until all-the-bench broke loose with two outs in the ninth. I think Kershaw has earned the right to not have his pitching credentials questioned if he has a poor outing in his next start this postseason, if he gets one. If it was up to me, he would be making another start no matter what. I would choose Kershaw over Wolf for a potential game 5.

Kershaw was good but Wainwright was better. The only failing Wainwright had was that he couldn't pitch nine innings. The Dodgers could only scratch for one run against him, but they at least made him use enough pitches to make Franklin pitch the ninth. The Dodgers showed how you beat an ace who is on his game. You get a good pitching performance from your own guy, use as many pitches as you can, and hope luck turns your way.

NLDS Game 2 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Belliard -- 1
Loretta -- 1
Kershaw -- 1

Kershaw kept them close and Belliard and Loretta delivered the win. Ethier hit his early home run, Broxton and Sherrill pitched well, and Blake and Martin and even Loney were involved in the late rally, but nothing seems quite so impressive at game tying and game winning runs batted in.

I think of all the games this year when Kershaw pitched great for the Dodgers, only to see the team lose the game. Finally, this time, when it seemed it would happen again --- instead it happened to the other guy, and Kershaw's great effort is not wasted.

NLDS Game 2 Unfair Loss Shares ( Cardinals )

Holliday -- 2
Franklin -- 1

No extra credit for hitting that early home run, not when the game ending catch ends up bouncing away. Maybe Holliday's two unfair shares should go to the lights he lost the ball in, but the unfair shares only go to players. That's how it is.

With Two Outs in the Ninth

2009-10-08T18:56:00.001-07:00

Holliday --- a tough play --- a gut play --- and he dropped it. The ball, and the game, went rolling, bouncing away, uncaught. They tried to pick it up, but it kept bouncing away. The ball kept skittering around, just out of reach. Up the middle off Belliard's bat, then the other way, past the catcher, and then toward Holliday again, a little loop off the bat of Loretta, but as a taunt, because Holliday never had a chance at that one. He could only watch as it dropped, uncaught again, this time untouched, but still right to the gut. You win as a team, and you lose as a team. I'd imagine they all felt it, still feel it, that line drive to the gut of losing that way.

And the Dodgers? And their fans? What is it like for the players, and us, the fans? I can't describe it. That's for someone else to say.

Right now, I consider it from the other side, the losing side, not as a sobering thought, or as a gloomy reminder of what could have happened, or what even might yet happen in the greater scheme, but simply as an acknowledgment that in baseball there is crying, and there is joy, and you have to take both in the times they come, and that the joy of winning is a precious thing, impermanent in time, but not in memory.

First Check-mark Goes to the Dodgers

2009-10-08T08:46:00.000-07:00

If I had done one of those check-mark previews before the series the Dodgers certainly would have gotten a check-mark for the bullpen. This may be where they have a clearest advantage over the Cardinals, and they rode it to victory in game one of the series. The Dodger pen was not always dominant, but they always got the job done. Every pitcher but Belisario had a shaky moment. Weaver especially looked out of place in the game ( and on the playoff roster ) but he got the job done after nearly giving up a three-run double that just went foul.

Did you see that ball land foul? I thought it was fair when it happened. Off the bat I never even thought it would go foul. There was the game, the series, the season, at least in the parts of the brain where one moment of adversity means it's all over. Even when Manny just casually picked up the ball in the corner and tossed it to the fans I wasn't sure. Let's face it, we all know Manny is capable of doing something like that on a fair ball that he thinks is foul. Or maybe he's not capable of that, but it seems like he would be. I think there is still some primitive part of my brain that still doesn't realize that ball went foul. I'm still having nightmares of Cardinals running around the bases and taking the lead.

The Dodgers would also get a check-mark in the lineup filler category. We all know that Pujols is the best hitter in the series, and the Dodgers probably can't match the one-two punch of Pujols and Holliday, but the Dodgers have a clear advantage in the rest of the lineup over the Cardinals, and that also showed in last night's game.

Every spot in the Dodgers lineup came to the plate exactly 5 times. Below is the number of times each player got on base. The ninth spot included two at bats from Wolf, and one each from Pierre, Thome, and Broxton.

Furcal -- 3
Kemp -- 1
Ethier -- 4
Manny -- 2
Loney -- 3
Blake -- 3
Belliard -- 3
Martin -- 3
Ninth Spot -- 0

Everyone but Manny, Kemp and the pitcher's was on base 3 times. That's kind of incredible, I think. Even weirder is that the arguable offensive hero of the game only got on base once.

The Dodgers beat the Cardinals 22-18 in runners reaching safely. More often than not the team that puts the most men on base will win the game, though obviously hitting with runners in scoring position and extra base hits can change things around. The Dodgers have made their season on reaching base more than the opposition, and their regular season games with the Cardinals were no exception. Though the Dodgers lost the season series 2-5, they put more men on base than the Cardinals in 4 of the 7 games, and overall they out-on-based the Cardinals in the season series 92-86.

Of the Dodgers 22 runners, 5 scored, one was lost to a double play, and 16 were left on base. I'm not worried about the men left on base because I just don't believe this is something that can ever be reliably called a trend.

I think I would have given a check-mark to the Cardinal starters before the series, and as bad as Carpenter was made to look yesterday he was still probably a little better than Wolf. But Wolf got the outs when he needed them, and the early hook when he was out of gas.

NLDS Game 1 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Belisario -- 1
Broxton -- 1

This is a really weird game to figure out. Kemp gets an unfair win share even though he only got on base once, because his home run and the small cushion it provided was really what kept the Dodgers struggles with leaving men on base later from feeling like a disaster.

Belisario was the best reliever, and Broxton while giving up a run did get Pujols to end the eighth and Ankiel to end the ninth. Broxton's run was allowed when Kemp let a ball get past him in the outfield, and I would argue that Kemp's only mistake here was not going even more all out to catch that ball. With a three run lead and one on in the ninth inning there is no need to worry about keeping the hitter at first on a base hit, since the next batter will be the tying run either way. Now if Kemp had made that kind of play with the tying run at the plate it would have been awful. But as it was he was right to go for the catch.

NLDS Game 1 Unfair Loss Shares ( Cardinals )

Carpenter -- 1
Holliday -- 1
Ludwick -- 1

Ludwick came so close to being the hero, on that near-double down the line that was foul. But it was foul, and then he grounded out to Weaver. He had a gift single in the first inning to drive in a run, on a ball where Kemp should have firmly called off Belliard, or Belliard should have given way sooner. I'm not really sure whose fault that pop-fly single was, but I'm sure that Ludwick didn't do anything there that could help him escape an unfair loss share. The Cardinals needed more from their two hitters after Pujols and they just didn't get it.

First

2009-10-03T22:26:00.000-07:00

Family is in town, and blogging, like the Dodgers' clinching of the West, has been on hold. It is as it has to be. If the Dodgers came first, no matter what, then that would be a shame.

But the Dodgers are first, tonight. It does not matter that they took almost a week to clinch from the moment when it was first possible. It does not matter that they almost let the Rockies complete a historic comeback. It does not matter that they have not been playing well. All that matters is a number. Not character, not heart, not the will to win. Just a number, imagine that. 94. The Dodgers have 94 wins, and no one is going to beat that number of wins this year in the National League.

I can't offer a playoff preview, because I just don't have time. I can't offer a breakdown, because I don't have the expertise and knowledge for it. There are plenty of Dodgers sites who will do this. Plenty of non-partisan sites too. There is going to be some good stuff. And yet no one knows anything, and everyone knows that. My preview is that the playoffs are fun and tense and unexplored. Each game is a new shore. The flags of the heroes that will fill the horizon have yet to be imagined. Loney and his grand slam, that's my preview. Two men out at home, there is another preview, darker, a reminder that failure is the looming likelihood.

But at least right now failure need not blot the sky. This is a bright time. The Dodgers are first. Right now, that is all any fan could want.

Catching Up

2009-09-30T08:27:00.000-07:00

I think Billingsley has done enough to show he belongs in the postseason rotation, assuming the Dodgers aren't booted from the postseason for losing to bad teams and taking too long to clinch the division. What, they can't be booted for that? Then there is no reason to panic.

Anyway, Billingsley has given up just 1 run in 10 innings of pre-sixth work since he came back from his extended rest. There is the matter of 4 runs allowed in his two sixth innings since then, with only a great throw from Kemp perhaps saving him from more runs allowed. There is also the matter of the 5 walks he allowed last night. I suppose it's not too hard to construct the case against Billingsley. And yet I am still backing Billingsley because I don't see a better alternative. I do not believe Garland and Padilla are better pitchers than Billingsley. Garland especially is tempting, but he gives up more home runs and strikes out fewer batters than Billingsley. His walks to strikeouts ratio is worse than Billingsley's. He's not a better pitcher. Billingsley has proven he is healthy, and he has proven he can pitch 5 effective innings in a start. He's the fourth starter, with the deep 'pen backing him up closely.

Broxton blew a game some few days ago. I don't know, it seems like another world now. I've been very busy with visiting family lately, which explains why I haven't updated this blog lately, and also explains why my loathing for how the Dodgers are playing lately is muted. I think this is a good thing. I just hope everyone is healthy by the time the playoffs start. Look, I want the Dodgers to win the division and home field advantage. I really really do. But that feeling of triumph if they do it will disappear if they lose in the first round, and that feeling of disappointment if they don't will vanish if they make it to the World Series. Ultimately it just doesn't matter. Home field doesn't win you the series. And winning series is everything.

So, Broxton. The thing that he did wrong was not strike anyone out. Some of the hits he allowed were pretty lucky, and he had some bad defense behind him, but he also didn't do what he does when he's on, and that's to strike out batters. If you let them all put it into play bad things might happen. I don't think it means anything, though, that he had one poor outing. If he doesn't strike anyone out his next outing then maybe I'll reconsider.

And now, to catch up with the unfair shares. No commentary with them, sadly. But really, why would anyone want to relive any of these games, except the first of these, which I already talked about in my last post?

Game 155 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Manny -- 1
Belliard -- 1
Wolf -- 1

Game 155 Unfair Loss Shares ( Pirates )

Bautista -- 1
Milledge -- 1
Pierce -- 1

Game 156 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 1
Broxton -- 2

Game 156 Unfair Win Shares ( Pirates )

Milledge -- 1
LaRoche -- 1
D McCutchen -- 1

Game 157 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Kuroda -- 3

Game 157 Unfair Win Shares ( Pirates )

LaRoche -- 2
Duke -- 1

Game 158 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Manny -- 1
Loney -- 1
Ethier -- 1

Game 158 Unfair Win Shares ( Padres )

Kouzmanoff -- 1
Adams -- 1
Bell -- 1

In Again

2009-09-27T08:11:00.000-07:00

Last night the Dodgers clinched a better record than the Atlanta Braves. That's great. The Dodgers could have used more of this in 1991.

Oh yeah, they also happened to clinch a playoff spot. Sure, that's worth celebrating, but it doesn't feel like a huge event because it's felt inevitable for at least a week now, and the real regular season goal for a team of their caliber has yet to be accomplished.

The Rockies lost, so the Dodgers now lead them by six with seven games left. The magic number for clinching a better record than the Rockies and a full share of the NL West Title is 2. It's only 1 if you count the division tie-breaker, but as far as I'm concerned the tie-breaker is for playoff seeding purposes only, not for official division title purposes. In 2006 the Dodger and Padres had identical records to lead the NL West, and as far as I'm concerned they were co-champions of the division, even though the Padres won the tie-breaker. This is baseball, where ties are broken by a game played on the field, or not at all. This isn't football where you break the tie by going down a list of arbitrary and arcane criteria. It's fine to determine playoff positioning by a tiebreaker, because no one wants to play an extra game if you don't need it to get in, but a tiebreaker doesn't magically make one team have a better record than the other. It doesn't give the 2006 Padres a better record than the 2006 Dodgers, or give them a full share of the division. This has always bugged me, when people say that the Padres won the division that year, and the Dodgers --- didn't. Can you tell? So, while it may be technically correct that the magic number for the division is just 1, to me it is 2. In any case, I will only celebrate when a tie with Jim Tracy's team is no longer possible.

The Braves are now just two games back of the Rockies for the wild card in the all-powerful loss column, and three games back in the all-knowing win column. Simply put, the Braves are 2.5 games back, with 8 games left to play, against 7 left to play for the Rockies. The Braves playoff odds are now up to near 20%, according to Baseball Prospectus and coolstandings.com. This is serious for the Rockies. They have some late-season competition suddenly, and it's not the Giants or Marlins.

The Braves have charged into contention by going 14-3 in their last 17 games. Before that they had lost 5 to put them hopelessly out of it. Nearly hopelessly, we can say in retrospect. If the Braves end up falling short, then they'll be kicking themselves, wondering how they could get swept by the Reds at home at the beginning of September. But maybe that embarrassment is what turned them around. The Braves have one game left in Washington today ( against batting practice pitcher Livan Hernandez ), then three at home against the Marlins ( who are on the fringe of contention and should be a tough oppoent, then four at home against the Happ-less Nats. ( The Nats could use some good young pitching like J. A. Happ, couldn't they? ) Though the Marlins are a tough opponent, 7 of 8 are at home, and 5 of 8 are against the Nats, so I could easily see the Braves finishing 6-2, which would put them at 90 wins. I think the Rockies have to assume that the Braves finish with 90 wins, which means they have to finish with 91, which means they have to win 4 of their last 7.

The Rockies host a winnable game against the Cardinals and Kyle Lohse, then finish up their home schedule with three against the Brewers, who are winning a lot lately, for what that may be worth. I think the Rockies would finish those four games 2-2, which would mean they needed to win 2 of 3 in their final series on the road against --- the Dodgers.

But will they be playing the Dodgers, or the D0d63r5? In other words, will the Dodgers have anything left to play for, or will they run a bunch of subs out there? The Dodgers could have clinched home field advantage by then. They lead both the Cardinals and the Phillis by 3 in the all-wise loss column. But I wouldn't count on it. I think the Dodgers will at least play hard for the first game of that series, and maybe even the first two. If the Dodgers have clinched everything by then, would they still try their hardest to win those games to try to avoid a first round match with the Cardinals or Phillies? As long as the Braves stay close to the Rockies, this final series of the year should be very interesting.

Brave New World

2009-09-26T08:24:00.000-07:00

Well, the Dodgers lost, but everyone else lost again, everyone that matters. Except the Rockies, who I suppose maybe still matter since they are 6 games back ( counting the tie-breaker ), with that series with the Dodgers at the end of the year. The Rockies would have to gain three games on the Dodgers while the Dodgers are playing five against the Pirates and the Padres, then sweep the final series. Doesn't seem to likely. I think the Rockies are more concerned about holding off the Braves at this point.

I rarely watch anything but sports on ESPN, but I did see Baseball Tonight or Sportscenter a week or so ago and witnessed Steve Phillips declare that the Braves were going to win the wild card. "There he goes again," I thought. But he may end up being right. That would be something! Probably not --- the Braves are still a longshot, but they are the only team left that looks like any kind of threat against the Rockies. The Marlins and Giants are both five back and mostly dead. The Braves, though, are three back in the loss column and, as they say, "hot" right now. I think most people realize that baseball heat can turn to cold in an instant, but there it is. They are hot, winning 8 of 10, coming from back of the pack to be the only alternative left to the Rockies. The Braves have a nearly 10% chance right now, according to the Baseball Prospectus postseason odds. That might be higher if you believe in "heat".

Should the Dodgers root for the Braves? The Braves winning last night prevented the Dodgers from clinching, but that's okay, since the Dodgers should be able to win one more game of the 8 remaining, right? The point is that if the Braves take the wild card and the Dodgers can hang on to best record in the league then they avoid either the Phillies or the Cardinals in the first round. Instead they would get --- the red hot Braves! Instead of Carpenter and Wainwright, or Hamels and Lee, the Dodgers would get Jurrjens and Vazquez! That's nearly as scary, though people don't usually talk about them that way. Also, even though the Braves have a much worse record than the Phillies or the Cardinals, I think they're almost as good as those teams ever since they filled up most of their offensive holes that dragged them down earlier in the year.

So root for the Braves to unseat the Rockies? Maybe, but there are no free passes in the postseason.

Game 154 Unfair Win Shares ( Pirates )

Veal -- 1
Chavez -- 1
Capps -- 1

It's all relievers getting the unfair win shares for the Pirates. I never thought I'd see that, and if I did, that it would be the Dodgers doing it. But the Pirate pitching was why they won that game. That, and some Dodger errors.

Game 154 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Loney -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Ramirez -- 1

Garland wasn't that good either, though none of the runs he gave up were earned. He's the kind of pitcher who doesn't seem as likely to overcome an error in an inning, though I don't know the numbers on that for him, so I don't really know.

Reversing the Nightmare

2009-09-25T08:21:00.000-07:00

The nightmare began in 1997, with the rise of the Giants to the top of the NL West. The Dodgers had made the playoffs in 1995 and 1996, and the Dodgers contended again in 1997, but at the end they fell short, finishing 2 games back of a Giants team that was outscored on the season. The Dodgers were better in all ways but wins, but there would be no revenging justice the next year. 1997 was an omen for the years to come.

The Dodgers simply weren't very good in 1998. They didn't deserve to be, after trading away Mika Piazza early in the year. The Dodgers were outscored in 1998, but there would be no luck to save them as there was for the Giants a year before. They finished a distant third in the NL West, with the Giants in second, one game out of the wild card.

The Dodgers were a bad team in 1999, and finished well behind the Giants again. What had began with misfortune and continued with bad karma had now been established as habit. The Giants were better than the Dodgers. The Giants missed the playoffs again, this time finishing well behind the upstart Snakes in the division, who were winners of 100 in just their second year. Yet another indignity for the Dodgers in 1999, to be trounced in the standings by a fake team with hideous uniforms, and a garish stadium with a pool in the outfield stands and a pathway to the mound.

The Dodgers were better in 2000, but so were the Giants, led by Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds, who was in his first year of his late-career rejuvenation. The Dodgers just didn't have a chance against that team, and finished in a distant second place. Four years in a row, with no end in sight, as Barry was just getting started. The only positive for the Dodgers was that they finished one game ahead of the Snakes.

I think 2001 must have been the worst year of the Giants run over the Dodgers. It was bookend blows by Barry that delivered the pain. On April 17 of that year in Pac Bell Park the Dodgers were leading the Giants 2-1 in the bottom of eighth inning when Barry Bonds hit a two run home run to give the Giants a 3-2 lead. The classless Giants proceeded to halt the game right there and have a little ceremony on the field to commemorate the jerk's 500th career home run. They must have stopped the game for 10 minutes, a game that was not in any way decided. I've always wondered why the umpires allowed them to do that. I think that might be the angriest I have ever been watching a game. The ending blow came on October 5, when Barry hit his 71st home run of the year against known home run allower Chan Ho Park. The Giants finished that season with three against the Dodgers, and I so badly wanted the Dodgers to keep him homerless and deny him sole possession of the record. At least the Dodger won that game, and so doing knocked the Giants out of playoff contention. But again the Dodgers had finished behind the Giants in the standings.

In 2002 the Dodgers won 92 games, which is more than they've won in many of their playoff seasons, but it wasn't enough. The Giants won 95, and took the wild card, and eventually went on the World Series. Ouch. Where they lost to the Angels. Ha ha! Small comfort, though, because 2002 was six years in a row of Giants mastery over the Dodgers. It was getting hard to even imagine a time when the Dodgers were better than the Giants.

The Dodgers of 2003 had one of the all-time great pitching staffs. They paired it with an offense to make you cry. With any kind of hitting the Dodgers would have been a very good team that year, and as it was they still won 85 games. But the Giants won 100 games, and easily took first place in the NL West. Seven years in a row. The streak had become an institution.

Then, in 2004, the Giants came into Dodger Stadium for the final series of the year three games back of the Dodgers. First place was at stake, bragging rights between the two rivals were at stake, but the Giants would have to sweep. And it looked like they might do it. They won the first game, and led the second game 3-0 going in to the ninth inning, with a favorable pitching matchup of Schmidt vs. Ishii for the final game. ( This was back when Schmidt was good! ) A sweep felt inevitable. But then in the bottom of the ninth the Dodgers rallied, and the Giants started making errors, and the game was tied at 3, with Steve Finley at the plate, and he hit it, high and far, a sacrifice fly to win the game that just kept carrying and carrying to become a grand slam. The bases were cleared, the Dodger dugout was cleared, seven years of frustration were cleared. Swept away. The Dodgers were better than the Giants! The Dodgers were better than the Giants! The Dodgers were better than the Giants! The streak had ended at seven. The Giants would go on to finish one game out of the wild card. They haven't been back to the playoffs since.

In 2005 the NL West was terrible, as the Padres won the division with a 82-80 record. The Giants finished ahead of the Dodgers in the standings, but it was a booby prize. While the Dodgers would rebound into contention the next year, the Giants would not. Barry was winding down his career in disgrace, and the rest of the team was in shambles. The Giants finished well behind the Dodgers in the standings in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Three years in a row.

Yesterday made it four in a row. The Dodgers tried to give their game against the Nats away but won anyway, making them 92-61 on the year. Meanwhile the Giants led by one with two outs and two strikes on Jeff Baker in the ninth inning, but Brian Wilson could not get the last strike, and Baker hit a two-run home run to put the Giants behind. The Giants rallied in the bottom of the ninth but fell short, and lost the game, making them 82-71. 10 back with 9 to play --- that means the Dodgers have clinched a better record than the Giants. I'll pop some champagne to that.

Game 153 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Furcal -- 1
Ethier -- 1

I hate not giving one to Broxton, but who do I take one away from? Furcal put the Dodgers ahead late, and was 4-5. Kemp hit for an almost cycle, only missing it by an official scorer's ruling. And Ethier made a great throw home to preserve the lead. Sorry Broxton, and apologies to Troncoso, who also got the job done in relief. Once again the 'pen is overlooked.

Game 153 Unfair Loss Shares ( Nats )

Martin -- 1
Villone -- 1
Dunn -- 1

Remember back when Dunn was threatening to hit more home runs than the Nats had wins? Well, he's 14 back now, 38 to 52. Maybe a late surge?

The Billingsley Debate

2009-09-24T09:27:00.000-07:00

The Case Against

Since August 18, when he returned from a strained hamstring, Chad Billingsley has pitched 40.2 innings. These have been bad innings. Crooked frames, full of crooked numbers. Twenty five runs allowed. All but one earned. That's an ERA of --- of what? Too much. Higher than 5. That's enough, no need to get more exact than that.

31 strikeouts, 15 walks, in those 40 and change innings. Hmm. That's okay, I guess. A little wild, and strikeouts at a lower rate than what we used to get from Billingsley, but not awful, you know. Maybe it's bad luck. No, it's not. I don't think so. His pitches get him into trouble.

12 doubles, 1 triple, 6 home runs. That's what Billingsley has allowed since coming back from injury. That's 19 extra base hits in 40.2 innings. That's not going to work. They hit the ball hard, in the air. A lot.

There was only one hit in Billingsley's last start. It was a home run. Even so, he certainly did pitch better. But is it enough? Which sample matters? His career? His season? His starts since the injury? His performance yesterday? Do the bad starts against Philadelphia in last year's playoffs matter?

I don't know. We tend to judge things based on the strongest memory we have of them. I wouldn't even consider what happened in last year's playoffs, but that is still a strong memory for a lot of people. But even if we ignore what happened last year, there is little hope for the defenders of Billingsley. His recent struggles overwhelm anything else. The home run he gave up last night overwhelms the five innings of brilliance that came before.

There's no time left. The momentum carrying Billingsley out of the Dodger playoff rotation is too great. He could be perfect against the Pirates in his next start and it probably wouldn't be enough. The decision has already been made.

The Case For

What about Torre, though? Has he made his decision? Torre is a smart guy. He usually knows who the better player really is. He didn't panic and abandon Broxton when he had his mini-slide. He may have played Pierre too much last year but he got it, he knew that Ethier and Kemp were better than Pierre. I think Torre also knows that Billingsley is a fundamentally a better pitcher than Garland and Padilla. But can Billingsley physically and mentally be that good pitcher they knew he can be right now? The answer, after last night, is yes. Even with one mistake. There is no reason to think that Billingsley is hurt or a mental wreck right now. None. One start such a small sample, but it is enough to answer those questions.

The one thing Billingsley may not be capable of doing right now is going deep into a ballgame. It's been months since he pitched into the seventh inning. He often runs into trouble by the sixth. So I think Billingsley should be a postseason starter, but only be allowed to pitch five innings. That's all the Dodgers need, with all the off-days and their deep and excellent 'pen.

Game 152 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Manny -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Ethier -- 1

The outfield had a bad day. Hitless, luckless. They couldn't get it done in the field or at the plate. The bullpen wasn't too hot either, but I blame the outfield more. Just a weird, frustrating game. At least all the other teams that matter lost. Cardinals, Phillies, and Rockies. The Giants won, though. Do they matter? No, they're still 9 games back of the Dodgers. ( As are the Braves, with the Marlins 9.5 back. )

Game 152 Unfair Win Shares ( Nats )

Zimmerman -- 1
Orr -- 1
Rivera -- 1

Playing for Comfort

2009-09-23T09:34:00.000-07:00

As always, when the Dodgers score a ton of runs I like to run a list of who drove in and scored the most runs.

Furcal -- 6
Loney -- 4
Blake -- 4
Belliard -- 3
Kemp -- 3
Manny -- 2
Martin -- 2
Ethier -- 1
Kuroda -- 1
Repko -- 1
Castro -- 1

That's every member of the starting lineup with some contribution to the scoring, and also Repko and Castro. The infield did most of the damage, with 9 runs batted in and 8 runs scored.

The season has turned into a blowout. A playoff spot is all but wrapped up, and clinching could come as soon as tonight. There is plenty left to play for, but without postseason survival on the line there just isn't much of an emotional edge. I might feel different if the Rockies were closer than 5 games to the Dodgers, and the possibility of finishing second to manager Jim Tracy felt more real. Finishing ahead of the Cardinals and Phillies and getting home field advantage is important too, but it won't win a single game for you in the playoffs. The Dodgers aren't playing for survival right now. They are playing for comfort. Big difference.

So I have a hard time getting really interested in these games, especially with them starting early, and especially with a lot to do around the house. But tonight's game does feel vital, because Billingsley is starting. I want to see him do well. I want to see him starting in the postseason.

Game 151 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Furcal -- 1
Loney -- 1
Kuroda -- 1

Kuroda kept the Dodgers close until they figured out how to hit Livan's devious "batting practice ball" in the fourth inning.

Game 151 Unfair Loss Shares ( Nationals )

Hernandez -- 3

Why, Nationals? Why did you feel the need to pick up Livan for your rotation? Isn't there some young pitcher you could try instead? Whatever the reason, the Dodgers and their fans gratefully accept your gift of a blowout win.

Nearing Greatness

2009-09-21T08:33:00.000-07:00

The Dodgers are 90-60. I'm really impressed, and I'm reconsidering my lament that the Dodgers had lost their shot at greatness with a middling second half to the season. Objectively they are still falling somewhat short of being a great team, but what happens the last 12 games and more importantly the postseason could change that.

If nothing else winning the series from the Giants and most likely ending their hopes was pretty damn great.

Game 148 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Padilla -- 1
Troncoso -- 1
Martin -- 1

Martin and Troncoso have shadows, players who could easily take their places in the unfair loss share column. For Martin it's Loney. Combined those two were 0-9, with no walks. This isn't anything new for these two. They are disappointments. We all expected better of them. And yet, for all we expected of them that they haven't delivered, they aren't dragging the offense down. They're a part of what makes the offense so good. Look at this:

0.422 -- 0.366 -- 0.364 -- 0.362 -- 0.359 -- 0.354 -- 0.351 -- 0.325

Those are the on base percentages of the Dodger regulars. This is a solid group, except for the last one. No easy outs here. 2-8 the Dodgers will wear you down, make you beg for the showers by the third inning, if they're really on. 9 is the pitcher, who sometimes is sneaky good with the bat, and 1 is Furcal, who has the 0.325. Furcal is the real drag on the offense. It's too bad Belliard can't play shortstop.

Troncoso's unfair loss share shadow in that game was Billingsley. Both gave up two runs in relief. Both were great in the first half of the season, and have fallen on hard times during the second half. Both are question marks headed into the postseason.

Maybe neither one will make the postseason roster. That's how bad it seems now. Though, really, it's almost impossible to imagine Billingsley not making it. Only if the Dodgers determined that he was hurt and had no hope of being effective, I think. Billingsley will get two starts to convince the Dodgers he is effective. As for Troncoso, he's sitting at about sixth or seventh on the bullpen depth chart right now. Is he even ahead of Elbert at this point? I just can't imagine the Dodgers needing Troncoso in a short series with days off and at least one starter in the 'pen. I don't think he's going to make it.

Game 148 Unfair Win Shares ( Giants )

Velez -- 1
Sandoval -- 1
Romo -- 1

Maybe this was it. I think it was. This was the last time the Giants really had a good look at making the playoffs this season, right after this game. They gave it an amazing shot, really, given their offense. The eight they scored to win Friday was an anomaly, though. They scored all of three runs in the next two games, and their pitching was undressed by the Dodgers, and they fell hopelessly behind the Rockies.

Game 149 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Belliard -- 1
Loney -- 1
Garland -- 1

Garland gave up one run in eight innings, but he wasn't really dominant. He only struck out three. Garland just let the Giants be who they are, and that is a bad offensive team. I think that's what Garland does. He just lets an offense take what it can, but he doesn't give them anything. You can hit him if you're good, but you probably won't drive him to cover after a few innings. I don't really know if that's the kind of pitcher you want in the postseason, but you could do worse. I think I'd rather have Garland starting than Padilla. What about Billingsley? Oh, that's easy. I choose Billingsley, unless he really shows nothing at all in his last two starts.

Belliard may get some playing time at second in the playoffs, assuming the Dodgers make it. Which I am, since the magic number is 4 with 12 games to play. Sure, nothing is clinched yet, but let's be serious. Anyway, Belliard is playing great for the Dodgers, after not doing much for the Nats. And yet he doesn't really fit in with the Dodgers. Even as he's been blazing hot with his new club his on base percentage since coming over is a rather limp 0.339. For the entire year? Don't even ask. Let's just say he'd fit right in with the on-base challenged Giants. I guess I'm asking if he really deserves to start ahead of Hudson. What happens if the home runs dry up?

Game 149 Unfair Loss Shares ( Giants )

Penny -- 3

Metaphorically, the Dodgers pulled down Penny's pants, pointed, and laughed. That's about what happened in two and two thirds delightful innings on Saturday.

Here's another one: Penny was dropped into one of those souvenir coin machines, and the Dodgers smooshed him flat and stretched him out and stamped him with Belisario hitting a grand slam on one side and Larry Bowa smiling on the other side.

Game 150 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 1
Wolf -- 1
Belliard -- 1

There he is again, that Belliard. I can see why it's going to very tempting to put him in the lineup every day. And there again is Ethier as well. Around my house we call him Ethi-bomb, because Ethi-bombs are what he hits. I love Kemp's raw all-field power, but there is also something to be said for a guy who just pulls all of his home runs ( almost all ). Even if that pitch is outside he can still pull it into the right field seats.

Game 150 Unfair Loss Shares ( Giants )

Lincecum -- 2
Molina -- 1

Oh sure, they beat Lincecum, but he was having a bad day, so it doesn't count. And I would counter that it was the Dodger hitters who made him have a bad day. That pitch Ethier hit for a home run didn't look like an awful pitch to me.

Now Entering the Game for Los Angeles, a Really Good Pitcher

2009-09-17T08:24:00.000-07:00

Jon Broxton

Try your best to win them all
and one day time will tell
when you’re the one that’s standing there
you’ll reach the final bell!

You’re the best!
Around!
Nothing’s gonna ever keep you down

He is the best around, our K-rate kid. ( 13.6 per 9 innings ) Sure, he had that rough stretch when he was blowing saves and giving up runs as if opposing batters were a gang of teens wearing skeleton costumes and beating him up, but now it's all crane kicks.

Mercy is for the weak! No, wait, that was the bad guys who said that.

George Sherrill

What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, divided by 100?

What is George Sherrill's ERA as a Dodger?

Both these questions have the same answer! Cosmic, eh?

Perhaps Sherrill's sub-1 ERA is a little lucky. He has 16 strikeouts, 9 walks and one home run given up in 21.1 innings as a Dodger. Good numbers, but not the kind of numbers that will sustain such a low ERA. Nevertheless, he's been a great addition to the Dodgers ( leaving aside the matter of who the Dodgers gave up to get him ) who along with Broxton effectively shortens games to 7 innings.

Hong-Chih Kuo

In a game where Broxton, Kuo and Sherrill are all available, and the Dodgers have a lead after six --- well, I like the Dodgers' chances.

Ronald Belisario

Belisario's ERA is less than 2. That's the good news. The bad news is that he was accused ( and charged ) with driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of 0.11. I don't know what else to say about him. I have a hard time cheering for him now, thinking back to how Angel pitcher Nick Adenhart was killed by drunk driver Andrew Gallo. Of course, Belisario hasn't been found guilty yet, and he wasn't in any accident. Could he have been? I don't know --- it's worth pointing out that Gallo's BAC was measured at 0.19, significantly higher than what Belisario is accused of. Does that difference matter? Gallo hasn't been found guilty yet either, and no one holds back from criticizing him because of that. Of course Gallo unquestionably blew through a red light and killed three people, which is a pretty big difference.

James McDonald

McDonald's relief ERA is 2.40. He's striking out a batter per inning. In other words, he's just another fabulous Dodger reliever.

Ramon Troncoso

The Troncuilizer has fallen on hard times lately. Or maybe hard luck? Though his post All-Star break ERA is above 4, his strikeouts rate has actually improved after the break. I think it's just a matter of more ground balls finding holes and going for hits lately. The Dodgers also don't call on Troncoso that much anymore, because of the addition of Kuo, Sherrill and McDonald to the bullpen elite. But he's still a good pitcher, a great fifth or sixth option out of the 'pen.

Mark Loretta

He is the ultimate utility player, a veritable multi-tool of a man who can tackle any baseball related job. Where would Joe Torre and the Dodgers be without Mark Loretta? Not only is Loretta second to team-MVP candidate Juan Pierre in pinch hits, but he leads the Dodgers in relief ERA, at 0.00. The zeros of that ERA go all the way out, forever. He's perfect as a pitcher. It's a pity Torre doesn't use him more often. One third of an inning doesn't seem like enough for the man from Santa Monica. But don't let his rare work out of the 'pen fool you. He's the best the Dodgers have in relief. Forget about Juan Pierre, and Ronnie Belliard, and Brad Ausmus. They don't pitch. Mark Loretta is the true MVP* of the Dodgers.

*-- MVP = Most Veterany Player

Game 147 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Belliard -- 1
Kuroda -- 1

No love for the relievers. They deserve recognition for their three scoreless innings, but no one reliever had a bigger game than Kemp, Belliard, or Kuroda. That's just the way it is. If they do their job, they barely get noticed. If they don't do their job, then the blame goes right to them.

Game 147 Unfair Loss Shares ( Pirates )

Pearce -- 1
Cedeno -- 1
Vasquez -- 1

Quick --- are these real Pirate players, or did I just make up three names, figuring no one would know the difference?

Caught Being Juan Pierre

2009-09-16T13:08:00.000-07:00

I chose to bring it out because that's me, no matter what it is. If I had that choice, probably 100 times, I'd do it again.

--- Leodis McKelvin, after fumbling away a kickoff with two minutes left in last Monday's Bills-Pats game. The fumble led to the Patriots scoring the winning touchdown.

Right after Juan Pierre was caught stealing third base in the third inning of today's series finale against Pittsburgh, I thought of Leodis McKelvin, and the burning desire to some players to be themselves even when it costs their team. I can imagine Juan Pierre saying something very similar to the McKelvin quote if asked about his caught stealing of third base. I can also imagine him admitting that he made a mistake. I really don't know what he'll say, if asked about it.

Pierre's decision to steal third with no outs and several good hitters due up was so bad that even Vinny was having none of it, and Vinny is usually quite forgiving of stolen base attempts that go awry. I'm not really sure I can get behind even his decision to steal second, even though that one was successful. One one hand you can reasonably worry about the double play with Belliard up and Ethier on deck. You might also look at the count ( Pierre stole second on a 2-1 count ) and conclude that Belliard might walk and get you to second anyway ( Belliard did eventually walk ). But I can't help but thinking that none of this calculus of the situation ever entered Juan Pierre's mind. I believe he tried to steal those bases because that's his game. That's who he is. Fair enough. I just wish he'd be someone other than Juan Pierre on company time.

The supposed mistake Leodis McKelvin committed was taking the kickoff out of the endzone when he could have just knelt for a touchback and not risked a fumble on the return. But I think I agree with Gregg Easterbrook ( who wrote about this in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on ESPN ) that the return out of the endzone was okay, it was the extra effort for another meaningless yard at the end when the ball was stripped that was the real mistake. Just go down as soon as they're on you. Instead, wasted, counter-productive effort. That's what doomed McKelvin and the Bills. It's also what doomed Pierre when he tried to steal third. He's a hard worker, an all-out player. We know that. But going all-out just results in all outs. I've written about this before --- sometimes Pierre doesn't know when to hold back. At the plate, and on the basepaths. He was caught again.

Sixth Gear

2009-09-16T08:28:00.000-07:00

OPS by situation for Andre Ethier:

bases empty: 0.920
runners on base: 0.868
scoring position: 0.862
2 out, score pos: 0.787

Are these the splits of someone who would normally be thought of as a clutch hitter? His stats get worse and worse as the situation become more and more clutch. Not a whole lot worse, of course. These splits are more consistent than anything else. I don't make anything of his splits, by the way. Small sample size and all that.

The lesson is that clutch is a story, not a formula. Clutch doesn't objectively mean much. People will sometimes try to prove something about a player by his clutch stats, but these stats are so ephemeral and random that in most cases their use proves more about the person using the stats. I think that usually when clutch stats are used it is to back up a pre-existing idea. Everyone knows Alex Rodriguez fails when it matters, and there exist carefully packaged samples of his work to prove that.

I don't expect that Ethier will ever again have multiple game-ending hits in the same year. That doesn't matter, though. He's made this season his own and nothing will change that. No one is going to care what his splits were twenty years from now, but the fans that watched this season will remember all the times he was mobbed at the plate for delivering a win.

Here is another split for Ethier that probably explains it as much as anything can:

home: 1.008
away: 0.783

All six of his game-ending hits have come at home, of course.

Game 146 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 2
McDonald -- 1

Pity Pierre, who would have had one if Hudson or Loney could have driven him in from third. Cry for Kemp, who did tie the game with his clutch, fifth-gear opposite field single to score Ethier. But Ethier was in sixth gear, and he steals the glory. Not only did he set up the first game saving run with his vicious double down the line, but he delivered the second game saving run and the winning run all in one sweet swing. And he hit what was a pretty good pitch by Dumatrait to do it.

Game 146 Unfair Loss Shares ( Pirates )

Capps -- 1
Dumatrait -- 1
Jones -- 1

It was a good pitch by Dumatrait, by my own judgement, and by Dumatrait's judgement, if his post-game comment is anything to go by. But if you give up a game-winning home run, you get an unfair loss share. That's the rules.

There was also a game Monday that I need to take care of:

Game 145 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Hudson -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Garland -- 1

Garland got it done, somehow. And Ethier hit just a regular middle-of-the-game home run. How boring.

Game 145 Unfair Loss Shares ( Pirates )

Milledge -- 1
Moss -- 1
D. McCutchen -- 1

Don't confuse D. McCutchen with A. McCutchen. A. McCutchen is a rookie center fielder who is having a pretty good year. D McCutchen is a mediocre pitcher who lost to the Dodgers on Monday. I remember coming across both names when I did the positional rankings a few weeks ago and wondering who the heck these guys were and how they ended up on the same team.

A Gross of Games

2009-09-14T08:55:00.000-07:00

I'm very happy with a series win in San Francisco.

Game 142 Unfair Loss Shares ( Giants )

Cain -- 1
Valdez -- 1
Sandoval -- 1

Cain is having a great year, even with his struggles against the Dodgers. And Billingsley is struggling, as we all know. But I'd still rather have Billingsley than Cain for next year and beyond.

I've always associated Billingsley with Cain, the same way I associate Kershaw with Lincecum. Billingsley and Cain came up around the same time, those who wrote about prospects often compared the two. Both pitchers were first round picks, Cain 25th in 2002, Billingsley 24th a year later. The Dodgers could have picked Cain with the 19th pick in 2002, but instead chose another pitcher, James Loney.

Game 142 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Loney -- 1
Blake -- 1
Kuroda -- 1

The Dodgers chose to make Loney a first baseman instead of a pitcher, of course, thinking he would make a better future hitter than pitcher. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Loney had continued as a pitcher instead, but certainly this weekend Loney the hitter was very valuable. Loney was one of the hitting heroes Friday night. The final score was 10-3, so a two-run rally in the first inning might not seem crucial, but I think it was. Loney's two-out double to drive in two made sure the Dodgers wouldn't end up frustrated and empty-handed even as they were hitting Cain pretty hard.

Cain went on to show some filthy stuff in the third inning, when he made Kemp and Ethier look silly on strikeouts. But he couldn't sustain his success. The Dodgers kept punishing every little mistake he made, and Blake finished him off with a two-run home run that combined with Kuroda's dominance put the game away.

Game 143 Unfair Loss Shares ( Giants )

Velez -- 1
Renteria -- 1
Sanchez -- 1

The Giants only won once they got Abe Lincoln look-a-like Eugenio Velez out of the lineup on Sunday. Velez was 0-4 on Friday, and then on Saturday he was also 0-4, with 4 men left on base. And he also had an error. One score and seven years ago, a mediocre hitter was born. Between Velez and Pierre I think I'd rather have Pierre, unless you want to bring up contracts.

Game 143 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Padilla -- 1
Loney -- 1
Martin -- 1

Two of these names I thought I'd be seeing under the unfair win shares a lot more this season. The other one I thought the Dodgers were crazy to acquire.

Game 144 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Belliard -- 1
Blake -- 1
Billingsley -- 1

Neither Belliard nor Blake could get the big hit against Penny with men on base, and Billingsley couldn't stop from giving up the big hit often enough. Billingsley struck out 6 and walked none in 4 innings, which is pretty good. Everything else was not good.

Game 144 Unfair Win Shares ( Giants )

Penny -- 1
Uribe -- 1
Sanchez -- 1

Penny struck out two, walked two, and gave up a home run in seven innings. That's not really very good, but it was good enough Sunday for Penny to get his revenge on the Dodgers.

Partial Series Score, Nineteen to Four

2009-09-12T22:15:00.001-07:00

Without saying anything about the chances of the Giants catching the Dodgers in the standings this year, I will say the following:

I don't think the Giants are good enough to overtake the Rockies.

Even if the Giants somehow swept the Rockies in their series next week, I still don't think the Giants could catch the Rockies by the end of the year.

The Giants are still being out on-based by their opponents, even with their great pitching staff. 0.307 for the Giants, 0.314 for their opponents. That's why they haven't kept up with the surging Rockies.

The Dodgers probably have more to fear from the Marlins than the Giants at this point.

The Giants figure to have a better offense next year. Don't they? If the offense does improve, then are they at least co-favorites for the division in 2010? But then I wonder, will they ever get this kind of performance from Matt Cain again? He's good, but probably not really this good. The problem for the Giants is that both the pitching and hitting are likely to shape more toward average.

With the Giants 8.5 games back of the Dodgers the matchup against Penny has lost some of its zing.

The Dodgers are 3 up on the Rockies, 1 up on the Cardinals. The playoff cushion is 8.5. Matt Kemp no longer bats eighth. There's nothing to complain about!

A Two Game Lead

2009-09-11T08:56:00.001-07:00

If I had been told on opening day that the Dodgers would be in first place, two games ahead of the second place team, I would have answered with a rant about how much I hated the "if I had been told" hypothetical. The journey matters. The things I've experienced between now and then make a difference. I've always figured the point of that hypothetical was to say the opposite, that the journey doesn't matter, that only the destination matters.

Maybe there is another way of looking at the "if I had been told" hypothetical. Maybe it's a reminder of how much our goals have changed between now and then, and maybe how much has already been accomplished. Back then a two game lead was a worthy goal. Now it feels narrow and almost a failure, because of the heights previously reached. But it is still an accomplishment. It is still a good position to be in. From two games up a team can easily launch itself into the postseason.

And of course the lead for the purposes of making the postseason is not 2, it's 6.5. I say this even knowing how disappointed I will be if the Dodgers don't finish in first place in the NL West, even if they make it as the wild card. The wild card is okay if you surge into it, but not if you tumble down into it. Except that none of this is true once the playoff series begin. All that matters then in winning the series. And all the really matters now is getting to that series. All that matters is the 6.5 game lead.

But the two game lead is still the one I care about more.

Game 141 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Troncoso -- 2
Belliard -- 1

It was a tale of ground outs with these two. All Belliard did all night was ground out. ( At least Martin, who was the other hitless Dodger starter, lined out once. ) And Troncoso's job was to get the ground out, and he did, a nice comebacker from the first batter he faced, only, well, you probably remember what happened next, since it was only two days ago, and if you don't remember it maybe that's for the best. Let's just say Troncoso picked up his first unfair loss share on the play.

In the aftermath, with a runner on third and one out, Torre elected to walk the next two batters. He might have walked only Drew, and gone for the double play with Upton, but Upton is so fast that it might be hard to get one, unless he hit a really hard ground ball. But Upton had grounded into 10 double plays, so it wasn't impossible. But Torre didn't believe, so he walked Upton to load the bases and pitched to strikeout prone Reynolds instead. I would have done the same, even though it's probably the wrong call if you look at the likely outcomes. It was when Troncoso walked Reynolds and forced in the winning run that he picked up his second unfair loss share.

Game 141 Unfair Win Shares ( Snakes )

Haren -- 1
Gutierrez -- 1
Reynolds -- 1

What, no Montero? He was squeezed out by Reynolds' clutch walk and Gutierrez's excellent relief in the eighth inning.

The Sixth Double Play

2009-09-09T08:55:00.000-07:00

Do you know what the six stages of double plays are? Strange things happen when a team hits into too many double plays.

First DP: Annoyance. "Not again, Martin."

Second DP: Frustration. "This pitcher sucks, and you just keep giving away baserunners! Aaarrrgggghhh!"

Third DP: Rage. "STOP HITTING THE BALL ON THE GROUND!!!!"

Fourth DP: Acceptance. "Cool, another DP. Maybe they can break the record. If you're going to lose, do it in style."

Fifth DP: Hallucinations. "Wait, did I just hear Vinny say something about droopy drawers?"

Sixth DP: Time stops. "I am the master over time and space. Reality bends to my will."

Here is the true play-by-play of the top of the eighth inning from last night's game.

Hudson grounds out to first.

Martin singles to center.

Pierre grounds into double play, Martin out at second, Pierre out at first. Sixth double play of the night. Time stops. Joe Torre becomes master of time and space. Joe Torre enters the mystic spreadsheet underlying all reality and adjusts reality. Pierre's ground ball is made a little softer, so he can beat the throw.

Pierre grounds into fielder's choice, Furcal out at second.

~~Furcal grounds out to second.~~ Torre adjusts reality. Furcal singles to center, Pierre to third.

~~Kemp lines out to right.~~ Torre adjusts reality. Kemp singles to right, Pierre scores, Furcal to third on error by Upton.

~~Ethier grounds out to short.~~ Torre adjusts reality. Ethier singles to center, Furcal scores, Kemp to third.

~~Manny strikes out looking.~~ Torre adjusts reality. Manny walks, Ethier to second.

~~Loney flies out to left.~~ Torre adjusts reality. Loney singles to left.

~~Belliard grounds out to shortstop.~~ Torre adjusts reality. Belliard gets weak little infield single. Kemp scores. Dodgers lead 5-4.

And it was all thanks to Juan Pierre grounding into the sixth double play of the night, even though in the end it never happened! Pennant races are very strange.

Game 140 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Broxton -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Furcal -- 1

McDonald and Kuo also deserve some praise among the relievers.

Game 140 Unfair Loss Shares ( Snakes )

Upton -- 1
Boyer -- 1
Schlereth -- 1

Greatness Lost

2009-09-08T08:30:00.000-07:00

I've been a Dodger fan since 1983. I've seen just about everything from the Dodgers in 26 years. But I've never seen a truly great Dodger team.

The 1988 team that won the World Series was very good, and more importantly they were legendary. They had great performances, dramatic performances. But that wasn't a great team, not if you look at them coldly and rationally. They didn't win 100 games. They had a fine pitching staff but a rather average offense.

I thought the Dodgers might be great this year. I thought they might win 100 games. They won't, unless they finish 18-5 or better. Maybe if that happened I would feel like I had seen a great team this year.

I know I was watching a great team the first few months of the season. They haven't ended that way, but the ending has not ended yet. They can still be a great team in October. That wouldn't make them a great team overall, any more than it made the 2006 Cardinals a great team, but I would take it.

And now, a whole lot of catching up in the unfair share department. Four games worth!

Game 136 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Loney -- 1
Ausmus -- 1
Martin -- 1

There are some games where the Dodgers win despite the struggles of Loney and Martin. There are some games where either Loney or Martin does well. And then there are games like the one last Friday, when the Dodgers lost 2-0 to the Padres. Loney was terrible, going hitless and leaving 6 runners. Martin was terrible in limited duty, hitting into a double play in the ninth inning that prevented the Dodgers from getting any of their best hitters to the plate in the ninth inning.

This was a rare game where both Dodgers catcher picked up unfair loss shares. Before Martin was in the game hitting into a double play Ausmus left 4 runners on by striking out twice.

Game 136 Unfair Win Shares ( Padres )

LeBlanc -- 2
Bell -- 1

It was like the spirit of Jake Peavy returned to the Padres.

Game 137 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Furcal -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Wolf -- 1

The hardest part was telling James Loney that his Dueces Wild performance wasn't good enough for a share. 2-2 with two walks and two driven in. But the listed three did a little more.

Game 137 Unfair Loss Shares ( Padres )

Gwynn -- 1
Latos -- 1
Mujica -- 1

Is it painful for Padre fans to watch Tony Gwynn's son hit rather poorly for their team?

Game 138 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Kuroda -- 1
Pierre -- 1
Hudson -- 1

This one made me really frustrated. So close.

Kuroda walked three in five innings. That is a lot for him. Maybe his control will be better next time around, or the time after that. If not, he probably wouldn't make the top four Dodgers starters for potential postseason duty.

Game 138 Unfair Loss Shares ( Padres )

Gregerson -- 1
Bell -- 1
Kouzmanoff -- 1

The Dodgers were beat by the Padre bullpen. Bell was great and Gregerson was even better.

Game 139 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Belliard -- 1
Loney -- 1
Padilla -- 1

Belliard? Padilla? Who are these guys? To fit in Loney will have to spell his last name "Lloney".

So far I have been completely wrong about Padilla. As for Belliard, who know how long his good hitting can last, but I'm sure that with Blake hurt I'd much rather have Belliard in the lineup than Loretta.

Game 139 Unfair Loss Shares ( Snakes )

Upton -- 1
Drew -- 1
Scherzer -- 1

Drew was 2-3 with a walk yesterday, so his inclusion is a little strange. Well, if you saw the first inning you will probably understand, if not necessarily agree. Drew doubled with one out in the first inning, then thought he might go to third on a ground ball hit to Furcal. Three throws later and the Snakes had run into a soul-crushing double play.

Up until that point the game had felt like a Snakes win. Though it was very early Scherzer looked clearly better than Padilla. Then that play happened, and the game just seemed to turn. It did turn the next inning. Coincidence, most likely. But I wonder if Scherzer's confidence was shaken in some unquantifiable way after seeing his teammates run out of a scoring chance. Probably not. This is really irrational territory here, but I know that as a fan watching the game seemed to turn with that play. Players are irrational too, many even more so, and so is it so crazy to think some of them saw the game turning too, and that it might in some small way affect their play?

Broxton the Starter

2009-09-04T09:35:00.000-07:00

In a parallel universe, Jon Broxton is a starter.

Start 1 ( Apr 6 - 23 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
8.1 -- 2 -- 1 -- 0 -- 13 -- 0 -- 108

Time moves faster in that other universe. That's why Broxton the Starter's starts stretch over several days. Broxton the Starter's first start is fabulous, a near complete game masterpiece that features a baker's dozen of strikeouts and no walks.

Start 2 ( Apr 24 - May 5 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
5.2 -- 0 -- 0 -- 4 -- 12 -- 0 -- 107

It is an amazing coincidence that Broxton's the Starters stats are exactly the same as Broxton the Relievers stats. They match up, like, perfectly. Dude. It's cosmic. Actually, it's not. There is no link between the two universes. It's just a coincidence! Broxton the Starter was dominant in his second start, but used too many pitches walking batters and was lifted in the sixth even though he had a no-hitter going. In frustration he proceeds to destroy a cooler full of the sports drink Crocade.

Start 3 ( May 10 - 20 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
7.0 -- 4 -- 2 -- 3 -- 7 -- 0 -- 118

Broxton the Starter takes a break from his amazing strikeout binge, but he still turns in a fine performance.

Start 4 ( May 23 - June 3 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
6.0 -- 2 -- 1 -- 3 -- 10 -- 0 -- 107

Another fine start for Broxton the Starter. There is talk he may win the Cy Old Award for best pitcher in a parallel universe.

Start 5 ( June 5 - 20 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
7.0 -- 5 -- 3 -- 2 -- 12 -- 1 -- 111

Broxton the Starter gives up his first home run of the year and ends up with a good but not great start.

Start 6 ( June 21 - July 5 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
5.2 -- 5 -- 5 -- 4 -- 11 -- 0 -- 105

Broxton the Starter has his first bad start. Though he's still striking out batters at a fearsome clip, the walks doom him.

Start 7 ( July 10 - 29 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
7.0 -- 6 -- 3 -- 3 -- 9 -- 0 -- 110

Broxton the Starter rebounds with a decent start, but he has yet to recapture his early season magic.

Start 8 ( July 30 - Aug 15 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
6.0 -- 6 -- 4 -- 3 -- 4 -- 3 -- 102

Another poor start, in which Broxton the Starter shockingly gives up three home runs. Even more ominous perhaps is that his strikeout total is so low by his standards. This is his fourth straight start allowing three runs or more. No one is panicking, because two of those four starts were still pretty good and even the best starter may go through a rough patch, but there is some concern.

Start 9 ( Aug 17 - Aug 27 )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
7.2 -- 5 -- 1 -- 2 -- 11 -- 0 -- 108

Broxton the Starter silences all talk of a lingering injury or slump with a dominant performance in which the only run he allows is unearned.

Start 10 ( Aug 30 - ??? )

IP -- H -- R -- BB -- SO -- HR -- Pitches
4.0 -- 2 -- 0 -- 2 -- 8 -- 0 -- 71

Though still underway, it appears Broxton the Starter's latest start will be another gem. Of his nine completed starts, Broxton the Starter has had 5 excellent games, 2 good, and 2 poor, with none being more-runs-than-innings-pitched disastrous. The only thing keeping Broxton the Starter from being hailed as the best pitcher on the Dodgers is Kershaw the Closer, who has struck out every batter he has faced.

Game 135 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Garland -- 1
Manny -- 1
Belliard -- 1

From a cynical perspective Garland had the perfect first game for a new team. He pitched well and made a good first impression, but not so well that expectations will be too high for him in subsequent starts. He got enough run support to win, but not so much that it felt like his efforts didn't really matter.

Belliard somehow ended up with 3 runs batted in. Is the plan to play him every day? Every other day? I guess I can't complain too much about that, since the players he would play in place of aren't doing too well lately.

Game 135 Unfair Loss Shares ( Snakes )

Allen -- 1
Buckner -- 1
Young -- 1

You could argue that by trading for Garland the Dodgers also traded for their win today. I think it's a pretty tenuous argument but I find it amusing, so I'm backing it up.

The Seed of Failure

2009-09-03T09:31:00.000-07:00

At what point do you give up on a player? This should be a rational process but I think most often it isn't. Ideally it should only be when a player's performance falls below a certain statistical threshold, with sample size being a huge component of this. But it doesn't work that way for most people. Maybe it comes in a moment, a flash of lightning that illuminates everything, all the past failures. Maybe one day you just wake up and know that a player isn't going to make it. I'm not sure, but most of us watch these games with emotion ( else why watch them? ) and we react with emotion, so it is very likely that the act of giving up on a player will have a large emotional component.

I am certain that if I was a Snakes fan I would have given up on Chris Young by now. I am not a person overflowing with sympathy and kindness, especially for Snakes players, but still I can only find what has happened with Chris Young depressing and sad. I guess they really thought they had a good player there. Power, speed --- he had it all, everything but the ability to consistently get on base. I was always skeptical of Young's future prospects for that reason, even when he hit the 30 home runs. So many strikeouts. But Matt Kemp strikes out a lot, and he's not doing too poorly. It's crazy to think of now but there was a time when you could make a passable argument that Young was just as good as Kemp. Now they're at opposite ends of the center field rankings. And if we're talking about striking out too much what about Mark Reynolds? He strikes out more than anyone and he's become an elite hitter. I would have gone broke with both my knees broken by a loan shark if I had bet on what kind of player Mark Reynolds would turn out to be. It's not just the strikeouts. I don't know what it is.

At what point to we give up on Chad Billingsley? My answer is 2011 at the earliest. Late 2011. Funny thing about that question is that a lot of people won't understand asking it for entirely opposing reasons. For some even asking the question is an emotional overreaction to a few bad starts, a rough stretch in which Billingsley has pitched a little hurt, a little unlucky. I find this perspective utterly convincing, in a top-brain way, but not in a hind-brain way. Fair or not, the seed has been planted now, but more on that later. For other people, the question is unnecessary because they have already given up on Chad Billingsley. I have to admit that I don't find this persuasive at all, not even in an emotional way. Perhaps I overestimate the number of people who have given up on him. But it's out there. His performances against the Phillies in the playoffs last year is proof. His latter-half slide this year is proof. His demeanor is proof. So much proof, all of it poof. Air and heat and impatience. I'm guilty of talking about Billingsley in terms of whether he is an ace or not, but I don't use it as a bludgeon against him the way other do. He's not an ace! Justification: he's not clutch like Hamels. Implication: he's a failure. What a lot of nonsense.

But the seed has been planted. The seed of failure. I'm asking the question now. I wonder if Billingsley will indeed turn out as good as we thought he would be. He's not as far as Loney is down that path, but it's started. I feel like we're past the point where you can say it's just the typical struggles of a young player. It's more like the typical struggles of a starting pitcher now. And if he ends this year well and then pitches well next year that's all it will be. But if he keeps struggling, now and in the future, then this will be the beginning of his transformation into Brett Tomko. Now there's a despressing thought. Good thing it probably won't happen.

There is one other thing in all this, probably the most important. What about Chad himself? Has the question occurred to him? I hope not. Probably not. Most ballplayers are pretty delusional about their own abilities, if their quotes are anything to go by. The Tomkos and Hendricksons of the world are always one mechanical adjustment away from suddenly being the good pitchers they really are. But still, the failure has to eat at you eventually. Billingsley has to deal with start after start running into trouble in the fifth or sixth inning. A fast start in a game doesn't mean anything later on, and he has to know that. He has a really tough job, and most of it is mental.

Game 134 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Billingsley -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Loney -- 1

Game 134 Unfair Win Shares ( Snakes )

Scherzer -- 2
Allen -- 1

Rotation Rankings

2009-09-02T10:33:00.000-07:00

For the starting pitching rankings in the National League I used ERA+ from baseball reference, FIP from hardballtimes.com, and inning pitched. Only 2009 performance is considered. Starters on each team were assigned to first, second, third, fourth and fifth starter slots depending on how good their performances relative to each other, and then all first starters were ranked against each other, all second starters ranked against each other, and so on.

First Starter

1. SFG -- Lincecum
2. STL -- Carpenter
3. PHI -- Lee
4. ARI -- Haren
5. FLA -- Johnson
6. COL -- Jimenez
7. LAD -- Kershaw
8. ATL -- Jurrjens
9. HOU -- Rodriguez
10. NYM -- Santana
11. CHC -- Wells
12. MIL -- Gallardo
13. PIT -- Duke
14. CIN -- Harang
15. WSN -- Lannan
16. SDP -- Correia

The ranking of aces is fun, but I wonder if it's really that important. If you're anywhere in the top ten you're doing fine. There are of course a few pitchers who should be called "aces" who have to wait until the second or even third list to be mentioned because they aren't their team's best pitcher.

Kershaw would be a little higher if he had more innings pitched. As it is you could argue for him being bumped down to 9 or 10 because he has a higher chance than any of these other guys of not making it through 5 innings. The Dodgers are a strange case because I think you could argue for any of Wolf, Billingsley or Kershaw to be their top pitcher. In the end I went with the guy with all the strikeouts.

Santana will not pitch again this season, but since he's been the Mets ace for most of the season I kept him in. It is strange to see Santana so low on this list.

Second Starter

1. STL -- Wainwright
2. SFG -- Cain
3. ATL -- Vazquez
4. PHI -- Happ
5. LAD -- Wolf
6. COL -- Marquis
7. CHC -- Lilly
8. HOU -- Oswalt
9. ARI -- Scherzer
10. CIN -- Arroyo
11. FLA -- Nolasco
12. PIT -- Maholm
13. NYM -- Pelfrey
14. WSN -- Stammen
15. MIL -- Looper
16. SDP -- Latos

Wainwright and Cain are Cy Young candidates, but they can't even make the first starter list because of Carpenter and Lincecum. Surprise 2009 successes Happ, Wolf and Marquis have boosted their teams into excellent playoff positions.

Third Starter

1. STL -- Pineiro
2. LAD -- Billingsley
3. CHC -- Zambrano
4. SFG -- Zito
5. ARI -- Davis
6. ATL -- Lowe
7. COL -- de la Rosa
8. PHI -- Hamels
9. CIN -- Cueto
10. PIT -- Ohlendorf
11. HOU -- Moehler
12. WSN -- Mock
13. SDP -- Stauffer
14. FLA -- Sanchez
15. MIL -- Suppan
16. NYM -- Redding

Pineiro would be the first starter on many teams. The Cardinals go three deep with shut down pitchers, and for that reason I have to think they should be favored to win the NL Pennant. Their bullpen is sometimes shaky, but how often will that be a factor with Carpenter, Wainwright and Pineiro starting? Their fourth starter isn't that great, but by that time they may already be up 3-0 in the series. Then you think about Pujols and Holliday and the Cardinals seem unbeatable.

Fortunately great pitchers lose all the time in the playoffs. I guess that has something to do with the great pitchers and great hitters on the teams they face. So the Cardinals may be favorites but they aren't locks.

Billingsley comes in second to Pineiro, giving the Dodgers a very good top three in the rotation. Billingsley's ERA has risen since his great start to the season but his underlying FIP numbers ( homers, Ks and walks ) are still very good. Another reputed ace who has slid into the third starter slot is Hamels, and he doesn't fare as well as Billingsley, though I didn't take into account Hamels' two hitter yesterday in this ranking. If Hamels can pitch as well in the playoffs this year as he did last year then the Phillie pitching will look a lot better and might even challenge the Cardinals for overall scariness. But even if he doesn't regain that form the Phillies still have a very good rotation.

Fourth Starter

1. COL -- Hammel
2. PHI -- Blanton
3. CHC -- Dempster
4. LAD -- Garland
5. SFG -- Sanchez
6. ATL -- Kawakami
7. FLA -- West
8. STL -- Lohse
9. PIT -- Morton
10. ARI -- Petit
11. NYM -- Parnell
12. CIN -- Bailey
13. MIL -- Parra
14. WSN -- Martin
15. SDP -- Richard
16. HOU -- Norris

This is the last ranking that matters for playoff matchups. I was surprised to see the Rockies come out on top here, though not that surprised, since it's really been their solid starting pitching that has fueled their turnaround since the first two months. I listed Garland as the fourth Dodgers starter, though maybe Kuroda will end up in that role. At this point I'm just not sure if Kuroda can come back at full strength. Is giving up a ground rule double off your head something you can recover from in a month?

If Kuroda was in the fourth slot for the Dodgers he'd probably rank about the same on this list. The Dodgers may not have the most impressive playoff pitching staff but they do have a staff you can win with.

Fifth Starter

1. ATL -- Hanson
2. CHC -- Harden
3. LAD -- Kuroda
4. COL -- Contreras
5. PHI -- Martinez
6. PIT -- Hart
7. SFG -- Penny
8. STL -- Smoltz
9. WSN -- Hernandez
10. FLA -- Volstad
11. NYM -- Figueroa
12. CIN -- Owings
13. MIL -- Bush

NR -- HOU, SDP, ARI

Very few teams have five decent starters. Even fewer have five good starters. The Braves, Cubs, and maybe Dodgers ( if Kuroda can come back ) have five arguably good starters. The Rockies, Giants and Cardinals are making a go of it with some pitchers who struggled in the American League. The Phillies are seeing if Pedro has any magic left. But it's very meager pickings out there. You mostly get guys like Livan Hernandez and Micah Owings, not to mention all the fifth starters who didn't make it to this point in the year due to poor performances. Heck, I didn't even list a fifth starter for three teams, that's how bad it is. The good news for teams headed to the playoffs is that the fifth starter doesn't matter --- unless one of the top four get hurt.

Team Rankings

1. STL -- 02 -- 01 -- 01 -- 08 -- 08
2. SFG -- 01 -- 02 -- 04 -- 05 -- 07
3. PHI -- 03 -- 04 -- 08 -- 02 -- 05
4. LAD -- 07 -- 05 -- 02 -- 04 -- 03
5. COL -- 06 -- 06 -- 07 -- 01 -- 04
6. CHC -- 11 -- 07 -- 03 -- 03 -- 02
7. ATL -- 08 -- 03 -- 06 -- 06 -- 01
8. ARI -- 04 -- 09 -- 05 -- 10 -- XX
9. FLA -- 05 -- 11 -- 14 -- 07 -- 10
10. HOU -- 09 -- 08 -- 11 -- 16 -- XX
11. CIN -- 14 -- 10 -- 09 -- 12 -- 12
12. PIT -- 13 -- 12 -- 10 -- 09 -- 06
13. NYM -- 10 -- 13 -- 16 -- 11 -- 11
14. MIL -- 12 -- 15 -- 15 -- 13 -- 13
15. WSN -- 15 -- 14 -- 12 -- 14 -- 09
16. SDP -- 16 -- 16 -- 13 -- 15 -- XX

Man, the Padres have had terrible pitching this year. Even when Peavy was pitching for them he didn't do that well. Just a lost year for the Padres. Everyone else in the NL West had pretty good starting pitching, even the Snakes.

I suppose it's no accident the top five playoff contenders make the top five of the list, though I don't think it would always work out that way. I should note that my team rankings ( like all the other rankings I have done here and in the position player post yesterday ) are subjective and may have been subtly influenced by how well I know the teams are doing. It's interesting though that the two teams that have the most solid rotations top to bottom ( Cubs and Braves ) are on the outside looking in right now.

The Dodgers only have a starting pitching advantage against one likely playoff opponent, the Rockies, and that one is pretty close. Nevertheless I like where the Dodgers stand at this point, mostly because of the bullpen. How well the Dodgers play in October ( and if they even get there ) will be up to how well the offense performs, I think.

Ordinary Offense

2009-09-02T09:37:00.000-07:00

The Dodger offense is bad. They managed only 3 runs against Petit, who is not a good pitcher. His ERA is the opposite of his name. The Dodgers have beat him easily twice before. Not last night. The Dodgers scored one run off a bloop hit, then another off of a bunt single, steal and throwing error, then another off a home run. Only one really legitimate run.

At least the Dodgers can win this way. When the offense is flat like this they're really only a 0.500 team, but you know most teams can't even play 0.500 ball when the offense is struggling. The starters and bullpen have kept the Dodgers out front of the NL West. Maybe the offense will come back. Maybe it was never really meant to be the kind of scoring machine we saw the first two months of the season.

Game 133 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Broxton -- 1

Broxton is back. His toe is miraculously healed! He got into trouble that ninth inning, but it wasn't his fault, and he successfully got out of trouble.

Ethier gets a rare hitless non-pitcher unfair win share. I don't think his catch saved a home run, but I can't rule it out. These catches are always deceptive because the glove usually ends up over the wall by the time the leap is completed, but at the moment when the ball hits the glove it was usually not above the wall. For Ethier's catch it's hard to tell. Doesn't matter, it's a great catch no matter what.

Every morning Kemp wakes up, looks in the mirror, and says, "I am not a singles hitter." And then every night he goes out and proves it.

Game 133 Unfair Loss Shares ( Snakes )

Reynolds -- 1
Young -- 1
Zavada -- 1

Zavada snipped off the curls of his fabulous villain mustache. Now he's just a regular mustachioed pitcher. That's why he walked Ethier with the bases loaded. It's mustache Karma. Meanwhile, Young and Reynolds went 0-9 with 5 strikeouts. I am brimming with gladness at all those strikeouts.

National League Positional Rankings

2009-09-01T11:04:00.000-07:00

It's tricky, sometimes, to figure out a team's starter at every position. Not every team has as stable a lineup as the Dodgers. Injury ravaged teams are problematic, as are teams that have fallen out of contention and may be working younger players into the lineup. If a typically starting player is currently on the disabled list then I still listed him as the starter if he only recently went on the DL, even if he might not come back this season, though I think almost all of the disabled players I have listed will be coming back this season. So David Wright is listed as the Met third baseman, while Carlos Beltran is out as the Met center fielder because he's been out for months. When there was no clear starter at a position I just looked at who was playing the most games at that position in the last few weeks.

The rankings are based only on performance this year. These are essentially offensive rankings, though I did consider defense in a few cases. I used 2009 OPS+ values from baseball-reference.com as my primary ranking tool. I also looked at UZR ( a defensive metric available on hardballtimes.com ), raw on-base percentage and plate appearances to differentiate between players in the same range of OPS+. I might use a different statistic if I was doing this again, such as EqA or VoRP or whatever newest alphabet soup stat the traditional sports writers are making fun of these days. I don't think it matters too much, because no matter what I use the rankings will never be perfect. Call them accurate to two spots, high or low.

First Base

1. STL -- Pujols
2. SDP -- Gonzalez
3. MIL -- Fielder
4. WSN -- Dunn
5. CIN -- Votto
6. HOU -- Berkman
7. PHI -- Howard
8. CHC -- Lee
9. COL -- Helton
10. ATL -- LaRoche
11. LAD -- Loney
12. SFG -- Garko
13. FLA -- Gload
14. PIT -- Pearce
15. NYM -- Murphy
16. ARI -- Tracy

First base is the most crowded position, by far. Anyone in the top nine at first would probably make the top three at any other position with the same offensive stats. In fact Dunn would have been number one in right field until the Nats moved him to first base about a month ago.

If new Dodger Jim Thome was able and willing to play first base, then his spot on this list would be --- 11! --- same as James Loney. This even though Thome is much better than Loney at the plate. This is because there is a huge fall-off from Adam LaRoche to Loney, where LaRoche would barely edge out Thome. Similarly Loney barely beats out Garko, while Thome would easily rank ahead of Garko. And then after Garko there is a whole lot of nothing.

I guess what I would say is that Loney is barely competent at first base. His numbers aren't so bad that they cry out that he should be replaced right away. But it's clear when looking at the riches so many other teams have at first base that the Dodgers are really missing out.

Second Base

1. PHI -- Utley
2. ATL -- Prado
3. FLA -- Uggla
4. MIL -- Lopez
5. ARI -- Roberts
6. LAD -- Hudson
7. NYM -- Castillo
8. PIT -- Young
9. SFG -- Sanchez
10. STL -- Schumaker
11. CIN -- Phillips
12. SDP -- Eckstein
13. COL -- Barmes
14. CHC -- Fontenot
15. WSN -- Gonzalez
16. HOU -- Matsui

There is Utley and then there is everyone else. Not even Pujols dominates his position as thoroughly as Utley does. After Utley there is a big undifferentiated messy mass from about 2-9. You could probably argue for Orlando Hudson to go anywhere in that range, but he settles in at 6. Lately Hudson has been closer to Eckstein than Prado, though.

My favorite part of this list is that Clint Barmes ranks behind the modern day Scrappy Doo, David Eckstein. That's mostly because Barmes can't even manage an OBP of 0.300 playing half his games in Coors Field. Barmes will hit you a few home runs but he's still the same terrible player he's always been.

Shortstop

1. FLA -- Ramirez
2. COL -- Tulowitzki
3. ATL -- Escobar
4. SDP -- Cabrera
5. ARI -- Drew
6. STL -- Ryan
7. HOU -- Tejada
8. CHC -- Theriot
9. WSN -- Guzman
10. LAD -- Furcal
11. PHI -- Rollins
12. MIL -- Hardy
13. SFG -- Renteria
14. PIT -- Cedeno
15. NYM -- Hernandez
16. CIN -- Janish

Hanley Ramirez is another easy call for best at his position. Tulowitzki is having a fine rebound season after slumping last year. After that shortstop falls off pretty quickly offensively. Furcal should be in the top four here and instead can't even crack the top half. At least Furcal beats Rollins, who just can't get on base anymore. J.J. Hardy of the Brewers was recently sent down to the minors by the Brewers, but I decided to use him as their representative anyway and he beat out four others. Sad.

Third Base

1. ARI -- Reynolds
2. SFG -- Sandoval
3. WSN -- Zimmerman
4. NYM -- Wright
5. CHC -- Ramirez
6. ATL -- Jones
7. LAD -- Blake
8. MIL -- McGehee
9. CIN -- Rolen
10. COL -- Stewart
11. SDP -- Kouzmanoff
12. STL -- DeRosa
13. FLA -- Cantu
14. PIT -- LaRoche
15. HOU -- Blum
16. PHI -- Feliz

I had to grit my teeth and put Reynolds number one. Not that the alternative was much better with Sandoval the Giant Panda. If only Zimmerman had continued the great hitting of his first month.

Third base is the most solid position in the National League. None of these players are truly awful. Pedro Feliz of the Phillies is last place but he's not quite a terrible hitter, with an OPS+ of 85. Given how solid third base is I think Casey Blake's seventh place on the list is pretty good. He's the bright spot of a rather average Dodger infield.

Left Field

1. MIL -- Braun
2. STL -- Holliday
3. LAD -- Manny
4. WSN -- Willingham
5. PHI -- Ibanez
6. HOU -- Lee
7. FLA -- Coghlan
8. NYM -- Sheffield
9. CIN -- Nix
10. ATL -- Anderson
11. SDP -- Headley
12. COL -- Spilborghs
13. SFG -- Velez
14. PIT -- Milledge
15. ARI -- Parra
16. CHC -- Soriano

Well, I originally had Manny in first, because he has a pretty clear advantage offensively, but I finally moved him down a bit because of playing time and defense. I suspect that Manny's OPS+ would be a little lower than it is now if he had not been suspended for 50 games.

I have no idea what Jim Tracy is doing over there in Colorado. If he would just install Seth Smith as the regular left fielder he would have the seventh or eighth best left fielder in the NL. Instead he goes with Spilborghs most often, who is a nice defensive player but is not a great hitter. Smith has started just three times in the last two weeks. I don't get it. Maybe Smith reminds Tracy of Hee Sop Choi?

Left Field isn't as strong offensively as I thought it would be. It's kind of surprising to me that old and creaky Gary Sheffield cracked the top half. At the bottom of the ranking you have mega-bust Soriano. Given how Zito has bounced back this year I think Soriano takes over as worst contract.

Center Field

1. LAD -- Kemp ( Hurray! )
2. PIT -- McCutchen
3. MIL -- Cameron
4. CHC -- Fukudome
5. PHI -- Victorino
6. NYM -- Pagan
7. HOU -- Bourn
8. ATL -- McClouth
9. FLA -- Ross
10. SFG -- Rowand
11. WSN -- Morgan
12. COL -- Fowler
13. STL -- Rasmus
14. SDP -- Gwynn
15. ARI -- Young
16. CIN -- Taveras

Carlos Beltran would have taken first if he had been healthy, but he's not, so Matt Kemp wins quite easily. This is not a star studded group ( except for Kemp ) but it's pretty solid up until about Ross or Rowand, after which you start getting into a lot of speedy guys who just can't hit.

You'd think a guy hitting 0.190 would be able to hold down last place in center field, but Chris Young didn't count on Willy Taveras and Dusty Baker's stubborn insistence on playing him ( until a recent injury ). Taveras is the worst regular in the National League this year. How many years has Dusty Baker managed the worst everyday player? It seems like a lot. I'll have to look into that someday.

Right Field

1. ARI -- Upton
2. LAD -- Ethier
3. PHI -- Werth
4. COL -- Hawpe
5. ATL -- Diaz
6. CIN -- Gomes
7. PIT -- Jones
8. HOU -- Pence
9. SDP -- Venable
10. CHC -- Bradley
11. STL -- Ludwick
12. MIL -- Hart
13. FLA -- Hermida
14. SFG -- Schierholtz
15. WSN -- Dukes
16. NYM -- Francoeur

The Snakes are the only team who win two different positions, and yet their offense is still awful! Just look at their ranking in left field (15), center field (15) and first base (16) to see why. There is no need to talk about potential with Justin Upton any more, even though he just turned 22. He's not a prospect anymore. He's arrived. He's a star. He's a superstar. And he will torture the Dodgers for years to come.

At least Ethier will torture those Snakes right back, though perhaps not quite as painfully. Ethier is a star too. He just edges out Werth, giving the Dodgers a clean sweep over the Phillies in the outfield. I think you could argue for Werth over Ethier, but at the other two spots the Dodgers win pretty easily.

Catcher

1. ATL -- McCann
2. ARI -- Montero
3. FLA -- Baker
4. STL -- Y. Molina
5. PHI -- Ruiz
6. COL -- Iannetta
7. LAD -- Martin
8. NYM -- Santos
9. CIN -- Hanigan
10. SFG -- B. Molina
11. SDP -- Hundley
12. CHC -- Soto
13. HOU -- Quintero
14. PIT -- Doumit
15. WSN -- Bard
16. MIL -- Kendall

Remember when McCann and Martin had a little rivalry going for best young catcher in the NL? Not anymore, not this year, anyway. McCann is a clear number one and Martin has fallen back into the pack. Martin's on base percentage keeps him in the top half and keeps him from being a total offensive disaster, but his sub-Pierre slugging percentage is truly disappointing.

Rankings by Team

POS -- C -- 1B -- 2B -- 3B -- SS -- RF -- CF -- LF -- Sum

LAD -- 07 -- 11 -- 06 -- 07 -- 10 -- 02 -- 01 -- 03 -- 47
SFG -- 10 -- 12 -- 09 -- 02 -- 13 -- 14 -- 10 -- 13 -- 83
COL -- 06 -- 09 -- 13 -- 10 -- 02 -- 04 -- 12 -- 12 -- 68
ARI -- 02 -- 16 -- 05 -- 01 -- 05 -- 01 -- 15 -- 15 -- 60
SDP -- 11 -- 02 -- 12 -- 11 -- 04 -- 09 -- 14 -- 11 -- 74

STL -- 04 -- 01 -- 10 -- 12 -- 06 -- 11 -- 13 -- 02 -- 59
CHC -- 12 -- 08 -- 14 -- 05 -- 08 -- 10 -- 04 -- 16 -- 77
MIL -- 16 -- 03 -- 04 -- 08 -- 12 -- 12 -- 03 -- 01 -- 59
HOU -- 13 -- 06 -- 16 -- 15 -- 07 -- 08 -- 07 -- 06 -- 78
CIN -- 09 -- 05 -- 11 -- 09 -- 16 -- 06 -- 16 -- 09 -- 81
PIT -- 14 -- 14 -- 08 -- 14 -- 14 -- 07 -- 02 -- 14 -- 87

PHI -- 05 -- 07 -- 01 -- 16 -- 11 -- 03 -- 05 -- 05 -- 53
ATL -- 01 -- 10 -- 02 -- 06 -- 03 -- 05 -- 08 -- 10 -- 45
FLA -- 03 -- 13 -- 03 -- 13 -- 01 -- 13 -- 09 -- 07 -- 62
NYM -- 08 -- 15 -- 07 -- 04 -- 15 -- 16 -- 06 -- 08 -- 79
WSN -- 15 -- 04 -- 15 -- 03 -- 09 -- 15 -- 11 -- 04 -- 76

Pitching

Tomorrow I'll have starting pitcher rankings, which is fun because first the starters on each team have to be ranked against each other to put them in their proper rotation slots. Chad Billingsley and Cole Hamels both ended up in the three slot!

Reliever Revulsion

2009-09-01T08:39:00.000-07:00

Why couldn't Sherrill have given up his first run when the Dodgers had a multiple-run lead or something? At least he didn't give it up in a tie game. The first truth is Sherrill wasn't really pitching well enough not to be giving up no runs, so this was coming. Though I guess it was coming no matter how well he was pitching, since everyone gives up runs occasionally, even the best.

Is my revulsion for the relievers? Or is it for the expectation that they must always be perfect, and that if they are not they will take the blame? The second truth is the Dodger offense was the primary culprit for that loss last night. They were the prime movers, or the prime non-movers, actually. It was Archimedes who said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I will move the world". And it is I who says, "Give me a Dodger team who stops hitting for long enough, and a sofa on which to place my butt, and I will fall asleep on the sofa while they lose in extra innings".

I did not actually fall asleep. That wouldn't have happened even if there hadn't been all the exciting trade news. Thome! Garland! You could have knocked me over with a Mark Hendrickson fastball after Vinny announced the Thome trade over the air. Whether the trades end up working out or not at least I always enjoy the initial rush of getting a name player. I do --- perhaps I should be ashamed of that. I'm a sucker for name players, for the thrill of imagining what great things that player will do. Wow, Thome, he'll play first base and hit 20 home runs! He's still just 30, right? Maybe they could put him in the outfield if Manny needs a day off! And so on. The third truth is Thome will be a near non-factor for the Dodgers if all he does is pinch hit. Unless they get to the World Series and he gets his chance to hit without fielding. The Dodgers didn't really give up anything to get Thome, and it does improve the bench, so I do approve of the trade, but the final effect of the trade is likely to be closer to zero than some would imagine.

I'm excited to get Garland because years ago the Dodgers were rumored to be interested in trading for him and I kind of wanted him then and I figure better late than never. I'm not excited about the prospect the Dodgers probably had to give up to get him, whoever it is. I don't care about the salary relief the Dodgers get along with Garland. I'm sure management loves that, but it's not my money so I'd rather the Dodgers kept the better prospect, paid for Garland's salary themselves, and gave up a lesser prospect. The fourth truth is that money is the most important consideration for team owners. Most of them, anyway. I can't really blame them for that, I guess.

Game 132 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

McDonald -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Blake -- 1

It's the fault of the Dodger offense that the game was lost, but even so McDonald can't avoid an unfair loss share after giving up two runs and nearly a bushel more in the tenth inning. A dishonorary unfair loss share goes to every Dodger hitter who meekly went out in the bottom of the tenth inning, preventing even the false hope of Ethier coming up as the tying run.

Game 132 Unfair Win Shares ( Snakes )

Vasquez -- 1
Upton -- 1
Ojeda -- 1

If not for Justin Upton, Andre Ethier would be the best right fielder in the National League this year. I have a great big post coming up later today in which I rank all the National League starting players by position. It's gonna be fun on the bun!

Reliever Revelation

2009-08-31T09:06:00.000-07:00

The Dodger bullpen pitched 11.2 scoreless innings on Saturday and Sunday to help the Dodgers sweep the weekend and come out of Cincinatti with a 2-1 Series win. Every member of the Dodger 'pen participated in one of the two wins. They totaled 14 strikeouts, just 3 walks, and 11 hits allowed.

Jeff Weaver allowed 6 of those hits on Saturday. Weaver was the shakiest of the Dodger relievers, but he also had the hardest job of any of them, being asked to pitch multiple innings and preserve a tie after Charlie Haeger couldn't escape the third inning on Saturday. Weaver loaded up the bases once and escaped, then loaded them up a second time and watched as Troncoso recorded the last out for him.

On Sunday Troncoso, Kuo and McDonald each pitched a scoreless, two-strikeout inning when a run would have defeated the Dodgers. After the Dodgers scored in the top of the twelfth Broxton came in and gave up two baserunners, but then closed out the victory with two strikeouts.

It's impossible to pick out a single bullpen hero for the Dodgers. Broxton is the best they have but by himself he couldn't have done anything Saturday and Sunday. None of the bullpen members could even earn an unfair win share this weekend. But they were still essential to each Dodger win.

Game 130 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Furcal -- 1
Pierre -- 1
Kemp -- 1

The game was really close in the middle innings, and Jeff Weaver did some fine work in keeping the Dodgers from ever trailing, but he did give up 6 hits and require his own bases loaded bail-out. The offense turned the game into a rout and they get the spoils of victory. Between them Furcal, Pierre and Kemp drove in 7 runs and scored 5.

Game 130 Unfair Loss Shares ( Reds )

Maloney -- 1
Fisher -- 2

Game 131 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Kershaw -- 2

Kershaw set the two-strikeout per inning example that the bullpen pitchers would follow so successfully. And if not for Kershaw's fifth inning RBI single the 'pen wouldn't have even been pitching into the tenth, elventh and twelfth innings. Kemp ended the weekend with two home runs and two unfair win shares. He's closing in on Andre Ethier for the team lead in OPS among qualifying batters.

Game 131 Unfair Loss Shares ( Reds )

Votto -- 1
Cordero -- 1
Phillips -- 1

Down Looking

2009-08-29T07:52:00.000-07:00

I figured out who Manny reminds me of at the plate these days. It all came together when he watched a perfect strike three go by to end yesterday's game against the Reds. Manny is so out of sorts, so discombobulated at the plate --- he's swinging at pitches he shouldn't, he's swinging through pitches he used to hit, he's taking very hittable strikes --- he's lost. He's loster than than lost. Who is he, who does he remind me of?

Wilson Betemit!

Remember how awful Betemit looked in early 2007? So often he looked completely flummoxed at the plate, the low point coming against the Braves when he watched two beautifually hittable down-the-middle fastballs go by in the same at bat. During that time it just seemed that Betemit was guessing or hoping on every pitch. I think this pitch is a curveball that will break out of the strike zone, I've been burned on those so often --- no, it's a fastball down the middle. I hope this pitch is a fastball I can crush --- no, it's a terrible pitch you just struck out on. I think Manny is in the same kind of mental place. Now I don't know this for sure --- I don't know what either man was thinking, so in a way I'm guessing, and maybe my guess is as far off as Manny's guesses have been, but this is sure what it looks like.

This comparison isn't all bad for Manny. Right after Betemit had his infamous strikeout against Smoltz, when it seemed like he was the worst hitter in the world who would never collect another base hit in his life, right after that --- he hit two pinch hit home runs in a row. And he proceeded to hit better for most of the rest of 2007, barring a nasty late-June slump. In any case, this comparison offers hope for Manny. He's hit bottom, and now the recovery begins. I hope.

The crazy thing is that Manny shouldn't even have been up at the plate. With two outs and the bases loaded Andre Ethier swung and missed at a pitch for strike three. As he swung and missed the pitch hit his foot and bounced away, but at the moment the pitch hits Ethier it's a dead ball, and he's out by strikeout since he did swing at it. Game over. Except everyone just treated it as a wild pitch that got away, and all the runners including Ethier were allowed to advance. Here is a quote from the official rules: APPROVED RULING: When the batter is touched by a pitched ball which does not entitle him to first base, the ball is dead and no runner may advance. Seems pretty clear to me. I'm kind of stunned that the umpires got this wrong, and that Dusty Baker didn't argue, or the catcher didn't argue, or the pitcher didn't argue --- did that ball not actually hit Ethier, despite the visual evidence? Even if somehow it didn't hit him, it sure looked like it did, so wouldn't they argue even in that case? Do they just not know the rule? Am I getting the rule wrong?

I'm as confused as Manny at the plate, I am.

Game 129 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 1
Manny -- 1
Blake -- 1

Yeah, Billingsley had a poor game. He really did, allowing 11 baserunners in 5+ innings. But the heart of the Dodger order was just awful, going 1-13 with 7 strikeouts. They had pitches to hit against Homer Bailey, especially in the sixth inning, and just didn't hit them. I'll give the Dodgers this loss after their great series against the Rockies, but the truth is they did LOSE this game. Bailey pitched a lot better than last time but this was no Marquis-like performance. They let Bailey get away with a lot.

Game 129 Unfair Win Shares ( Reds )

Bailey -- 1
Gomes -- 1
Stubbs -- 1

I'm not buying that Bailey had a great start. The Dodgers were flat and he took advantage. He had a good start. It only seemed great because of how out of sorts the Dodger big boppers were. Maybe it was a Coors Field hangover effect.

Seven-Bit Win

2009-08-27T15:33:00.000-07:00

I'd rather watch a game on TV all things considered, but it is a lot of fun to hear the final outs of a really tight game on the radio. Not being able to see what's happening deepens the suspense and tension. Each pitch seems to crackle through the radio. I felt like I could hear the heat of Broxton's fastballs on the voice of the announcers. And then when it happens, when the final strike is swung, and the announcer erupts in excitement for the finish, then comes the best sound of all --- silence. The stunned unhappy silence of the crowd, for a dream denied, followed by the a deeper silence as I turn off the radio and feel only the serenity of the win.

Game 10000000 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Broxton -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Sherrill -- 1

Furcal scored and drove in a run, then made a questionable play in the ninth that left runners at first and second and one out. Having not seen the play I don't know what Furcal could have done, but the Dodger radio announcers seemed to think he left an out somewhere. Regardless of Furcal's play, I feel the day belonged to the Dodger relievers. After Padilla's strong five ( allowing two runs ) the Dodger 'pen took control of the game, and the series, and just maybe the season.

Kuo came first, and struck out three, and I'm just sorry I can't give him an unfair share as well. Troncoso was the weak link, I suppose, but even he wasn't too bad, giving a hit but getting two outs. Then the really tough work began. Picking up for the Troncuilizer with a man on second Sherrill struck out Seth Smith, then cut through the heart of the Rockie order in the eighth before running into a spot of trouble with a single to Hawpe. Broxton finished up the eighth, then mucked around a bit in the ninth before saying "screw it" and blowing away Eric the Younger and Seth Smith ( again! ) to end the game. Four scoreless in Coors Field, with 7 strikeouts. That is a spectacular performance by the Dodger 'pen.

Game 10000000 Unfair Loss Shares ( Rockies )

Smith -- 1
Young -- 1
Stewart -- 1

I almost gave Smith two shares. He struck out twice with the tying run on second, once against Broxton, once against Sherrill. But he did triple in a run and score, so he's only given the one. Young also went out twice with the tying run on second. Bad game. But he really looks like his father, doesn't he?

Joe Torre is a Genius

2009-08-26T20:37:00.000-07:00

I really should have known. I mean, I did know, which is why even as I was ranting and cutting loose with my frustration last night I added the caveat that Joe Torre should be fired only if both Broxton and Sherrill were healthy. It turns out Sherrill had a problem with his side, or something. Of course then Torre should have used Broxton ( in fact should have used him in the ninth instead of Troncoso ) but that is a battle that has long been lost. Torre will hold back his closer in road extra inning games every time. This is known and it will not change. Best to just accept it as part of the package.

The truth is I like Joe Torre. I think he's been a pretty good manager. He seems to get the team to play well more often than not. I'd rather have him than Tracy, that's for sure. So, Joe, I take it back. I don't want you fired. I offer my apologies, and promise to drink a cup of Bigelow Green Tea tonight.*

This series is about extremes. The wins leave me high and giddy and the losses leave me low and angry. You can see it from my entries. How high do I feel right now? High as an Ethier home run, I think. Either one will do. The Dodgers made sure this time and just hit the balls out of the park instead of taking the chance the Rockies would catch them again. Ethier, Ethier, Loney. Wolf was a bum at the plate but a hero everywhere else. Is he the new Dodger ace?

I think tomorrow's game favors the Rockies, slightly. It's a big game, with the Dodger lead swinging to either 2 or 4 depending upon the result. Though, honestly, I'm not sure it's that big of a game. I think in the end both of these teams are going to make the playoffs. But it sure feels like a big game.

Game 127 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Wolf -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Loney -- 1

Game 127 Unfair Loss Shares ( Rockies )

Fogg -- 3

*--promise will not be honored

Still Two Left

2009-08-26T09:15:00.000-07:00

Remember that 14 inning win the Rockies had over the Giants on Monday? The most amazing thing about that game to me is that the Rockies went five innings without scoring a run when a single run would have won the game. Bottom of the ninth through bottom of the thirteenth --- nothing. All that pressure on the Giants for five straight innings and they never caved. Shoot, you almost have to make an effort NOT to score in Coors field. You can score runs just tripping over yourself there. The Dodgers really needed to score three runs in the top of the ninth, or at least follow up with a run in the tenth. I applaud the two they scored, I really do, but without a follow-up it was just delaying the inevitable. They had to take the lead back quickly but never did.

Game 126 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Loney -- 2
McDonald -- 1

Until Manny had his clutch single to tie the game I had Ethier as the big villain. Really! Ethier was 3-4 with a walk but his one out almost cost the Dodgers a shot at a 4-4 tie, when he struck out with a runner on third and one out in the ninth inning. But after Manny's clutch hit Ethier was let off the blame, and it's just as well, because it would have been really strange to give a guy on base four times an unfair loss share. Instead my wrath descends upon Loney, who might even deserve three unfair loss shares. Instead he gets two, one for his sloppy throw and one for his terrible hitting.

Game 126 Unfair Win Shares ( Rockies )

Herges -- 1
Tulowitzki -- 1
Hawpe -- 1

Tonight's game is Wolf v. Fogg. If the Dodgers win, the headline will be "Dodgers Wolf Down Rockies". If the Rockies win, the headline will be "Dodgers Lost in a Fogg". Though there is a good chance neither starting pitcher will have much to do with the game in the end. Kershaw outpitched Hammel last night but it didn't do the Dodgers any good. Coors Field is like that.

Fire Joe Torre

2009-08-25T21:02:00.001-07:00

I take it back if it turns out both Broxton and Sherrill were hurt in the 'pen. I like McDonald as a pitcher, sure, but you don't go to him in the tenth inning of a tie game at Coors when you have those other options. I guess Torre was saving Broxton and Sherrill for a tag-team save if the Dodgers ever got a lead.

The Dodgers have collapsed. There is no getting around it. They have collapsed from a 0.670 team to a 0.500 team. They play like a team hoping to get the breaks they need to win the game. Anyone who watched that game can make excuses for the Dodgers. Good excuses, sensible, level-headed points. Screw that. I want no part of that. Make your own damn breaks, Dodgers. Hit home runs. Strike out hitters. Don't wait for the bloops to fall in, or lament the hard hit fliners that the Rockies catch. The Dodgers got lucky in the ninth with Pierre's single, and they got clutch when Manny drove in the tying run, but they didn't do enough before and after.

Fire Joe Torre. Fire him. Right now. It's easy to say because it won't happen. It's like cursing at the empty sky. It doesn't mean anything. Fire Joe Torre. It's just release of frustration. You know how Jon Weisman of Dodger Thoughts says his blog is his outlet for dealing psychologically with the Dodgers? Well saying "Fire Joe Torre" is my outlet for dealing psychotically with the Dodgers. FireJoeTorre Fire Joe Torre FIRE JOE TORRE!!! I'm going to be like Jack Nicholson in the Shining, typing it over and over.

Who would they hire? I favor Bob Dylan. Seriously. Why not? His decisions as manager would make just as much sense as Torre's do. He would be a natural at protesting games. He could ramble in the dugout and crack guys up but since no one could understand what he was saying the bench coach would be the de facto manager. Who is that, Mattingly? Man, I don't know. Bob Shaefer. I had to look it up. Sheesh.

Fire Joe Torre, hire Bob Dylan. He could wear his real last name on the uniform. Zimmerman. That would be cool. I'm all for it. I'm going to start an internet petition, just as soon as Juan Pierre hits his next home run.

The Revenge of Hideo

2009-08-25T09:01:00.000-07:00

Can you imagine how much Giants fans must have wanted that game last night? Can you feel how much that loss must have hurt? That game was a Schadenfreude Symphony. That game Monday was a near must-win for the Giants. I'm sure it felt that way for most of their fans. The Giants entered the final game of the series three games back, after their excruciating come-from-ahead Lincecum-wasting loss on Sunday. If the Giants had won last night they would be two back, lose and they would be four back. That's such a huge difference. Two games back and you're still right there in it. Four games back, and ... and what?

Now let's be clear, even now when the Giants are seven games back of the Dodgers, and reeling, I don't count them out to rally and reel in the Dodgers. But let's be serious. The Giants' target right now isn't the Dodgers, it's the wild card spot, and that's held by the Rockies who are four games ahead. And even four games is a huge deficit with about six weeks of season left. You can overcome that kind of deficit but it's not easy, especially since realistically the Rockies are the better team. The three games the Giants have with the Rockies this weekend could help, but the Giants pretty much need to sweep at this point.

So four games back is a disaster, and the Giants were so close to avoiding that disaster. Even one run in the top of the fourteenth should have been enough, right, after the teams had combined for two runs through 13 innings? Instead the Giants scored three. They were going to win. The only problem? Someone switched Coors Field back on at the start of the fourteenth. The same run-scoring craziness that the Giants took advantage of in the top of the inning was also available for the Rockies in the bottom of the inning. How else can a bases loaded walk of terrible pitcher Adam Eaton be explained?

But for me it was payback. Sweet revenge, after all these years. I remember a game very similar that happened back in 1995. I remember watching highlights of that game with a Giants fan, neither of us knowing how the game had turned out. It was Hideo Nomo's first start ever in the major leagues. It was a big deal. But Hideo only went five innings, and the game went on far longer than that. No one could score through fourteen. But in the top of the fifteenth, the Dodgers scored three. A three run lead after a long scoring drought! Victory was certain. Sound familiar? I was sure that the Dodgers had won as they showed the highlights of those three runs scoring. I celebrated, not realizing the the highlight wasn't over. It wasn't over. I watched in mute horror as the highlights showed the Giants score four in the bottom of the fifteenth inning to win. Oh, the agony.

And now, finally, that loss is avenged. The revenge of Hideo Nomo, because I always think of that horrible 1995 loss as the Hideo Nomo game. It would have been better if the Dodgers had inflicted this parallel loss on the Giants, but I'll take it this way too. A game like this is more about the agony of losing than the thrill of winning.

Farewell to the Cubs

2009-08-24T10:46:00.000-07:00

Dodgers-Rockies in Coors is going to be very different than Dodgers-Cubs in Chavez Ravine was. This should be obvious, right? It's going to be a very different kind of baseball. The pitchers won't be in control anymore. A two run lead won't be safe for all eternity anymore. And I think that clutch hitting won't be as important anymore. If the Dodgers can put men on base I think they'll come around one way or another in Coors more often than not. So going in I feel that this series is pretty even.

Game 124 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Haeger -- 2
Blake -- 1

Both Blake and Kemp hit home runs on Saturday, but Kemp also lost a double in the sun, so Blake gets the nod. This was the game where Broxton pitched the eighth and Sherrill pitched the ninth. Three things about that. First, Broxton looked better than Sherrill in that game. Second, Torre should do this more often when the eighth inning looks like the more dangerous inning. Third, I don't think it truly matters what order they go in, since they're both good pitchers.

I haven't said anything about Haeger. What can I say? Only that if Padilla ever gets a start instead of Haeger I will be very upset.

Game 124 Unfair Loss Shares ( Cubs )

Bradley -- 1
Fukudome -- 1
Theriot -- 1

There were three major reasons I thought the Cubs would not be very good this year. Bradley, Fukudome, and Soriano. I thought Bradley would be injured a lot and the other two just not very good. Soriano of course has been terrible. Fukudome and Bradley have done okay. But not on Saturday. They went 0-8 with 5 strikeouts. And Theriot grounded out to end the game with the tying run on first base, so he gets the last unfair loss share.

Game 125 Unfair Win Shares ( Cubs )

Dempster -- 2
Fox -- 1

Game 125 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Billingsley -- 1
Hudson -- 1
Manny -- 1

Before the game, Dempster vs. Billingsley seemed like an even match. But what if you had known beforehand that both pitchers would do well through five, and that the game would turn on who mastered the sixth inning? When the matchup is looked at that way, it becomes a lot clearer that Dempster is the favorite, given Billingsley's recent struggles in the sixth inning and later. And so it turned out. Billingsley faltered in the sixth, and though he had a decent game, it wasn't what the Dodgers needed from him Sunday.

Hudson pinch-ground into a double play in the eighth inning and Manny was just putrid all game. Lately there has been too much of Manny being fanny.

Wolf Flow

2009-08-22T10:20:00.000-07:00

When Randy Wolf came up with two runners on and two outs in the second inning, I was very confident that he could drive in a run. And then I thought --- this is stupid, just because he had a great offensive game last time out doesn't mean he's going to --- At that point the thought stopped and the cheering started, because Randy hit a double off the first pitch he saw to drive in two runs.

The Dodgers are still leaving runners in scoring position, squandering chances. Only Wolf was able to deliver the big hit. But they won, so it's easier to take, and easier to look at rationally and say that it's just part of baseball.

Wolf was the undoubted pitching star of the game. Broxton was also terrific, throwing mostly unhittable strikes. It was a great rebound game for him. Sherrill was not so great. He got the job done, but I'm not sure I would say Sherrill pitched better than Broxton did last Wednesday when Broxton got the loss. Broxton walked Pujols to lead off his inning Wednesday, while Sherrill walked Soriano to lead off his inning. There's no comparison. There is simply no excuse to walk Soriano --- not only is he a much worse hitter than Pujols, but he's faster. Sherrill worked out of it with what turned out to be three fairly easy outs, but not before making a wild pitch and making a ton of pitches and generally looking like he might cough up the lead at any point.

Game 123 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Wolf -- 3

Broxton almost did enough to get one, but Wolf drove in two runs and delivered seven innings with just one hit allowed. Wolf earned the clean sweep, I think.

Game 123 Unfair Loss Shares ( Cubs )

Ramirez -- 2
Bradley -- 1

Aramis Ramirez gets one for his costly error in the second inning and one for his 0-3 performance with two strikeouts at the plate. Bradley was 0-4.

August is the Goofiest Month

2009-08-21T10:59:00.000-07:00

August Team Stats of NL West Contenders

Team | OBP | SLG | runs | wins

SFG | 0.333 | 0.420 | 75 | 10
Opp | 0.277 | 0.334 | 64 | 8
Dif | +0.056 | +0.086 | +11 | +2

COL | 0.345 | 0.487 | 103 | 12
Opp | 0.336 | 0.424 | 72 | 6
Dif | +0.009 | +0.063 | +31 | +6

LAD | 0.340 | 0.419 | 94 | 8
Opp | 0.304 | 0.355 | 71 | 11
Dif | +0.036 | +0.068 | +23 | -3

A Tale of Two Intentional Walks

2009-08-21T09:05:00.000-07:00

Game 122 Unfair Loss Shares ( Cubs )

Soriano -- 1
Baker -- 1
Guzman -- 1

Top of the third, Cubs have just tied the game at two. Runners at second and third, and only one out. Weaver is a frayed thread from coming completely unraveled. This is the moment when the Cubs could have buried the Dodgers and won the game. Torre doubles down and walks Fukudome intentionally to load the bases. Soriano comes up, the $136 million disappointment, and he --- disappoints. Disappoints Cubs fans, anyway. Hear that? Hear that sound? You don't hear anything, do you? ( If you are hearing something as you read this, pretend you don't hear anything. Stuff some cotton in your ears. ) That nothing you hear is the sound of Soriano whiffing on three straight pitches. Three Jeff Weaver pitches. ( Okay, the first strike was a foul off, and that probably made a sound, but that's just a pesky detail. ) Then Jeff Baker came up, and he struck out on four pitches. And that was it for the Cubs. There would be no grand slam, or bases clearing double, or run forcing walk. There would only be disappointment, and the lingering question that defines the entire Cubs season so far: How could something that once seemed so promising turn out so poorly?

Game 122 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Martin -- 2
Furcal -- 1

Torre is getting kind of desperate, I guess. He manages like a man who doesn't believe in his team. He manages as if disaster will follow if the Dodgers allow the other team to pull one run ahead, which must be part of the reason why he risked loading the bases with one out in the third inning. ( Of course, a bigger part of the reason is likely that Fukudome is a considerably better hitter than Soriano. ) Torre also manages as if it is vital that the Dodgers pull ahead by even one run, even if the chance at a higher scoring inning is compromised. I believe that's part of why he had Hudson sacrifice Manny and Blake over in the bottom of the sixth inning. He wanted that runner on third with one out. The Dodgers struggle to get the big hit, so put them into a situation where they don't even need a hit to score a run, even if it means giving up an out and an opportunity for another baserunner.

Pinella was just as desperate, just as willing to raise the stakes as Torre. He ordered ( or allowed to be ordered, at least ) the intentional walk of Loney, therefore loading the bases for Russell Martin with one out. Through their choices both Pinella and Torre had essentially gambled the entire inning on Russell Martin's at bat. His at bat was a double play waiting to happen. It was a walk waiting to happen. It was a strikeout waiting to happen. It was a scoring fly ball waiting to happen. In this disappointing but still sometimes productive season for Russell Martin, it was everything waiting to happen except the one thing that happened. That will score a run! --- I shouted, when he hit it, a high and deep fly ball. Well, I was wrong. It would score four.

Going Backwards

2009-08-20T09:36:00.000-07:00

I guess I got over the loss during the long two hour drive back home after the game. I got what I wanted in that game, mostly. I wanted to see Kershaw pitch again, and I did, even if his outing was brief and his innings long. I wanted to see Matt Kemp play on his bobblehead night, and I did, even if he came up short at the plate and in the field. I wanted to see the Dodgers provide excitement, and they did. I wanted to see the Dodgers win. I guess 3-4 isn't too bad. A flawed three for four, with a deep sigh.

It ended for the Dodgers as it often does, with clutch outs. This is the curse of the Dodgers, that when they lose, they do it with their hands in the door, and when that door slams shut it hurts all the more. Monday's loss, in which the hitters went meekly down 1-2-3 in the ninth inning, was an aberration. Last night they got a bizarre gift from Dennys Reyes when he plunked Ethier in his only pitch of the game, but Manny, Blake and Loney couldn't get him home.

The Dodgers were down a run because of what happened in the top of the ninth, and to really understand what happened there with Broxton I think we have to go pitch by pitch.

Pujols

Strike (looking)
Ball
Strike (foul)

So far, everything is fine. At this point I'm thinking he will continue his dominance of Pujols.

Ball
Foul
Ball
Ball

Broxton loses Pujols and walks him. You just can't walk the leadoff hitter in the ninth inning of a tie game. I understand Pujols is an elite hitter, but Broxton is an elite pitcher, right? At least if you walk Pujols you'd better shut down everyone else. But that's not what happened.

Holliday

Ball
Ball
Ball

Broxton has now thrown 6 out of 7 pitches for balls. That is poor pitching, no matter who you're facing. But the worst pitch is coming up.

Strike (looking )

Yeah, it's a strike. But Broxton completely ignored Pujols and let him get a huge jump. In my opinion this was Broxton's worst moment. Martin had no chance to get him, but threw to second anyway and made a bad throw.

In play, deep fly out to center, Pujols scores

So, after two batters, Broxton has allowed a walk, a stolen base, and a deep fly out. This is not a good outing, no matter what happens after. You can say that Broxton was unlucky that Pujols ended up on third after the steal, but then you also have to acknowledge that Broxton was lucky that his 3-1 pitch wasn't hit for a home run instead of just a deep fly out by Holliday.

Ludwick

Strike (swinging)
Strike (swinging)
Strike (swinging)

Broxton is still capable of excellence. I just wish he had found it against Pujols and Holliday.

DeRosa

Ball
Ball
In play, easy ground out

Broxton fell behind another hitter, something he does far too often lately, but this time he gets away with it. Broxton threw 18 pitches, half of them for balls. Sometimes you can get away with that, but more often than not you can't. Maybe in this particular outing you could argue that Broxton was unlucky, though I don't buy it. But I am sure that in the long run if you throw so many pitches out of the strike zone you will not be successful. I have no problem assigning Broxton a healthy dose of blame ( but not all the blame ) for this loss, even though he didn't give up a hit. There is more to it than what shows up in the box score.

I still think Broxton can recover from his poor pitching, and in any case the game was not all about him. There were the home runs in the seventh inning by Ethier and Blake, two of the most fan energizing non-game winning non-game saving home runs I've seen in Dodger Stadium. There was McDonald's excellent middle relief. There was Wainwright's dominance through six innings, and the early possibility of a shutout, or no-hitter, or perfect game. There was Kershaw's tough outing. There was Hudson's error that made Kershaw's third inning so much longer and harder than it needed to be. There was the official scorer bizarrely ruling that Hudson didn't make an error on that play. There was hope that the Dodgers would win. There were Matt Kemp bobbleheads. There was the feeling, when Kershaw first took the mound, that maybe I was about to see a really special performance. It didn't happen, but it was nice to think about.

Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Broxton -- 1
Martin -- 1
Kemp -- 1

Unfair Win Shares ( Cardinals )

Wainwright -- 1
Franklin -- 1
Molina -- 1

Dodgers have a little Captain Hadley in them

2009-08-19T08:23:00.000-07:00

Finally, the big hit was delivered, by none other than Chad Billingsley. When a pitcher leads the way on offense, the Dodgers win. I hope Kershaw takes extra batting practice today.

The seven runs the Dodgers scored makes it easy to dismiss the frustration of the first three innings, when the Dodgers stranded five runners. But I remember the concentrated dismay I felt, when it seemed that the Dodgers would let Boggs get the best of them. But the thing is the Dodgers will always have innings like that. Always. That's just part of the game when you get lots of men on base but don't hit a lot of home runs. It just gets hard to take when the stranded runners start piling up on top of the frustrating losses that have piled up on top of the blown saves that are piling up until you just want to scream STOP PILING!!!

I suppose the best news of the game was that Billingsley appears to be fully healthy again. He hit trouble in the sixth, again, but overall I think his mound work was a rousing success. Also successful was Jon Broxton, who didn't make me think he was back to his old form but also didn't stir up any trouble. And he continued his mastery of Pujols, who is now 1-10 lifetime against Broxton.

The best moment of the game came when Vinny started talking about protective cups, and which players wore them, and which didn't, and then he mentioned that Jose Oquendo the third base coach of the Cardinals said he never wore them, and then the camera showed Oquendo, and what the heck are we supposed to be looking at as the camera lingers on him? I think if the cameraman had zoomed in for a closeup of Jose Oquendo's crotch and then Vinny had said, "Well, it's hard to tell from this angle" it would have been the greatest moment in Dodger history.

Game 120 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Billingsley -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Hudson -- 1

On the telecast last night they gave Ethier player of the game honors. I would have gone with Billingsley. In fact I really want to give him two unfair win shares, but Hudson deserves one as well and of course Ethier can't be denied after his Pierre-style cycle. In the end two runs in six innings just isn't good enough to earn multiple shares for Chad, even if he did deliver the biggest hit of the night.

Game 120 Unfair Loss Shares ( Cardinals )

Boggs -- 1
Pujols -- 1
Holliday -- 1

Like Billingsley, starter Boggs may deserve two unfair shares, but again two hitters demand attention. Both Holliday and Pujols were 0-4. Pujols hit two wicked grounders to third that might have been hits if they didn't smack right into Blake ( who understandably couldn't field either cleanly ) but that's the way it goes sometimes for hitters. I give Billingsley and Broxton credit just for keeping him on the ground in those two at bats.

What do you think of when you hear the name Boggs now? Wade Boggs, the great third baseman for the Red Sox back in the 80's? Or Boggs from the Shawshank Redemption, one of the sisters who repeatedly violated Andy Dufresne during his first two years in prison? For me it's the latter. But wouldn't that be a great text message question thing for during the telecast last night? Now THAT would have been the greatest moment in Dodger history.

Catching Up, With Vengeance

2009-08-18T15:16:00.000-07:00

Game 116 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Kershaw -- 1
Loney -- 1
Martin -- 1

This game was typical of the Dodgers losing ways lately. The starter stumbles, the secondary stars on offense do nothing. Both Loney and Martin were 0-4, with outs in clutch situations, when the Dodgers had a real chance to come back in the game. Simply put the Dodgers offense couldn't deliver the big hit. Sound familiar?

Game 116 Unfair Win Shares ( Snakes )

Haren -- 3

You could say, maybe, that Haren was just too good, both on the mound and at the plate. Maybe. I mean, there he is, getting every unfair win share for that game. But the Dodgers did have their chances against him. They had the tying run come up to the plate four different times after they went down 4-0. Once Martin struck out. Once Loney grounded into a double play with Kemp on deck. That should count as two blown chances right there, shouldn't it? Or three, given the great game Kemp had. Appalling, Loney. Then in the ninth, against closer Qualls, Hudson struck out and Loretta lined out.

It's maddening. I didn't watch or hear the game and yet I almost feel like I did. It's just like all the other losses when the Dodgers have their chances but never come through.

Game 117 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Broxton -- 2
Troncoso -- 1

After the home runs, after Broxton let the Dodgers down, the Dodgers had a chance to take the lead in the top of the tenth. With one out Kemp walked and stole second. The Dodgers had two chances to deliver a hit and take the lead again. Of course they didn't take either chance. Blake struck out. Loretta grounded out. And then they lost.

Game 117 Unfair Win Shares ( Snakes )

Davis -- 1
Montero -- 1
Reynolds -- 1

I really really hate giving Reynolds an unfair win share.

Game 118 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Wolf -- 2
Ethier -- 1

An anomaly. Sadly.

Game 118 Unfair Loss Shares ( Snakes )

Petit -- 3

Petit sure is a terrible pitcher. And that's how it seems to go lately for the Dodgers. They crush bad pitching. Sure, most teams do, but they punish bad pitching better than any team around. It's against competent pitching that the Dodgers come up short. They can't get the big hit.

Game 119 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Furcal -- 1
Hudson -- 1
Ausmus -- 1

The Dodgers went 0-5 with the third run on second base. A third run they would never get. They needed it. They keep failing when it matters. Yesterday it was Furcal twice, Hudson and Ausmus once. Haeger too, but he doesn't count, so call it 0-4 with that precious extra run out there. Even 1-4 would have made all the difference. Or maybe not. Then they would have lost in extra innings.

Game 119 Unfair Win Shares ( Cardinals )

Carpenter -- 2
Ankiel -- 1

Carpenter was good, just as Haren was three days previous. The Dodgers are losing to some good pitchers. I can see that. But again they had their chances. Good teams sometimes beat the good pitchers, you know. The Dodgers aren't playing like a good team any more. They still have time to change that. It could start today. Why not? Their turnaround last year came out of nowhere, and this year's team is a lot better than last year's team, and hasn't come close to the same nadir that the 2008 team hit. I don't know. I have nothing left to say about this team that is rational.

While I Was Gone

2009-08-18T10:01:00.000-07:00

I heard one pitch of the series with the Snakes. It was Friday night and I decided to see if I could catch some of the game on the radio from the rustic cabin we were staying in. I fiddled with the knob and antenna until I could hear Vinny's voice, and I heard --- Kershaw give up a RBI single to Dan Haren. Spleesh.

I don't need this, I thought. So I turned off the radio and never turned it on again the rest of the time I was there.

I guess the biggest Dodger related story to happen while I was gone was Kuroda giving up a ground rule double off of his head. My mother told me that he was hurt badly when I talked to her on Saturday, but it was not until I was back home that I heard and saw the detail about the ball being hit so hard that it bounced off his head into the stands. I can't believe he's not hurt worse. He'll miss one start, and surely more after that? But maybe not, apparently. I would be amazed if Kuroda could come back so quickly, but the Dodgers seem to think he may do just that, since they haven't put him on the disabled list yet.

Jon Broxton gave up two home runs in that same game. I find that almost unfathomable. This is not the same pitcher we were watching at the start of the season. There is no way. The Jon Broxton I've been watching the last few years doesn't give up two home runs in one inning. Maybe he's hurt, maybe he's lost his command, I don't know. At this point I wouldn't care if the Dodgers made Sherrill the closer and Broxton the set-up man. I'm not saying that Sherrill is better; I'm saying that Broxton has declined to the point where I don't think it matters who pitches the ninth inning. I think there is a decent chance that Broxton recovers in the next month and regains the form he had at the start of the year, but that's not certain. Usually when someone criticizes Broxton I want to defend him but I just don't feel that way anymore. Now I want to join in the criticism. It takes a lot of mental energy to give him the benefit of the doubt now. It's so much easier to just assume he's lying about his toe being fine.

Wolf's incredible game was the third biggest Dodger news event while I was gone, or maybe the second, but I fear that I place Broxton's failure above Wolf's success. Yes, this is wrong. But that's the way it is these days with the Dodgers. The failures are obsessed over, with the victories few and forgotten. The team is doomed. Doomed! Well, I hope not. The truth is a winning tear could happen at any time, or not at all. There is no way to predict these things. It would help if the starting staff got healthy again.

I saw last night's game, and I wish I didn't. I feel like another vacation from the Dodgers. I'm this close to questioning the team's character and heart and will to win. I know that's a load of nonsense, but it would make me feel better.

Into the Wild

2009-08-12T16:25:00.000-07:00

My journey goes through a canyon, past a lake, through a desert, across the shoulders of mountains, then into the mountains, into the cool green under a brilliant blue sky. Away from the heat and noise, away from television and telephones and internet.

So Dodgerama pauses to meditate. The blog will return, perhaps wiser, early next week.

... and Awwww, darn it

2009-08-12T16:15:00.001-07:00

Mota. So that's how they went down. A home run given up by Mota. You know, I feel like all the things I said about him early in the year are coming true again. It's like time is going backwards! If you see any contracting water ripples, look out. You might get eaten by a newly un-extinct raptor.

So, now for the unfair shares.

Game 115 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Blake -- 1
Mota -- 1

A number of Dodgers went hitless against Lincecum, but Kemp struck out three times, including once late with a runner on, and Blake hit into a double play early. I wonder, though, if I should take Blake's away and give a second to Mota. All of my old hostility toward him is coming back!

Game 115 Unfair Win Shares ( Giants )

Lincecum -- 2
Uribe -- 1

I was thinking that Lincecum might get all three before he gave up the tying run.

Believe it or not, I have one more post to make today, which will be coming shortly.

Shock

2009-08-12T15:35:00.000-07:00

I let myself imagine it, almost as a counter to what I knew was coming. I didn't think it would really happen. I thought for sure Lincecum would get that last strike, and walk off the mound triumphant. He certainly deserved it, as those things go, given the brilliance of his entire outing.

I let the words play in my mind as Ethier stood at the plate with two strikes on him --- line drive single, and Furcal around third, and the throw is ... NOT IN TIME! Dodgers tie it! When Ethier hit a ball down toward first base, I thought that imaginary call was as close I would get to that sweet tying single, but no, it was foul. Still alive. I'm reminded of a much more important at bat, Kirk Gibson's duel against Dennis Eckersley in the 1988 World Series, when Gibson fouled off a pitch down toward first base that just went foul. In that moment when you think the ball might be fair, and an easy final out, the game is OVER, if only for a moment, in the mind. It's a weird feeling to come out of.

When Ethier actually singled and drove in Furcal I was shocked. I'm still shocked, right now, as the Dodgers turn a double play to finish off the Giant rally in the ninth inning and send the game to extras. Though I expect I'm not as shocked as Giants fans. If the Giants go on to lose, they will only have their own bad offense ( and some bad luck ) to blame. Sure, the Dodgers threw out an effective patchwork of relievers, but I have to think the Giants will look back and feel that they should have scored more than two runs in their nine innings. How could the Dodger backup squad battle the Giant ace and reigning Cy Young to a draw?

Whatever the outcome of this game, I feel that the Dodgers reasserted their alpha status in the NL West. That is a welcome feeling after the way the Braves series ended.

Team Triple Crowns

2009-08-12T11:21:00.000-07:00

It's really hard to win the batting triple crown. Everyone knows that. Hasn't been done since 1967.

It's so hard that even winning the triple crown on your own team is hard. Only three players lead their own team in home runs, RBIs and batting average this season. Here they are:

Albert Pujols, Cardinals
Miguel Cabrera, Tigers
Pablo Sandoval, Giants

That's some hall of fame company the Kung Fu Panda is in. And he's not just winning the Giant triple crown because his teammates are so inept offensively. He has a very good traditional line of -- 0.330 -- 17 -- 68. So far Sandoval hasn't hurt the Dodgers much, with just two singles in eight trips to the plate. We'll see what Weaver and the relievers can do against him today.

Kemp and Ethier split the Dodger honors in the triple crown categories, by the way, with Kemp leading in batting average and Ethier leading in RBIs and home runs. Manny is ahead of Kemp in batting average but he doesn't have enough plate appearances to qualify. If Manny hadn't missed those 50 games he probably would be winning the Dodger team triple crown.

Finally, here are some shockingly low team leaders in the triple crown categories. When you see this you can understand how these teams have had such disappointing years.

Mets, home runs --- Gary Sheffield, 10 ( Injuries are the reason for this. )

Pirates, runs batted in --- Andy LaRoche, 41 ( Brother Adam had 40 with the Pirates )

Padres, batting average --- David Eckstein, 0.264 ( Gwynn is hitting 0.290, Hairson 0.299, but neither qualifies )

Advantage Dodgers

2009-08-12T08:20:00.000-07:00

The last two games the Giants have shown the side that prompted me to call them "not a good team" some weeks ago. Their offense has done nothing and their pitchers not named Cain or Lincecum have proved vulnerable to a good hitting.

I think now I would go along with the notion that the Giants are a "slightly good" team. Giants hitters are still getting on base at a lower rate than Giants pitchers allow ( which is really incredible when you realize how good the Giant staff has been ) and the run differential is just a lukewarm +28, but --- the offense is somewhat improved with the additions of Sanchez and Garko, and having those two undoubted aces in Cain and Lincecum does count for a little extra, I think. The Giants are 30-16 when either one of those pitchers starts for them this year. Make no mistake, whether the team as a whole is good or not, the Dodgers are facing a truly elite team today when Lincecum starts.

The Dodgers have actually hit Lincecum fairly well this year in two tries. Lincecum won both games, but he gave up three runs each time, in six and seven innings. I think the Dodgers would gladly take their chances in today's game with that kind of effort against him, and hope that Weaver and Haeger could make some Hae against the Giant hitters and keep things close.

Game 114 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Wolf -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Manny -- 1

Wolf was fabulous, though he only had three strikeouts --- kind of strange. But you know, the Giants may be the kind of team where a "pitch to contact" strategy may work. I thought about giving Weaver two shares, but I couldn't deny Manny and Ethier. Ethier had the biggest hit of the game, a double to give the Dodgers a 2-1 lead, and Manny drove in 3 runs after that to put the game out of reach. The most impressive hit of the game belonged to Matt Kemp, who hit a monster home run to deep deep center field, but it came too late for him to collect a reward for it.

Game 114 Unfair Loss Shares ( Giants )

Martinez -- 2
Honest Abe ( Velez ) -- 1

I have to say I'm rather delighted that Eugenio Velez has become a regular for the Giants. I'm fascinated by how much he looks like Abraham Lincoln. Maybe I'm the only one who sees it. Let me check and see ...

No! I'm not the only one! I'm so happy. Check out this link to the McCovey Chronicles, but be warned, may not be safe for work because there is no "rule 1" there ( plenty of f-bombs ). Nickname for Eugenio Velez A nickname involving Lincoln is in the second comment down, but my favorite nickname is in the post below that, by "groug". It's so appropriate given what happened last night, when Honest Abe Velez couldn't handle Martinez's low but catchable throw to second.

I'll have a few posts later today, so be sure to check back.

Pressing the Advantage

2009-08-11T14:09:00.000-07:00

Virtual unknown Joe Martinez starts tonight for the Giants. The Dodgers counter with the usually solid Randy Wolf. The Dodgers appear to have the advantage, as much as they can have an advantage in any game in San Francisco.

I think of Joe Martinez as the Giant's version of Eric Stults. It's not an exact match, but close enough. Both made their major league debuts in their age 26 season. Both had good minor league numbers prior to the first call up, but neither could be considered anything more than a fringe prospect. Martinez's minor league numbers are a little better through the age 26 season but he hasn't logged the kind of innings in the PCL that Stults did. I guess what I'm saying is that more likely than not the Dodgers should be able to hit Martinez. He might produce a complete game shutout out of nowhere but more likely he won't go more than five innings.

It's hard to say because Martinez really has no major league track record yet. Tonight will be only Martinez's second big league start and fourth major league game, even though he made the Giants out of spring training. Martinez picked up the win opening day in relief of an ineffective Tim Lincecum, then two days later his skull was fractured by a Mike Cameron line drive. After several months of recovery and about a month in AAA, Martinez made it back up to the Giants six days ago, this time as a starter, and he got the win in his first ever major league start, with three runs allowed in --- five innings --- against Houston.

Martinez is the kind of pitcher I'd root for if he wasn't a Giant. But he is a Giant, and he should be vulnerable, and getting a win tonight is even more vital because the Dodgers face a game tomorrow that pits ace Tim Lincecum against the great unknown --- maybe Weaver, maybe McDonald, maybe Elbert? --- anyone but Billingsley, anyway, who can't go with a strained hammy. I guess it's not a disaster if the Dodgers lose the final two games of the series, but it's an opportunity wasted. Time to show the Giants who is still boss of the NL West.

Destination Home

2009-08-11T08:11:00.000-07:00

Imagine a long day's journey toward a waiting home. A comfortable, comforting house, with the warm glow of a fire beckoning through a lower window, and a strong wooden door that will swing open in welcome when you arrive, and then once inside, the smell of roast chicken and potatoes, a welcome repast for a weary traveler. There's only one thing. You still have to reach it. The journey will be difficult.

The Sky Unravels

If the sky tells the future, then the signs and patterns in the sky were ominous for Dodger fans through the first three innings of last night's game. Sanchez started out with flair and dominance, striking out four in a row at one point and generally looking as if he would go ahead and shut down the Dodgers and lift up the cries of "Beat LA" from his rowdy partisans. Only his bouts of wildness provided any hope, and it was easy enough to lose sight of that. Sanchez started out five Dodger hitters with 2-0 counts through the first three innings, but only two reached and none scored.

If there was a road home, I could not see it. If there was a star to show the way ahead, it was lost in cloud and shadow. I felt about the game in the first three innings the way I did about the game when Stults faced Vasquez this past Sunday. Stults was not terrible but he could not match Vasquez. Even when the score was only 1-0 in that game the losing result felt inevitable, and it turned out to be. And here we were again, a day later, another 1-0 score, another Dodger starter who just seemed outclassed by his rival. Could Kuroda hang on? Would the Dodgers offense ever arrive, take advantage of the small opening provided by Sanchez's wildness?

The Sunlit Path

Lost and cold. Cold in spirit and mind, because the way seems hopelessly lost. But then the unraveling of the sky reverses. The light of the heavens is stitched together again, and the thought and hope comes that the way home will soon be found. And then, ahead, a path of light! Straight and true, a sunlit path, a smooth road, gently rising, with cliffs to the left and a river valley to the right. Straight and true, this is the road home.

Kemp's double was the road home, straight and true. It was the sunlit path, cutting through the noise and chaos of beat LA and ending up safely home after Loretta's single. The hope that Sanchez's wildness would betray him was true. The bases were loaded --- but the hit, they still needed that hit --- and they got it, straight and true down the line.

The innings after, four, five and six, were smooth and safe, with Kuroda never wavering and the Dodgers holding strong with a 4-1 lead. Home seemed so close, even as it was miles away. It was visible, a warm point of light in the distance.

The Rocky Descent

When Kuroda came out, with eight outs still to go, I thought that even if we could not always expect perfection from the Dodger bullpen, we should be able to expect a three run lead to be preserved with less than three innings to go. But with a bullpen you never know. There is no longer a sure road. All it takes is one bad step, a stumble, and then home may never come.

When Kuo came in I was thinking about that home run he gave up Saturday. But Lewis was left shaking his head after he whiffed on a rise-ball. Then Belisario got his guy, and got Hudson bowled over by the ball, too, but anyway, just six outs to go. So close! But the closer home, the rockier the path.

Sherrill came in and pitched a decent eighth --- though brilliant in the run column. I think, right now, Sherrill may well be a slightly better pitcher than Broxton, but only because I still don't think that Broxton is quite right. There is no question that at his best Broxton is the better pitcher. I wonder if it would be best for Broxton to be shut down for two weeks, to make sure that toe and everything else that might be wrong is fully healed.

But Broxton pitched, and the job got done, mostly by the fielders, not the pitcher, but that counts too. Home. Finally, we were there. The door swung open, revealing the comforting, warm glow of victory over the Giants. There's nothing else like it.

Tonight we get to do it all again.

Game 113 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kuroda -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Castro -- 1

The share I award to Juan Castro for his game ending dive and throw out from his knees is probably among the worst unfair win shares I have ever given, or among the best. I just think Broxton was so shaky, giving up all those hard hit balls up the middle, not to mention the home run, that it would have been really really dangerous to let the inning continue. And Castro didn't let it continue.

Game 113 Unfair Loss Shares ( Giants )

Sanchez -- 2 ( F -- 1, J -- 1 )
Lewis -- 1

That's one unfair loss share each for Freddie Sanchez and Jonathan Sanchez. Fred Lewis was probably the noisiest, can-eatingest Giant goat, mostly for his goofy fake-and-go caught stealing in the second just ahead of Ishikawa's home run. I love the description of the play in espn's play-by-play of the game: F Lewis out at second on runner's fielder's choice. What the hell is runner's fielder's choice?

Perspective

2009-08-10T14:19:00.000-07:00

How about some perspective?

So, just think about how bad you'll feel after the Giants sweep the Dodgers this week. When that happens you'll realize that being up by 5.5 games was like a paradise.
Too grim? Too defeatist? Probably is.

Well, just be happy you're not a Red Stocking fan this weekend. This isn't the worst boat to be in, even if it does seem like it's taking on water at an alarming rate.

I didn't write anything this weekend or this morning because I just didn't have much worth saying.

This series right now against the Giants matters. If the Dodgers win the series 2-1 I think that completely erases the bad of this weekend. If the Dodgers lose the series 1-2 I think there's still no reason to panic. If the Dodgers get swept, then we start looking for this year's late season turnaround, the eight game winning streak to follow the eight game ( or six game or whatever ) losing streak. I don't think the Dodgers will get swept. It could happen, but look, the Giants are still challenged offensively, even after their trades. Their pitching is amazing, better than the Dodgers, really, but their offense isn't close to being what the Dodger offense is. The question we have to ask is, has the Dodger offense fallen apart? I don't think it has. The last few weeks is not the next few weeks. There are no injury concerns on the offense. These are the same guys who were terrific before the All-Star break. They'll come around.

Game Nelson Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Mota -- 1
Loney -- 1
Manny -- 1

Two days later, I've mostly put aside the Dodger loss, and can just appreciate the brilliance of Kershaw's start. More often than not when Kershaw pitches like that the Dodgers will win.

Game Nelson Unfair Win Shares ( Braves )

Kawakami -- 1
Johnson -- 1
Medlen -- 1

Kawakami threw some really great pitches to the Dodger, but they could have hit him, at least a little bit. His scoreless 7 innings were not like Kershaw's scoreless seven. I think the loss would have been easier to take if that wasn't true, if Kershaw had been matched pitch for pitch, instead of being the better pitcher but still seeing his team lose.

Game Nelson + 1 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Stults -- 1
Troncoso -- 1
Kemp -- 1

In Cricket they have a superstition about the run total of 111, because supposedly British naval hero Lord Horatio Nelson had one leg, one arm, and one eye after being wounded several times. What Nelson has to do with cricket I don't know, ( except that both are English in origin ) but according to superstition a batsman is more likely to be dismissed on a run total of 111, which they call "Nelson". ( A total of 222 is called "double Nelson". ) The Dodgers, of course, were dismissed in their 111th game.

Game Nelson + 1 Unfair Win Shares ( Braves )

Diaz -- 1
Vasquez -- 2

edit: It turns out I screwed up the game numbers. The last game of the Braves Series was game 112. Oh well.

Low Five

2009-08-08T08:11:00.000-07:00

That was predictable for a title, right?

There were a lot of predictable things in that game last night, that awful 12-inning 9-5 loss. Bad things happened that after the fact prompt the weary and crestfallen fan to mutter --- of course. Billingsley gets hurt. Of course! He got hurt in his last start. Broxton gives up a run to blow the save. Of course! He's been shaky, by his standards, anyway, lately. Kuo gives up a two-run home run. Of course! He just pitched yesterday. Abreu grounds out with the bases loaded and two outs. Of course! He was just called up from the minor leagues. And worst of all --- the Dodger offense clunks to a halt after Manny is removed from the game. Ethier gets walked intentionally because there is no one to fear behind him. Of course.

Torre really managed that game right into a cocked hat. Why would he go to Kuo a second day in a row? Does he figure that maybe he can hurt Kuo's arm again and solve his bullpen logjam? And then why take out Manny? Did he really think Broxton was such a sure thing? Did he really think Pierre in left field would be THE difference in the game? Which is more likely, that Brox gives up a run and the Dodgers need Manny's bat, or that a ball is hit to left field that Pierre can catch and Manny can't, AND that this non-catch by Manny would have led to a run? Heck, Pierre's comparatively weaker arm could have cost the Dodgers the game, if we're going with unlikely scenarios. It was cruel haiku justice that Torre was punished for his stupid, stupid decision to lift Manny.

Even while slumping
Filthy helmet beats small cap
Better drink more tea

That tea Torre promotes is supposed to help with mental sharpness, right?

The most maddening moment of the game was not predictable. Loney fields a bunt, just misses the tag, then tosses the ball behind first base, letting the other runner advance to third, who scores on the subsequent double play. If Loney doesn't let that runner get to third, he doesn't score. McCann did something similar to the Braves, needlessly throwing to first and letting Kemp get to third when the throw got away. It was dueling blunders there, and the one by Loney ended up hurting more because the Dodgers lost.

Game 110 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Loney -- 1
Broxton -- 1
Elbert -- 1

Game 110 Pointy Haired Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Torre -- 3

Game 110 Unfair Win Shares ( Braves )

Gonzalez -- 1
Escobar -- 1
Johnson -- 1

Relief pitcher Mike Gonzalez has a freaky delivery. I never want to see it again. Also, because he shut out the Dodgers for two innings.

Ryan Church hit that big three run home run in the twelfth but the Braves already had a lead. And I'm pretty sure he missed third base on his home run trot anyway.

High Five

2009-08-07T09:48:00.000-07:00

I got the five runs I wanted, in the end. Those are five of the most frustrating and delirious runs I've ever seen the Dodgers score. I mean, they could have had five way before they did, but in the end, would I really want it any other way?

Game 109 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 3

After the seventh inning, I considered giving Ethier an unfair loss share if the Dodgers went on to lose. Manny made the last out in that inning to strand two runners, but Ethier's failure in that inning was just as damaging. In the end I decided against giving Ethier an unfair loss share for his meek flyout in the seventh, pending further developments. The triple and run scored had to count for something, even if the triple was kind of lucky. Now if Ethier had hit into a double play in the seventh inning, he would have put himself in peril.

It's strange, but though I worried about the double play in the seventh inning when Ethier came up, I didn't even think about it in the ninth inning. It just seemed like destiny that he would hit his home run. More than any other of Ethier's walk off hits this year, I expected the one last night. It was just such a perfect, fitting ending, to leave Manny happily stranded in the on-deck circle, not even needed, as Ethier circled the bases. It was the perfect moment to pass the torch of best Dodger hitter, and it happened. Now maybe Manny is still the best, but I think it's clear now that it's not by much. You can't say it's Manny and the rest of the Dodgers anymore. No sir.

Game 109 Unfair Loss Shares ( Braves )

Soriano -- 3

I look at the Braves, and think, wow, this is a good team. They have good hitters up and down the lineup, and a solid starting staff. But they're only one game above 0.500. How can that be?

Maybe it's the bullpen, which blew the game last night. But that's not it, not really. In spite of last night's meltdown Soriano has been pretty good this year. And the Braves 'pen has a whole has been about league average.

I think the explanation is that the offense used to have plenty of holes in it, most of which they've now patched up with all of their recent acquisitions. Maybe if they had started the year with this team they would have a shot at the division, but now, they are fairly well hopelessly buried, too far back of the Phillies, too far back of the wild card, unless they really go on a tear.

Is it right to give Soriano all three unfair loss shares? Probably not. Both Prado and McCann were 0-5, and maybe if either of those hitters had done something the Braves would have entered the ninth with a much more secure lead. But the feeling of that game to me is that the Braves had held off the Dodgers through eight innings, and they had the win, they really had it. Think of all the hard work and all the escapes the Braves had through eight innings, and then it was gone just like that on one pitch. Soriano lost it all by himself on one pitch. Or maybe Ethier took it away from Soriano all by himself, but in the end it amounts to the same thing.

Thirst Quencher

2009-08-06T22:28:00.000-07:00

I think I speak for more than a few Dodger fans when I say that even more than the possibility of Manny coming up in the ninth inning I was looking forward to Ethier coming up. Manny was the secondary hope of that inning, and not just because of his undeniable slump, but because Ethier has been so good. Could it be that Ethier is, right now, a better hitter than Manny? I don't know what the stats say, what reason says, but the game-winning home run says yes. Tonight belongs to the home run, so Ethier moves to the top.

In the ninth inning Braves closer Soriano kept stumbling backwards and never could find his balance. First he fell behind to Pierre, then ran the count full, then hit a patch of bad luck when Pierre hit a dying roller up the third base line. Then Furcal hit a bounding ball just out of reach of the first baseman. Another bit of iffy luck. And then Soriano missed on his first two pitches to Ethier. That was all it took. Just like that Soriano and the Braves were doomed, and the Dodgers had won. It can happen so fast, so easily. A little bit of bad luck, a few pitches that miss their location, and then a catch-up in the count pitch that streaks low over the heart of the plate ...

... right into the waiting arms of Ethier's teammates as they mob him after the knock-off home run.

Stay Thirsty, My Dodgers

2009-08-06T10:44:00.000-07:00

Schmidt's confrontation against pitcher Braden Looper with two runners on and two outs in the second inning was typical of his first three innings of work. Schmidt got the first two strikes, then nibbled to 3-2, then realizing the horrible folly of perhaps walking the pitcher, he grooved a fat pitch down the middle that Looper ripped to left field, where Pierre barely made a semi-leaping catch. Schmidt looked completely overmatched ( against a pitcher! ) but still more or less got the job done, and that's how it was through three innings. Then in the fourth it all came apart. It was just a matter of time until the Brewers broke through.

Schmidt will get at least one more start, and he may get several more after that, but it's just a matter of time before he is bumped from the rotation as well. To me Stults seems like the obvious candidate, and McDonald and Elbert wouldn't be bad choices either. I'd even give Weaver another shot.

I'm worried about the offense. One 17 run game doesn't impress me. Well, actually, it does impress me a lot. What I mean is that I don't take it as a sign that there is nothing wrong with the offense. It just seems a little too easy for opposing pitchers to have good games against the Dodgers lately. But I want to give this thing another week before hitting a panic button. If the Dodgers can score 5 runs in 3 out of 4 games this weekend against Atlanta then I'll be happy.

Game 108 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Schmidt -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Ethier -- 1

Game 108 Unfair Win Shares ( Brewers )

Braun -- 1
Looper -- 1
Lopez -- 1

The Manny Slump

2009-08-05T08:37:00.000-07:00

Right before last night's game started, my wife asked me if I thought the Dodgers would win.

Usually I would answer such a question with a yes, but not this time. I just didn't have a good feeling about the game. So I said no. I said I thought the Dodgers would lose.

Maybe I should say that more often.

One of the reasons I felt pessimistic about last night's game was the slump Manny is in. Was in? Manny had a great game last night, and finally picked up some runs batted in, but one game doesn't necessarily convince me a slump is over. The rule of slumps is not to overreact to them. Don't give up on a player because he's in a slump, or panic, or conclude the worst. Don't take a sample size of two weeks as if it means a whole lot. Well, the same caution applies to a one game sample, such as the game Manny had last night.

I think the perfect time to talk about a player's slump is after he's had a good game, because then you won't get too negative on that player.

In 54 plate appearances since he was hit on the hand ( and including the souvenir slam game ) Manny has 10 hits, 5 walks, and 13 strikeouts. It's the strikeouts and walks that jump out at me. It seems as if Manny has been taking a lot of strikes lately, and swinging through a lot of pitches he normally would hit well. It's almost like he's been trying to force his way into good hitter's counts.

There are a lot of theories about Manny's slump. His hand is bothering him, or he's gone off the juice and is feeling the effects, or it's that time of the month for him ( I kid, I kid! ) but the truth about most slumps is that they accept no theory. They just are, and then they go away, and all is well again.

This Manny slump just feels more dire than most slumps because we've never seen Manny slump as a Dodger before this, and because there are a couple of obvious theories for the slump out there that nag at the mind even if they are rejected, and because he's just looked so bad during the slump. Sometimes I thought I was watching a different hitter. If I still feel that way in two weeks then I'll really worry. For now, I hope last night marked the return of the old Manny.

Whenever the Dodgers have a really high scoring game I like to list all the players who had plate appearances in the game along with their totals of runs scored plus runs driven in. Here they are:

Kemp -- 8
Ethier -- 5
Manny -- 5
Martin -- 4
Blake -- 4
Loretta -- 3
Furcal -- 2
Pierre -- 1
Loney -- 1
Mota -- 1
Kuroda -- 0
Castro -- 0

Poor Loney had a terrible game. He was 0-4 with three strikeouts, but at least he walked once and scored. Otherwise he would suffer the fate of Castro, who has to suffer the ignomy of trailing Mota and his one RBI on the list.

But mostly this list is all positives. Kemp was the standout, but Manny, Martin, Blake and Ethier also had great games. Loretta, Pierre and Mota also did well in limited action.

Game 107 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Blake -- 1
Kuroda -- 1

Back when the game was in doubt, Kuroda did just enough to keep his team ahead. It was the bare minimum, but it was enough. He stayed low on JJ Hardy with the bases loaded in the fourth inning and got a borderline check-swing strikeout, then got Kendall to ground out. He couldn't escape the fifth inning unscathed, but at least after Braun and Fielder did their damage he was able to escape again with more ground balls. If Kuroda gives up even one more run in that inning to let the Brewers tie, I'm not so sure the Dodgers go on to romp.

Kemp had a monster game, and he did enough of his damage early with the game still in doubt that he gets a share. The last goes to Blake, who jumps over Manny and Martin who had more prolific games because Blake's double in the first inning was the key hit for the early run scoring.

Game 107 Unfair Loss Shares ( Brewers )

Gallardo -- 2
Hardy -- 1

I think the whole game changes for the Brewers if Hardy can get a bases loaded hit in the fourth inning. Instead he struck out ( and was hitless otherwise ) and the Brewers failed to score in that inning, which meant their rally in the fifth came up short of giving them the lead, which meant Gallardo was left in the game a little longer than he might have if the Brewers had a lead, which meant the Brewers got blown out.

Laugher Share

~~Mota -- 1~~

Mota may have moved up in the bullpen pecking order ( though Sherrill coming over in trade may have pushed him back down a bit again ) but when the Dodgers have a double digit lead Mota is still your man. Mota clinched his laugher share with an absurd RBI single to really rub salt in the Brewer's wounds.

And then he hit Prince Fielder and turned the end of the game and the aftermath into a farce that overshadowed the Dodgers nice rout, so once again I have to take a laugher share away from Mota. At least he didn't aim at his head.

The Nature of an Ace

2009-08-04T11:23:00.000-07:00

It's hard to think of guy who can suddenly lose his control as an ace. I guess it's not just about the ERA or even the innings pitched. There is a psychological component to the the concept of the pitching ace. Aces make a fan feel secure, and walks make a fan feel like the very structure of the game is crumbling. Baseball is about the ball being put into play, about the battle between pitcher and batter, batter and fielder, so when the hitters just watch pitches go by and trot around the bases without any fight it is unsettling. It's like someone gave the other team a cheat code. That's what the coaching signs really are. Cap, cap, belt, belt, left arm, right arm, left arm, right arm, Belly Button, Adam's Apple.

I still consider Kershaw an ace because if I didn't I think that would be a huge overreaction. There is no perfect pitcher. They will all have a poor outing occasionally. But the walks more than anything else shake confidence. Maybe it was an overreaction to call Kershaw an ace in the first place. Maybe he's an ace in training.

Fortunately it doesn't matter one bit what he gets called.

Game 106 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Kershaw -- 1
Weaver -- 1
Manny -- 1

Oh Manny.

Well you came up and we hoped you weren't faking.
But they sent you away, oh Manny.
Well you missed it and flied out to Bill Hall
With the bases left loaded oh Manny.

If only Ray King had been playing right field.

Game 106 Unfair Win Shares ( Brewers )

Braun -- 2
Parra -- 1

Braun was the butter and sugar man, going 4-5 with 3 RBIs and 2 runs scored. Parra was the yeast, rising to the occasion against a tough offensive team. Hoffman almost let the cake fall in the ninth inning, but in the end the sweet treat of a win for Brewer fans was salvaged. To Dodger fans it tastes like dust. Dussssst!

Matt Kemp, Singles Hitter

2009-08-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

It's true! Singles make up 73% of Matt Kemp's hit total, while singles make up only 66% of the average major league hitter's hit total. He's like Juan Pierre out there! ( Not really. Pierre is at 79% singles this year, and it's usually higher than that. )

Kemp collected two more singles last night. Not bad. One of them drove in two runs. He had another hit of some kind, but that other hit doesn't fit into my narrative, so I'm going to ignore it.

Why exactly is Kemp a singles hitter? Kemp's speed helps him collect a few extra leg singles, but that same speed will also help him turn a few singles into doubles, so that's probably a wash. I don't have an explanation other than that he just hits it hard all over the place when he's not striking out. Hard liners, hard ground balls, hard fly balls. Kemp hits a respectable amount of home runs and doubles, and draws a respectable number of walks. It's all the extra singles that have turned him into an outstanding offensive player this year. Add in the great glovework in center and you have one of the top players in the game.

Saturday's game:

Game 104 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Martin -- 1
Wolf -- 1

Martin's poor Saturday is what I remember, but I think maybe Matt Kemp was even worse. Sunday's hero was 0-4 on Saturday, with a strikeout to end the game, a strikeout with a runner on second, a strikeout with runners on first and third and one out, and a strike --- no, strike that, a ground out fielder's choice in his first at bat, but he was picked off! I think that might have been Kemp's worst offensive game this season.

I'm still pondering the deeper nature of Martin's attempted pick off throws to first base. I lean toward the ego theory of these throws, that they are a way of showing off, a way to stating that he is one of the elite defensive catchers in the game, because one of the things elite catchers do is gun down incautious runners at first base. I can't remember the last time Martin got one of these runners. That, by itself, doesn't make it a poor play --- maybe he can take away some of the secondary lead with his throws to first, or the threat of them. Maybe. But I think they are unnecessary, an affectation, an indulgence. Whatever they are, his throw to first was costly on Saturday, but not as costly as his drop of Ethier's great throw a play later, when the tying run came in and the go-ahead run was set up at second base. Wolf was unlucky in the inning, but he still gave up the hits that led to the runs, so I'm not sparing him.

Game 104 Unfair Win Shares ( Braves )

Jones -- 1
McClouth -- 1
Soriano -- 1

Sunday's game:

Game 105 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 2
Billingsley -- 1

I think home runs to dead center are the most impressive home runs to watch. They are so pure, so symmetric. And there are no cheapies to dead center. You really have to hit it to clear a center field wall. Andre Ethier is the more prolific home run hitter, but I think Kemp has more pure power when he hits them.

I liked Billingsley start enough to give him the unfair win share, even though he had to leave after five. I try not to hold it against him that he would have given up 20 runs if allowed to pitch the sixth.

Game 105 Unfair Loss Shares ( Braves )

Jurrjens -- 1
Jones -- 1
Anderson -- 1

To echo the comments of announcers and other observers, it really is weird to see Garrett Anderson in an uniform other than Angels. And then I see his performance last night and his OBP of 0.322 on the year and I understand why the Angels let him go. On second thought, no I don't, since his career OBP is just 0.327. The Angels were apparently happy to live with that from their left fielders for years and years. I guess his defense and power made up for that. Anderson was with the Angels for so long that when he came up they were still called the California Angels.

That Movie with Jack Nicholson and Kathy Bates

2009-08-01T08:21:00.001-07:00

I'm rooting for him, even if I've mostly given up on him. After his awful start I said it was down to a 1% chance that he could really come back, and that percentage has to go up after his six inning scoreless start, though I'm not sure by how much. That's so cruel. Why can't he just be praised for the magnificent results provided by that start? What is it that makes people find faults, look for reasons to doubt?

I'd love to be wrong. I'm not upset I was wrong about Mota. ( Though I am also mindful that by the end of the year my initial assessment of him could still prove out. I hope not. ) I never thought the Dodgers would get what they got from Pierre while Manny was out. I never thought Schmidt could give the Dodgers six scoreless innings on the road, especially after what we saw in his first two starts. And he did it. That's great.

Let's be fair to everyone. Fair to Schmidt, and not pull him down after his great start. And fair to Stults, too. That's the hard part. I'm still not convinced Schmidt is any more deserving of the fifth spot in the rotation than Stults. All those walks and fly balls Schmidt gave up don't make Schmidt's start any less praise-wrothy, but they do change what we should expect from him in the future. On some other day if you walk 5 and give up lots of fly balls there will probably be at least one three run home run. It's a dangerous way to pitch. I wish it wasn't so but it is. As fine as that start is he's going to have to improve if he's going to be effective over the long run. I don't know if I succeeded in not pulling down Schmidt here. I don't want to, but I also don't want to say things I don't believe. At the very least we saw some real improvement in his last start. It wasn't all him getting lucky. Maybe he can build on this, reduce the walks, reduce the fly balls, and sustain these kind of results. I don't give it high odds, but it could happen. The good thing is that Schmidt knows he was a little lucky in Atlanta; he knows he has to improve.

None of this matters very much to the Dodgers chances this year, unless the teams behind them ( 8 games behind ) surge and make a race of it in which every start really matters, or unless one of the front four starters goes down for the postseason we all hope the Dodgers go to. The Dodger 'pen is so stacked that it doesn't figure any fifth starter will be used as a long man in the playoffs.

I'm going to let the positive have the last word here. After my entry on Schmidt's previous start in which he was bombed, the following anonymous comment appeared in response to me basically giving up on Schmidt:

i SO wanted him to succeed. i was introduced to Los Amigos Group (AA recovery)right around the time he went down & it changed my life, nobody believed i would sober up just like nobody believes Schmidt can come back...

I would say, whatever else happens with Schmidt, he has come back. Six scoreless innings in Atlanta is not something I ever expected to see out of him this year. That's something to be proud of, no matter what else happens. I really have no idea what AA is like but I'm pretty sure you take what victories you can find and don't listen to naysayers.

Game 103 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Schmidt -- 2
Ethier -- 1

I almost have one to the new Sherrill in town, but in the end I went with the sentimental choice. And big kudos to Ethier for his home run. It's about time these guys started hitting home runs again.

Game 103 Unfair Loss Shares ( Braves )

McClouth -- 1
McCann -- 1
Hanson -- 1

Other Braves had worse offensive days than McCann, but those other guys didn't leave the bases loaded.

Broxton Angst

2009-07-31T08:08:00.000-07:00

I wonder if Broxton is still hurting. Where did that walk to Joey Thurston come from? How does that even happen? He wasn't right. I could see it. I chickened out for the next batter, and fed the cats. Really! So I missed the first out of the ninth inning last night, but I hear it was a scary out to Manny. Then Ludwick came up, with Pujols on deck. Two home run threats in a row. Three, if Holliday comes up. I really feared for that game. If Broxton can be wild off the plate, he can be wild right over the heart of the plate when he really meant for the pitch to be on the corner. He did it in the terrible extra-inning loss Wednesday night, when he cocked that game into a 15-gallon hat by leaving two off-speed pitches right over the heart of the plate that turned into singles, with a wild pitch in between. He's just not right.

Nothing I saw in that Ludwick at bat changed my mind. Broxton got to a 2-1 count, but the strike came on a swing at a pitch out of the zone, in my judgment. And then on the next pitch Ludwick hit a fliner with more line than fly in it to left field, but Manny was there, and he made an awkward catch with his glove up against his kidney. Okay, two outs. And Pujols coming up.

But Broxton owns Pujols. Pujols hacked a feeble foul on the first pitch, then hacked a feebler comebacker on the next pitch, and Broxton nearly hand-delivered the ball to Loney for the out. After that out Pujols is 1-8 lifetime against Broxton. If you just judge Broxton by his performance against Pujols and Holliday in this series, he did great. It's what he did against the rest of them that makes me think there is still something wrong with him. Maybe his toe, or maybe something else he tweaked while trying to compensate for the toe.

If there is anything slightly wrong with Broxton, just shut him down for two weeks. Wise or not the Dodgers have Sherrill now, so why not use him? Sherrill can close while Broxton comes back to fullest health. The only problem is that I'm sure Broxton will never let on if something is bothering him. And maybe there isn't. But I watch him and I don't believe it.

Game 102 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Blake -- 1
Kuroda -- 1

I really wanted to give one to Furcal for his glorious booming double to drive in two and release the Dodger offensive hounds. But Blake was 4-5 with two runs scored, and that was Furcal's only hit, so I can't do it. I hope Blake is coming out of his slump here.

Game 102 Unfair Loss Shares ( Cardinals )

McClellan -- 1
Reyes -- 1
DeRosa -- 1

Finally the Dodgers were able to really push around the Cardinal bullpen. DeRosa wins a narrow battle among some other Cardinal hitters who had poor days because he struck out twice. I thought about giving the unfair loss share instead to Joe Thurston, because his miss of first base was still reverberating hilariously a day later. I'm surprised he remembered to touch first base on his walk in the tenth!

And now, Wednesday night's game:

Game 101 Unfair Win Shares ( Cardinals )

Pinero -- 1
Hawksworth -- 1
Pujols -- 1

If I was going to make up a name for a butler, it would be Hawksworth.

Game 101 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Broxton -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Martin -- 1

It is tempting to give Broxton two unfair loss shares for yakking up the game, especially after he did the hard part of getting Pujols and Holliday out. But it was just one run, and the Dodgers could have won it in extras. One is enough. Troncoso also blew a save, but he probably shouldn't even have been in the game. Weaver lost the game, but only in his third inning of work. No, the offense was the real culprit in this game. Martin was 0-7, just an awful game, and Ethier was even worse, in a way. Ethier was 0-5 with two walks, but one of the walks was intentional, and he hit into a double play and made lots of late outs with runners on base.

Rumor of the Day

2009-07-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

Look who the Rockies have been linked to!

Yep the one and only, Mark "Timber!" Hendrickson. I really hope that happens. In a really weird way that would make up for that time the Dodgers traded for Tom Goodwin.

Why do they do it, anyway? Why do teams trade for terrible players?

When Hendrickson came to the Dodgers, I was excited because he had played in the NBA too. Even if he had been a stiff in the NBA. Only it turned out he was also a stiff in the MLB. I never got over my disappointment that he didn't have a good fastball. How could that be? How could he not have a great fastball? He's so tall! Like Randy Johnson.

Nope. Not like Randy Johnson at all.

Hey, Rockies, I hear Brett Tomko is available.

( It's true. He was released yesterday. )

Negative Thing

2009-07-30T13:19:00.000-07:00

Dodgers trade away prospects for reliever. Does it matter who the reliever is? Does it matter who the prospects are? Is it ever a good idea to trade for a reliever? Has the bullpen been a weakness?

The reliever is George Sherrill, of course. There's a new Sherrill in town. Ha ha. He's got pretty good stats for this year, I guess. Good walk and K rates, as far as I can tell. He was good in 2007, kind of bad in 2008 when his walk rate was up. He might stink for the rest of 2009. He's a reliever, you know? They're unpredictable.

Positive Things

2009-07-30T10:45:00.001-07:00

Kershaw is amazing.

It's really funny when runners miss a base.

Kershaw is an ace. Yeah, an ace.

The Dodgers have a lead of 7 games in the division.

There is only one game left in Saint Looie.

Seven games! That's a fantastic lead! No guarantees, but man, that's not the kind of lead you get depressed over.

I resolved last night not to get bummed out over the result of the game after Joey Thurston missed first base. That was just too absurd to not be taken as a sign, I felt. It's not that serious. And even if it was, what team would you rather be staking your life on than the Dodgers right now? You could make arguments for other teams, sure, but the Dodgers are right near the top of that list.

No unfair shares from the game last night. Not now. I'll probably fold it into tomrrow's entry just for completeness. Right now I just don't want to get into blame for why the game was lost. I'm ready for the next game.

The Forest

2009-07-29T09:14:00.000-07:00

You can't see the forest for the trees, they say, when the details become everything and the whole is ignored. But take this cliche further, all the way down to the roots, to where the forest and the trees are imagined as real. You can observe the forest from a distance, see it on the horizon, a jagged ribbon of dark green. That is the forest, observed whole, as if under glass. To be in the forest is something else entirely. Then you can't see the forest, not because you are focused on the trees, but because you are inside of it. The forest is happening all around you. There is no sky, no direction. Distances close in. The light is diffuse, scattered, entering at strange angles, as if from a thousand tiny suns. To be lost is one's natural state in a forest. It takes effort to remember north, to measure the miles, to trace one's steps back to the pathways of the world.

In my pursuit of the Dodgers I have entered the forest. I have lost perspective. What is Billingsley? What kind of pitcher is he, really? I can't answer this question. I cannot see far enough. I cannot even begin. I cannot stand and face north. I cannot orient myself. Five innings of brilliance, and then an inning of disaster. Even in one start he contradicts, confuses. The wind blows, swaying the branches, shifting and confusing the light ahead. Was it the rain? Was he tired? Was there a moment when a ground ball was hit that might have ended an inning with a double play, but it went up the middle instead? I do not know. Six walks. Six runs. Not even six innings. Can I remember a time when Billingsley was a great pitcher? Can I? It happened, yeah? It was happening? Maybe it still is, except for a bobble, a detour, something, some reassuring metaphor for a man lost who can be found again? But none of that seems real in the forest. This is a different world.

I have heard that cheering is not allowed in the press box. I wonder, too, if there should be no cheering in the General Manager's box. To cheer is to lose one's perspective, to immerse oneself in the game, forget the sterile rules of observation, plunge into joy or despair. Why in the name of reason should the actions of these men on the field compel emotion? If you were to evaluate Chad Billingsley, decide if he were to be traded or not, would you let passion guide your choice? Anger, or disappointment? I do not think Billingsley will be traded. Even the rumors have produced barely a whisper of his name. But I wonder if minds were mind up about what Billingsley is, based on this game. Or were they made up long ago? I don't know. I cannot, cannot even speculate on what is in Ned Colletti's mind. I just hope his perspective is clear. I hope he sees it all, the forest, and the trees. And those around him, too.

I am still lost, still imprisoned by the quiet green and dark of the forest. Where is the offense? Where are the runs driven in? Where is the hit that inspires? Where is the home run? Are they pressing? Which perspective do I call correct? Is there some deeper sickness, some flaw running up through the earth, and only now exposed after 100 games? Too many questions. If there are no answers, why do I ask? When you are lost, it is useless to ask why you are lost. To fret over the unknowns is to indulge in despair. Patience is a compass that gives direction to the lost. That's all I know.

Game 100 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Billingsley -- 2
Blake -- 1

Game 100 Unfair Win Shares ( Cardinals )

Wainwright -- 2
Ludwick -- 1

Going for 11-0 in Stopper Games

2009-07-28T13:55:00.000-07:00

When the Dodgers are coming off two consecutive losses, their record is 10-0. Following is a brief summary of every stopper win the Dodgers have had this season.

April 11

The Dodgers were 2-3. Opening day starter Hiroki Kuroda was lost to injury. The Dodgers had just lost the series opener to the Snakes, who at the time were their presumptive division rivals. No one yet knew how good the Dodgers would become. This game wasn't about not losing three in a row. It was just about getting back to 0.500. Erik Stults got the fill-in start and pitched effectively, while the Dodger offense trampled the Snake 'pen. The Dodgers won going away, 11-2.

April 23

The Dodgers were 10-5, but had just dropped their first two games in Houston. The Dodger offense had scored 10 runs in the first two games, but Kershaw and Wolf had been pushed around. But the Dodgers had early season ace Chad Billingsley going in the final game of the series, and he combined with Broxton for a shutout as the Dodgers salvaged the final game 2-0.

April 28

After losing the series finale in Colorado and the series opener in San Francisco, the Dodgers faced a 3-3 tie going in the ninth inning of game two in San Francisco. This time the heroics belonged to the Dodger outfield. Manny doubled, Ethier doubled, and Kemp tripled to give the Dodgers a 5-3 win. Billingsley started the game and kept the Dodgers close enough to win it.

May 9

Eric Stults was again a streak stopper, pitching a four hit shutout in game three of the Manny suspension. The Juans ( Pierre and Castro ) combined for 5 runs batted in as the Dodgers toppled the Giants 8-0.

May 13

After Stults' unlikely shutout, the Dodgers lost their next two games, so that through the first 5 games of the Manny suspension the Dodgers were 1-4. The Dodgers were not only attempting to prove they could win without Manny and prevent their first three game losing streak; they were attempting to simply win a game in Philadelphia, after losing four in the 2008 regular season, two in the 2008 playoffs, and the series opener. The fates seemed lined up against the Dodgers, but the Philly hex was finally broken as James Loney hit a three run home run and Wolf pitched a gem, sending the Dodgers to an easy 9-2 victory.

May 31

Yet again the Dodgers turned to a fifth starter to avoid a third straight loss. The Dodgers had lost games two and three of a home series to the Cubs, and Eric Milton was scheduled for the finale. He pitched effectively, but more important were the five runs the Dodgers piled up in the first inning. The Dodgers cruised to an 8-2 victory.

June 13

Going into the seventh inning of game two of their series in Texas, the Dodgers had scored just two runs in their previous 24 innings against the Rangers and the Padres. Tied 1-1 and facing an ongoing run shortage, Matt Kemp came up to the plate and belted a two run home run to end the drought and deliver a 3-1 victory. Wolf started and had a short but effective outing.

June 26

The Dodgers had given up 16 runs to drop the final two games of their series against the White Sox in Chicago. The Dodgers opened their home series against the Mariners needing a strong pitching performance, and they got it from Clayton Kershaw, who gave up 2 runs through 6 innings. They also got three home runs from Andre Ethier, and won easily 8-2.

June 29

The Dodgers dropped the final two against the Mariners, giving them their second 1-4 stretch this season. The Rockies came in to Dodger Stadium on fire, having won 20 of 23. The Dodgers would have no easy victory this time. Wolf had yet another stopper start, and he pitched well again, but a Spilborghs home run in the top of the fifth put the Dodgers down 2-0. What Wolf gave he took right back in the bottom of the fifth inning, as he singled in two, and those were the only runs anyone would score for 12 innings. Andre Ethier finally settled matters with a walk off home run in the bottom of the 13th inning to give the Dodgers a 4-2 win.

July 18

The Dodgers began their post-All-Star schedule with a four game home series against the Astros. The Astros won the first two of the series, but the Dodgers sent rising ace Clayton Kershaw to the mound for game three and he pitched seven shutout innings. The Dodgers won a fairly comfortable game 5-2.

July 28

The story of tonight's game has yet to be written. Billingsley will be the starter, which is probably a good thing, though his recent struggles are a concern. But if Billingsley does poorly he will be the first, since no Dodger pitcher has yet turned in a poor start when the Dodgers face a third loss in a row. The Dodgers have gone to Wolf three times, Billingsley twice, Stults twice, Kershaw twice, and Milton once and never faltered. In all 10 games the Dodgers have given up a total of 16 runs. Never more than three. More than two only once. Can they hold Pujols and the Cards in check tonight?

Double Your Disgust

2009-07-28T08:33:00.000-07:00

... with DoubleDill gum. That Dodger game last night was like a stick of DoubleDill gum, the mythic counterpart to Wrigley's Doublemint Gum of "double your pleasure" fame. Maybe you are thinking that you like dill, that it can be a nice complementary flavor. Well, yeah. But this gum is only dill, and it's double the dill. You chew and chew and more and more dill flavor is released in your mouth, and it never goes away. EVER. Trust me, it's nasty. As nasty as Manny's dreads. As nasty as a double play to suck the sweet run-scoring juice out of an inning.

The Dodgers won the on-base battle again, this time by the narrow margin of 16-15, but they still lost the game. Though if you count Holliday reaching on Blake's error, then the Cardinals tied the Dodgers in runners reaching safely. But then if you subtract Pujols being gunned down at second down by Kemp, the Dodgers were still ahead by one. But then if you factor in all those double plays ...

Aww, too complicated. I prefer just to add up hits and walks and hit batters. The bottom line is that the Dodgers are okay. They went up against the Cardinal ace and got plenty of guys on base against him. They were just doomed by untimely hitting. Unseemly hitting. If anything the bigger concern would be the pitching. Fifteen runners allowed is a bit much. But in truth without Blake's error only 12 Cardinals would have reached safely. The time to panic has not yet come.

The time to panic will be tonight, if they lose for the third straight time all season. Only losers lose three straight games. If the Dodgers lose a third straight tonight, it will prove they need Halladay. Trade Billingsley AND Kershaw for him if that's what it takes! Halladay can pitch every third day. I'm pretty sure that's true. I'm pretty sure I heard Ken Rosenthal say that. Halladay will win every start and the Dodgers will never have to lose three in a row again.

Game 99 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Blake -- 1
Manny -- 1
McDonald -- 1

Game 99 Unfair Win Shares ( Cardinals )

Derosa -- 1
Ankiel -- 1
Carpenter -- 1

Number Five Is Not Alive

2009-07-27T09:39:00.000-07:00

I don't think it matters that much who the Dodgers' fifth starter is. If they make the playoffs he's the guy who doesn't matter. He becomes a long man in the 'pen if he even makes the postseason roster at all. Kershaw, Billingsley, Wolf, Kuroda. That would be the Dodger postseason rotation. I think it would be pretty good. It could be better. I do sometimes daydream about Halladay, which is harmless fun as long as it doesn't turn into a nightmare in which Kershaw leaves. Teams have won it all with worse postseason rotations than that. As long as no one gets hurt I don't worry about the pitching too much.

I think Schmidt is done. In truth he was done two years ago. His comeback this year never had a chance. His arm is gone. The speed and command are gone. But I don't think we knew that for sure until now. Maybe we still don't know that for sure, but I think the burden of proof is with the Schmidt believers now. Are there any left? What could you possibly point to in defense of him, besides the hopeful idea that he might do better next time?

Maybe before this season there was a 5% chance that Schmidt could come back and be an effective pitcher. And that 5% was enough to justify his two starts for a team well ahead of the competition. But now it's down to 1%. And that 1% isn't high enough to justify anything. Not with the Dodgers. Too bad. I wanted him to succeed. I don't care about the contract anymore. I just wanted to see the guy do well. But now, well, I would say this to Schmidt if I was the Dodgers: you don't have to leave baseball, in fact you shouldn't give up and leave baseball, but you can't stay here. Is that mean? Hell, yeah. But far meaner is keeping Stults down when he's so much more deserving of a roster spot right now. They can hand him his huge check when they tell Schmidt to get lost. That should take some of the sting out of it. ( Did I say I don't care about the contract? Maybe I should say I try not to care, but sometimes I can't resist a little jab over it. )

The Dodgers won the on-base battle again yesterday, 18-17, if I've added in all the hit batters correctly. What a wild mess, I hear. Yeah, I didn't see it. Didn't see the almost-comeback. I would have loved to see that, just to savor having Kemp up as the tying run after they were down 8-0. It's not that I thought a comeback was impossible, it's just that time is precious and sometimes I have to decide to cut loose a game that is very nearly a lost cause. Sure, there is a 2% chance of an amazing comeback, but there is a 100% chance that the fence in back needs building.

Game 98 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Schmidt -- 2
Weaver -- 1

Schmidt was the most costly pitcher, but Weaver's poor outing was more disappointing. That four run deficit was reachable for the Dodgers, but eight was a bit much.

GAme 98 Unfair Win Shares ( Marlins )

Ramirez -- 1
Baker -- 1
Uggla -- 1

Coghlan, Cantu and Uggla all have an identical box score of 2-5 with a run and an RBI. How the heck do I break that tie for the last unfair win share? I gave it to Uggla because he hit a home run and because his name means "owl". I think that if every player's name was Sweedish then Vinny would have taught all of us how to speak Sweedish by now.

The Magic is Back

2009-07-26T08:17:00.000-07:00

Why not? I was feeling mighty cranky about the thought of losing the first pair of the series to the Marlins, with Schmidt going today in an attempt to prevent a third loss in a row. All the little things were going wrong again, last night. Though five innings it seemed that the Dodgers were supposed to lose that game. And then the magic came back.

Or maybe it's just that the Dodgers are a good team. A really good team, who puts pressure on the opposition more innings than not with a flood of base runners. A great team, at times, who limits the opposition to just a dribble of men on base. The Dodgers put 18 men on base, and limited the Marlins to 8. Given that the final score was just 4-3, it would seem that all the magic belonged to the Marlins, in fact. The Dodgers lost runners to a double play and a botched hit and run and a great throw behind the runner on a single. They wasted two opportunities when Kuroda reached safely.

The Dodger magic is that they get on base so much more than their opponents. On the season, they lead their opponents in OBP 0.352 to 0.315. Remember back in June, when I said the magic was gone? The Dodger offense slumped to a 0.302 OBP that month, against 0.298 for the opposition. Now, in July, the Dodgers are back to a large OBP advantage of 0.359 to 0.307. Walk-off wins are what we remember, but it's all the grunt work of getting on base that makes the magic possible.

Friday night's series opener:

Game 96 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Troncoso -- 1
Hudson -- 1
Blake -- 1

Both Blake and Hudson had a hit and scored, and Blake's hit was a triple, so his share seems especially harsh. After his triple, Blake grounded into a double play, struck out with the go-ahead run at second, and flied out with runners on second and third. That was harsh too. Hudson, of course, had his mysteriously urgent throw toward the general vicinity of third base that allowed an extra run to come in. Poor Troncoso just happened to be the worst offender on an off-night for the bullpen.

Game 96 Unfair Win Shares ( Marlins )

Helms -- 1
Bonifacio -- 1
Johnson -- 1

Last night's game:

Game 97 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 1
Furcal -- 1
Mota -- 1

Starting rallies is nearly as important as ending them, isn't it? You can't end what you didn't start, unless you hit a home run, I suppose. But Blake didn't hit a home run to end that game. He hit a shallow fly that fell in between three fielders. The hit was unimpressive but the effort was very impressive, after he fell behind 0-2 on two questionable calls by the umpire. I loved that at bat by Blake, the way he resisted the strikeout, worked the count back to 2-2, and then gave him and his team a chance by getting the bat on the ball. Sometimes that's all you need. And I'd like to give him an unfair win share for it, but Furcal started two rallies, including that last one with a fabulous bunt hit that was nearly a mirror image of Blake's. With Blake's looping airborne hit three players converged but none could field the ball, while with Furcal's bunt three players converged, and all could have fielded it, but there was no one to take a throw at first. Even if there had been a player there to take the throw I don't think it would have mattered. Furcal had it beat.

Game 97 Unfair Loss Shares ( Marlins )

Coghlan -- 1
Uggla -- 1
Pinto -- 1

50000 Bobbleheads and 1 Grand Slam Ball

2009-07-23T09:11:00.001-07:00

Manny's pinch hit souvenir slam is the story and the memory. It was more anticipation and adulation than action. He came out to a thunderous roar, then retreated during a pitching change, then came back out to another thunderous roar, then smashed the first pitch he saw into Mannywood, then took a curtain call, then another after the inning was over. He turned the entire stadium into Mannywood. So much cheering for one brief moment. But what a moment.

Wouldn't it have been the coolest thing ever if Pierre, coming up right after Manny, had slammed the first pitch he saw for a home run? It would have been something, to follow up that grand slam with the most surprising thing that could possibly happen, while the crowd was still going crazy.

Billingsley's start was the story before the game, even if it wasn't after. He did fine, not great, I suppose. His start last night affirms that it was right not to panic after his previous terrible start, but it doesn't conclusively say that he's back to being the great pitcher we saw at the start of the season. We'll just see what he has next time.

Game 95 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Manny -- 1
Billingsley -- 1
Ethier -- 1

It wasn't just Manny. Ethier scored the first two runs back when it was a tight contest. Billingsley kept the Dodgers in the game against a good pitcher. And then when Arroyo faltered in the sixth by loading the bases, Manny finished off the Reds.

Game 95 Unfair Loss Shares ( Reds )

Arroyo -- 1
Masset -- 1
Nix -- 1

The Giants Are Not a Good Team

2009-07-22T14:59:00.000-07:00

They're 7 games above 0.500, and have outscored their opposition by 27 runs. They're one game back in the wild card race. They even have an outside shot of catching the Dodgers in the standings, if the Dodgers collapse down the stretch. Nevertheless, the Giants are not a good team.

Their pitching is tremendous. It's probably better than the Dodger pitching is. The Dodger are ahead in ERA, but the Giants are ahead in ERA+. The only problem is that their hitting is just as bad as their pitching is good.

Look at this:

---- Giants -- Opposition
OBP -- 0.308 -- 0.315
SLG -- 0.385 -- 0.378

Even with their great pitching staff the Giants are getting beat in on-base percentage. They come out slightly ahead in slugging. The Giants hit like they have to face their own pitchers every game. They might end the season as a good team if they find some offense somewhere, in a trade or in some hot months from some regulars, but so far they're a winning team with a modestly positive run differential based mostly on doing so much better with runners in scoring position and two outs ( 0.791 v 0.653 OPS ). If I was a Giants fan I would probably think this was a sustainable result based on my team having so much heart ( especially panda heart ), but as a fan of another team I know a lucky, unsustainable result when I see one.

It's even more clear the Giants have the best pitching in the National League when you remember that the Dodger pitchers have the advantage of feasting on the Giants terrible hitting while the Giants have to face the Dodger juggernaut. Too bad for Giants fans that baseball isn't really 90% pitching. Favor the Rockies in the wild card race. The Rockies have a pretty good staff themselves, and they also have a functional offense.

And now, some unfair win shares.

Game 94 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Wolf -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Furcal -- 1

Furcal scored the first run and later piled up 4 runs batted in, while Kemp hit a two-run home run when the game was still close. Loney and Manny have good cases but they can't crack the top 3.

Game 94 Unfair Loss Shares ( Reds )

Bailey -- 3

That was really easy.

So, Can He Make It "Dodgers Triumphant"?

2009-07-21T08:26:00.000-07:00

The Reds got further and further away from hitting a home run as the top of the first inning unfolded. Progress, I guess?

Taveras came as close as you'll ever see, blasting a ball off the top edge of the wall. Then Hairston hit the base of the short fence in left --- close, but not as close. Then Votto cranked a ball off the right field wall for an unlikely single. Then, finally, Schmidt allowed a deep fly ball that didn't hit the wall on the fly, when Phillips hit a deep fly to right and Ethier lost it in the sunset sky. Then Nix hit a regular fly ball that didn't come close to being a home run. The fans went wild.

The relevant stats for Schmidt: 5 innings, 3 runs allowed, 86 mph top speed fastball ( more or less ), 2 times on the ropes with 'pen warming up back of him, 10 fly balls ( hits and outs ), 4 pop ups, 1 line drive, 2 ground balls, 2 strike outs, 3 walks, 1 hit batter.

That's not good enough. Oh sure, the runs allowed and innings pitched were just barely good enough for this one game, but the rest of it isn't. If that game is a true representation of what Schmidt is now, then the Dodgers can probably do better. Stults is healthy again, and pitching in AAA. ( Odd fact: Stults has precisely the same ERA in AAA and MLB this year, at 4.80 ) McDonald might deserve a second look as a starter. What about Elbert? He's been starting for years in the minor leagues.

But Schmidt will get another chance. That's okay, that's fair, but I don't expect much good to come out of it. Prove me wrong, Schmidt. I am rooting for you. Really, I am. ( Do I protest too much? ) But if this is his top fastball speed, he's going to have to show exquisite command if he's going to be anything more than a dogmeat fifth starter. He's going to have to laser his fastball on the outside corner every time. Throw his curveball for strikes. I don't know if he can do that. Next time the pitcher he's up against may be better. Next time some of those deep fly balls may sail for home runs. We shall see.

Game 93 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 1
Manny -- 1
Blake -- 1

The pitchers got the job done in most innings, but this one was about the offense. I think the Dodgers striking back quickly for four in the first after the Red scored three had to help Schmidt at least a little bit. Manny, Ethier and Blake each picked up a pair of runs batted in.

Game 93 Unfair Loss Shares ( Reds )

Owings -- 2
Dickerson -- 1

Dickerson misplayed Ethier's double in the bottom of the first inning, and had earlier ended the Reds' threat in the top of the first inning, when Schmidt was really on the ropes. Owings is just lucky he doesn't get tagged with all three of the unfair loss shares. He is a known run-allower, especially this month, so I wasn't too worried even after Schmidt gave up three runs. The big question was not if the Dodgers could come back, but if Schmidt and the relievers could limit the runs allowed by enough to allow the comeback and victory.

Series Half Full

2009-07-20T14:18:00.000-07:00

There is an ancient cliche that the way we describe liquid in a glass is a window into the soul. So stale is the cliche that glass-half-full has become synonymous with optimism, and glass-half empty with pessimism. The thought experiment of how to describe the contents of the half-something glass has been short-circuited, and we leap right into the conclusion.

Tonight Jason Schmidt pitches, after several decades on the disabled list. ( "Decades" should be understood in the same spirit that "ancient" was meant in the first paragraph. ) Regarding his start tonight, I think I am a glass one quarter full guy. By which I mean, I think he'll struggle, but I believe he'll do well. I cannot, alas, put it any plainer than that.

The just concluded series with the Astros was split, two games apiece. I will propose a new and very briefly stimulating psychological parlor game to replace the worn out glass-half-something game. How do prefer to take your four game splits, when they happen? Do you want to win two, then lose two, so that you have the certainty of breaking even early, and then gathering disappointment that breaking even is all you do late? Or the opposite, as the Dodgers did this past weekend, when to panicky fans such as myself it seemed after two losses that the sky was falling only to be saved by two wins late to salvage the split? What would these preferences tell you about a person? Maybe the win two, lose two person is afraid of failure, and the lose two, then win two person and addicted to dangerous living. The possibilities for dime-store psychology seem limitless. Which way would you pick to split the four game series?

Think about that, while I take care of the game 91 unfair shares from this past Saturday.

Game 91 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kershaw -- 2
Hudson -- 1

After Kershaw left the game the relief pitching was very shaky. I am sure there were things about his start that could be criticized, but that seems kind of foolish when you look at what all the Dodger relievers did in that game, and what the other Dodger starters have been doing since the break. Hudson benefits from a terrible play by Lee in left field that turned into a triple. Watching in the park I thought Lee could get to it, but at the very least he should have stopped it. Classic case of being caught in between.

Game 91 Unfair Loss Shares ( Astros )

Rodriguez -- 1
Hampton -- 2

I think very few in the park had any idea what happened when Hampton accidentally tossed the ball away in anger and Kemp came in to score. I didn't really have my eye on where the ball was at that point because, well, the play was over, right? Too busy cheering and soaking up the general good vibe in the park when suddenly Kemp just takes off for home. At first I thought he had lost his mind! So Hampton gets two well-deserved unfair loss shares and Ivan Rodriguez gets the last for striking out with the bases loaded and a very iffy and wild Broxton on the mound. It's harsh, but the game was on the line and he failed. What a relief that was when he did!

Back to the series split and how I'd like it to go if I had a choice. I think I'd like to win the middle two games. That way you get the feeling of coming back ( game 2 win ) and the feeling of being ahead ( after game 3 win ) all in the same series. The game 4 loss when the series could have been won will hurt but at least it's just an isolated defeat.

What does it mean that I would prefer that kind of four game series split? I have no idea.

Kershaw Countdown

2009-07-20T09:32:00.000-07:00

Let's have a look at some numbers from Kershaw's Saturday box score, counting down from 103 to the number that trumps them all.

103 -- pitches made

There was little question that he would throw about 100 pitches on Saturday, and that through most of them he would be effective. The question was, how far would those 100 pitches take him?

66 -- strikes thrown

They keep track of pitches thrown and strikes thrown at Dodger Stadium, which is very handy, especially when Kershaw is pitching. He was above 67% strikes for most of the game, only faltering a bit late. Early on when it looked like he might struggle to even go six innings Kershaw's big pitch totals didn't come from balls but from too many foul balls.

7 -- innings pitched

This is the number that impresses the most. I didn't think he would make it to seven for most of the night. A fifth inning double play really helped him.

5 -- strike outs

Only five. An off-game for Kershaw? God help the National League hitters if that was an off-game.

2.95 -- earned run average

Below three. Appropriate, since right now Dodger fans <3 Kershaw.

2 -- hits

And at least 4 line outs. You can certainly say that Kershaw was lucky, but not that he was lucky to do well. Why? See the next number.

1 -- walk

This is why Kershaw could have seen some of those line drives fall in and still succeed. Even if he allows 6 hits instead of 2, that's just 7 base runners spread through six or seven innings. ( He probably couldn't have gone seven if those hits had fallen in and he had to pitch to all those extra batters. ) Right now Kershaw has a margin of error to walk hitters because he's so unhittable --- but if he can stop walking hitters, then he has a margin for error in hits falling in. And if he's both unhittable and throwing strikes? What then?

0 -- runs allowed

A brief detour down to zero, before he head on back up to another way of saying "one" to finish the countdown. Kershaw had allowed zero runs in 5 of his last 7 starts.

Ace -- Kershaw's status

Ladies and gentlemen, your pitching ace of the 2009 Los Angeles Dodgers, Mr. Clayton Edward Kershaw.

Last Things First

2009-07-20T08:45:00.000-07:00

I was at Saturday's game, and there is much to say about it, much that I will say, but that game is two days past now, and maybe I have missed the window of relevance. If this was football, a game just two days past would still vibrate with importance, but here in baseball that game is nearly lost, crowded out by the game yesterday and the game yet to come today. But there was Kershaw's performance, brilliant and vexing and encouraging and lucky, but mostly brilliant, and the relevance of that has not dimmed, and there is also Broxton's finishing turn on Saturday, and the contrast to what he did yesterday. So that will come, but first, the old man and the Bison.

It was a grim day offensively for more than half of the Dodger lineup. Furcal, Hudson, Blake, and Loney all went hitless and walkless. Manny was hitless but had two walks. The Dodgers collected 8 hits, all by Ethier, Kemp and old man Ausmus. The benefit of two of Ethier's singles were erased by Loney double play grounders. Kemp scored 4 times, twice on Ausmus doubles, once under his own awesome power, and once after a series of pratfalls by relief pitcher Arias. The day belonged to Kemp, who excelled as a de facto lead off hitter, reaching first base every time he lead off an inning. The one time he did not lead off an inning he hit a home run.

I remember all the strikeouts. Curveballs down and away, chased. I remember failure with the bases loaded, time after time. I remember all those baserunning blunders, and how they did not die, but instead shambled and jerked awake into a new and unnatural life, reanimated after being struck by media lightning. Even if dismissed, even if patience and perspective was preached, it was impossible to not be aware of all of Matt Kemp's failings, of all the ways he still wasn't quite measuring up to what he might be. And yet patience was the test all along. Patience was the salvation for both us and Kemp. We should not have given up or despaired that he would ever become a star any more than he should have swung at those off-speed pitches low and away. Kemp could not have hit his home run yesterday on any previous pitch of that eighth inning at bat. That home run was Hawkins' fault --- it was a terrible pitch --- but Kemp had to wait and wait to allow him to be at fault. Four foul-offs, three balls taken. On the eighth pitch, the brightest star on the Dodgers shined again.

Game 92 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Ausmus -- 1
Mota -- 1

Game 92 Unfair Loss Shares ( Astros )

Arias -- 1
Hawkins -- 1
Tejada -- 1

The Ocean

2009-07-18T11:19:00.000-07:00

One performance means as much as any other. A true evaluation requires separation from the event and the exercise of cold-minded regularity.

One performance means as little as any other, as well. To say, right now, the Chad Billingsley is struggling is a truth, if the concept of "now" is understood in sufficiently abstract fashion. Because right now, literally right now, Billingsley is not pitching, and so he cannot be struggling. Perhaps he is struggling as he tries to open a pickle jar, or perhaps he has fallen again, as he did this offseason, and has broken a leg, and is struggling to get up, or struggling to understand how it could happen again. Leaving these alternatively comical and grim hypotheticals aside, it is clear that Billingsley is not struggling now. He has struggled. Not anymore. Now he rests. He may yet struggle again. We do not know.

If that 6 run, 1.2 inning start he made last night was instead a month ago it would be buried in my memory, only recalled if I wondered how his ERA could be so high, at 3.76. Instead, that terrible start is huge, overinflated, a half pound balloon in the room, a thing that requires explanation. Why is it here? How did it happen? Or perhaps it can just be popped. Make statements that are like needles, direct and pointed, narrowly wishful. That start didn't matter. He gobbled a bad burrito. He was thrown off by the All-Star Break. He was hurt.

But that would matter, if he was hurt. There is no evidence for that, unless worry and speculation are evidence. I read the stories on dodgers.com, looking for hints, signs. There were none. I still wonder. Maybe I should not. There are times when speculation is the devil's playground. It is so seductive to fixate on an explanation that will drive out uncertainty.

A month from now that start last night will be a month ago. That is the perspective I seek. When it can be seen alongside all the other starts, no more important, no less important. One of many. Every start counts, but no start defines. Hershiser did not pitch 59 scoreless innings in a day. Valenzuela did not write the ballad of Fernando in a day. The rise and fall of legends is spread across the warm evenings of summer. Each summer eve the breeze comes off the ocean, varying, sometimes strong and cool, other times nearly still. The players vary like the breeze. And too, each player is an ocean. Vast, accepting no explanations. Billingsley is caught in low tide. More than that we cannot know.

Game 90 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Billingsley -- 3

Unfair Win Shares ( Astros )

Oswalt -- 2
Rodriguez -- 1

Now Pitching, Rudy Chaos

2009-07-17T15:14:00.000-07:00

Broxton is out. Belisario is out. Wade is out. Elbert and Vargas are in. Mota is way in. What is the story here? Who makes the rules? Who reads the sky? Take your angle and frame it. Torre overuses bullpen; injury and disaster follow. Write it down and then cross it out. ~~Torre overuses bullpen; injury and disaster follow.~~ Do you know that? Do you think you know that? There is already too much hubris in this world. It's hard to know what's really happened. Be careful. It's hard to know what will happen. Really, be careful. To all of us: Torre, and me, and you. Have care with conclusions and relievers both.

You just never know with these guys. Every year it's different, which means every year it's the same. Chaotic sameness. Change is everywhere. There are new faces. Surprises. Injuries. Meltdowns. They come out of nowhere. Return back into nowhere. Dance into and out of nowhere like a virtual particle pair at the event horizon of the black hole. The bullpen is the black hole.

Remember Rudy Seanez? No? Barely? Kind of? Which Rudy do you remember? He was good in '94. Then terrible in '95. And then he was gone. Beyond the Dodger Blue event horizon. And then 12 years later he was back, in ought-seven, the year of the great collapse down the stretch. He was okay that year. In between, he played for six different teams, including twice for the Padres and Red Sox. He was out of major league baseball in '96 and '97. He also played with the Padres before his first Dodger stint. That's chaos. That's relief pitching.

You just never know with these guys. I'll say it a third time if I have to. Every month it's different. Look at this, look at what I said back in April and May about one of the Dodger bullpen constants of June and July:

April 23 --- Signing him was just an awful move by Colletti, in the same category as the Pierre signing because the upside just wasn't there. It was wasted money the moment the contract was signed.

April 29 --- Colletti made that mistake, and it is done. I think it's time to start looking for a replacement for Mota. Every other reliever has some promise, and shouldn't be given up on yet. But Mota is awful and what reason is there to think he'll improve?

May 27 --- And yet even there none of them save for Mota are truly hopeless.

May 28 --- At the very least I don't expect to see Mota last the year with the team.

Look at those conclusions I made. I believed it. Of course I did. I was sure. I was as sure as Broxton was sure up until he wasn't sure anymore. Things change so fast.

How bad is it now? How much do we fear the 'pen now? I take it an inning at a time. Most of these guys pitch just an inning. Most of them will pitch a scoreless inning more often than not. Really, even the bad ones, with an ERA of 5. I just hope for outs, and then get the next guy in there. Things aren't so bad now, even with all the injuries and uncertainty. It could be worse. We could have Carter and Hamulack and Baez in the 'pen.

Game 89 Unfair Loss Shares

2009-07-17T09:33:00.000-07:00

The game happens in the outside world, but the story of the game is told from the inner world. The story I hear is told by me, instinctively, from my own perception and bias. When Andre Ethier grounds into a double play and the last real chance at the game disappears, it is his failure, and my reaction is lament. I do not receive it as the triumph of the pitcher. It is framed in my mind as a moment of Ethier, a moment when he alone strove and failed.

To be a fan is to invest oneself in victory for the chosen side, but there is more. The fan restricts his vision to his own team. The other teams, the opponents, are not invested with the same reality. In my mind the Dodger players are the agents of choice, the movers, determining the destiny of each game. Often the other team is barely acknowledged.

They were too good, we sometimes say, after defeat for our chosen ones. Is this a grudging admission, a lifting of the veil to briefly reveal the truth that both teams are equal strivers, identical in will and influence, if not identical in talent and ability? It might be, or it might be a something else, the lie of the wall. Each team is a wall, to be scaled, or not. Some walls are higher than others. Some are challenging obstacles, and against some defeat is nearly inconceivable. But they are what they are, fixed, and it is only our team that strives, that moves. Sometimes, when we say that the other team was too good, we are just saying that the wall was too high. But what if the Dodgers are the wall, and the other team are the strivers?

If that was so, then what kind of wall are the Dodgers? What striving did the Astros have to do to climb over them? The Dodgers must be a tall and treacherous wall. Even in defeat the Dodgers produced 11 baserunners, to 10 for the Astros. It was not an easy victory for the Astros. Maybe, after that game, this is my consolation, to think of the Dodgers as not the strivers, but as the unmoving object, as a difficult and treacherous wall to climb. Oh yes, the Astros made it over them once, but they still loom, still daunt, for the next three days. What a challenge they present! No one has ever scaled them three days in a row.

Unfair Win Shares ( Astros )

Quintero -- 1
Arias -- 1
Rodriguez -- 1

Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Ethier -- 1
Wolf -- 1
Kemp -- 1

All-Star Rage

2009-07-15T08:35:00.000-07:00

I was as angry as I have ever been at the result of a game last night after the National League lost 4-3 to the American League.

Why?

It's hard to understand. I didn't even watch the first four innings. The All-Star game is not an event I look forward to. It seems more and more irrelevant each year. I'm ashamed that I would get so angry at the result of any game, let alone an All-Star game. And yet, when Tejada popped out to end the game, I was seething.

Why is it hard to understand? I wonder that, when I think of all the horrible, annoying things that have led up to the game, and that happened during the game. The American League's dominance. The Dodgers never getting to host a game since 1980. Charlie Manuel managing the team and stacking it with Phillies. Kemp not making the team. Fox doing a terrible, awful job of presenting the game. Interviews with players while the game is going on. The insistence on singing "God Bless America" during the seventh inning stretch. Tim McCarver. Joe Buck. Billingsley giving up a run. Mariano Rivera getting the save. Ryan Howard coming to the plate and striking out, and knowing it would happen because while he may be a productive hitter he can't hit good pitching to save his life, and the indignity of having to root for the overrated strikeout machine Phillie. Home field advantage being determined by the game.

That's the one. That's the one that has me so angry. Now look, I'm not assuming anything. Okay? I'm not assuming the Dodgers make the World Series; I'm not even assuming they make the playoffs. But if the Dodgers make the World Series, then they will have lost home field advantage through little fault of their own. See, if the Dodgers don't make the playoffs, or they don't advance past the first or second round, or if they enter the first or second round without home-field advantage, it will have been their fault. It will have been based on their play, their own failure in the field. But the World Series? It may be a relatively small thing, but if the Dodgers make the World Series they won't have home field advantage because of Ryan Howard and Heath Bell and Charlie Manuel.

What a thing. Why should Heath Bell have the power to alter the Dodgers destiny? Why? Why? For marketing. Because this time it counts.

Well, if it counted, why was Ryan Howard up there to strike out with the game on the line? If the National League was really trying their best to win, wouldn't Manny Ramirez have been named to the team? The problem with saying that "this time it counts" is that they don't construct the teams or manage the game as if it counts.

Weekender Unfair Shares

2009-07-13T08:30:00.000-07:00

Game 87 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Weaver -- 1
Martin -- 1
Hudson -- 1

The Dodgers had a routine loss on Saturday. Bullpen swingman Weaver struggled against the tough Brewer lineup, and the Dodger offense had an off day with eight hits and no walks. This is one of those losses that should be quickly forgotten not because it was so excruciating but because there was really nothing to remember about it, except perhaps for the home runs Ethier and Furcal hit. Ethier's power surge and Furcal's overall resurgence are two great signs heading into the second half.

Game 87 Unfair Win Shares ( Brewmasters )

Hardy -- 1
McClung -- 1
Fielder -- 1

The Brewer pitching only solved the Dodgers during one stretch in this series: during the second half of the middle game when their relievers shut down the Dodgers and preserved a win. McClung was the biggest 'pen hero, and Hardy kept the pressure off of Hoffman in the ninth with his two run double.

Game 88 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Manny -- 1
Hudson -- 1
Kershaw -- 1

No room for Loney and his two runs batted in, sadly, with Hudson's ambidextrous power display and Manny never making an out. Kershaw had another fine game, though he was aided by fortune a few times. Nevertheless, that was his fifth straight road win, and his fifth straight road start with at least six innings pitched.

It should be mentioned that if not for Kemp's nice catch and throw to end the sixth inning with a double play, Kershaw might not have been able to go six. All those walks don't leave him much room for error, and he may not always be so lucky. Still, he's 21, with an ERA of 3.16. Isn't complaining about walks kind of missing the point?

Game 88 Unfair Loss Shares ( Brewers )

Gallardo -- 1
Braun -- 1
Cameron -- 1

Gallardo gave up five runs in five innings, and Braun went 0-5 with a pop out to end the game as the possible tying run, so they are easy choices. But what about Cameron? He had a double that led to a run scored, and later hit a sacrifice fly. Why do I pick on him?

He gets the unfair loss share because he failed in the key moment of the game for the Brewers. Kershaw was wild in the first inning, walking the bases loaded after a double by Cory Hart. Cameron came up with two outs. The count went full. And Cameron then swung at ball four and struck out. If Cameron had taken that pitch? Kershaw would at least have given up one run, and even if he recovered and gave up no more runs in that inning he likely wouldn't have made it through six. The Dodger 'pen would have been called in earlier, and maybe the Brewers could have completed their comeback against them.

Why did Cameron whiff in that crucial moment? What happened?

I don't know what happened inside Cameron's head, but I know what I feared most at that moment. It wasn't the walk, although I dreaded that too. It was that Kershaw would throw a fastball right down the heart of the plate, and that Cameron, a known fastball hitter, would crush it, for a homerun, or at least a bases-clearing double. Maybe Cameron was thinking the same thing. My fear, his hope, and in the end, both foiled by Kershaw's weakness, a ball outside of the strike zone. For one pitch, it was a strength.

The All-World Star: Game 86 Unfair Win Shares

2009-07-11T08:35:00.001-07:00

Full of surprises, this one.

The home runs don't surprise. Not anymore. Not when that was what first got our attention, back in the summer of 2006. The home runs did surprise back then, when his sudden home run barrage of the first half of June made us all take notice and thrust him to the top of a Dodger prospect list loaded with great names like Billingsley and Broxton and Guzman. Seven home run in 14 days. Seven home runs in 11 games. The Bison had charged into the baseball universe. There were whispers of Pedro 85, a new June of power to remember, but then the pitchers figured him out, that he couldn't hit the breaking stuff, that he would go chasing low and away, and the home runs were gone, dried up, disintegrated in the wind. He went from being a regular in the outfield to being a hemi-regular to being sent back to the minors. He never did get past 7 home runs. But we knew he'd be back. The raw talent was there.

And yet I don't think I ever imagined anything quite like this back in 2006, when I imagined what kind of player Matt Kemp would be in the future. I didn't think he would become of all things a bunting savant, able now to lay a perfect bunt down the third base line that you couldn't roll any better, as he did, perhaps unwisely, but certainly spectacularly and surprisingly last night. We always thought he could become a great outfielder, or at least a good one, but that seemed far away in 2007, when his routes to fly balls frequently dismayed. He was stuck out of position in right field back then, blocked by Pierre in center. In April of that year he was injured by the infamous outfield scoreboard, and didn't make it back until June, when he had to battle Ethier and occasionally Luis Gonzalez for playing time. By the end of the year he was starting at least 2 out of 3 games, and hitting above 0.340, but no one ever would have said that he just had to be in center field to anchor the Dodger outfield defense, as we would now. He never even got to play there.

In 2008 the battle for playing time continued, but Kemp was winning more and more often, especially as the season progressed. Eventually Andruw Jones was exposed as terrible, and Pierre faded from must-play status. By the time Manny came to the Dodgers the Jones experience was over and Kemp was the regular center fielder. I don't remember marveling over his defense last year, but I also don't remember being dismayed over it. His batting average fell from what it was in 2007, but that was to be expected. He was a solid, not great hitter. He started drawing more walks. He displayed modest power. He was a solid player, not an all-star, maybe a minor star, surely a star in waiting. Little did we know. It was countdown to supernova.

We've gotten used to defensive brilliance from Kemp this year, but what he did in the tenth inning last night was something else again. That basket catch with his back to the flight of the ball was his announcement that indeed he is an All-Star. He doesn't need Charlie Manuel's validation. He knows it, and now everyone else knows it. That catch, and the subsequent leap against the wall in exhuberation were his promise to the baseball world.

He's just getting started.

Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kemp -- 1
Martin -- 1
Mota -- 1

So many candidates in this one. Troncoso and Manny and especially Loretta were tough omissions. Even Blake has a case. I'm not even sure if Kemp would have earned an unfair share, even with his grand slam, before the events of the bottom of the tenth, when his slam suddenly seemed much more important, and of course, that catch. I gave Martin one for his early home run and getting that crucial lead-off single against Hoffman. And Mota really saved the game in the sixth when he held the Brewers to just one run off of a bases loaded no outs situation. That was some clutch relief pitching.

Unfair Loss Shares ( Brewers )

Looper -- 1
Hoffman -- 1
Villanueva -- 1

Looper gave up 5 runs, Villanueva gave up 6, and Hoffman a mere 1, but Hoffman's run was the most damaging.

Lineup Explosion! -- Game 85 Unfair Win Shares

2009-07-10T08:28:00.000-07:00

1. Furcal -- Furcal scored 3 times, and was on base 4 times. The July anti-slump continues. If he can keep this up the rest of the year, we can merge Furcal's first half slump with his second half anti-slump and it will be as if Furcal never even played in 2009!

2. Ethier -- The first day of the Andre-protection program went well, as he had two hits and walk with Manny on deck. No, wait, the last hit came with Juan Pierre on deck. Did Pierre protect him?

3. Manny -- Have you ever seen the two guy? He's a lawyer by trade, a lover of twos by hobby. He's a duophile. His billboards used to be a common sight on the CA-99 between Fresno and Bakersfield. "Accidentes!" these billboards proclaimed at the top, below which was the smiling lawyer, holding up his phone number for all the world to see. 1-800-222-2222. Spectwocular. All twos. That was the two guy. If I ever get really rich, I'm going to buy that phone number for myself. Of course, I'll make sure it's unlisted so I don't get crank calls.

Anyway, yesterday Manny was the two guy. He went 2-2, with 2 walks, 2 runs scored, 2 runs batted in.

4. Blake -- Blake was 2-5, with a run scored and a run driven in, but by the standards of yesterday's offensive explosion that was a below average game.

5. Loney -- I checked, and there is nothing interesting at all to say about Loney's game yesterday. Here is where the wise-ass says that it didn't stop me for the first four Dodgers in the lineup!

6. Martin -- Martin's on base percentage is 0.374. He may be a huge disappointment this year, but one thing he's not is a black hole in the lineup.

7. Hudson -- Hudson's box score line is among the least impressive from last night's game, but he had the biggest hit of the game, even if he was very slightly aided by Evans' incompetence in the outfield.

8. Kemp -- Matty-boy is still batting eighth. Regarding this baffling and unpleasant subject there is a get-it-out-of-your-brain-and-then-never-again-complain session going on at Dodger Thoughts. Afterward all the comments will be burned and the ashes will be sprinkled into Joe Torre's Bigelow tea, as a sort of folk cure for his batting-the-BIG-kEmp-LOW affliction. ( See, it's obvious that the tea is subliminally affecting him --- Torre needs to start drinking Bisonforth tea. )

9. Wolf -- Wolf's record of 4-3 after last night's win matches his uniform number. If he wants his number to continue matching his number, he'll have to lose his next start, since 53 is unavailable. That was Don Drysdale's number which was retired in 1984. Since then it has been a thoughtcrime to even think about wearing 53. So don't think about it, Wolf!

Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Wolf -- 1
Manny -- 1
Hudson -- 1

Unfair Loss Shares ( Metropolitans )

Evans -- 1
Hernandez -- 2

The Advocate and I: Game 84 Unfair Loss Shares

2009-07-09T09:49:00.000-07:00

Life is unfair. Baseball is unfair. Everything we do is unfair. Fairness has no chance against reality. This is the lesson the advocate must learn.

The first name I call is Casey Blake.

"Please", says the advocate for Blake. "Be fair. Be reasonable. My client walked four times. No Dodger got on base more often."

"And so?" says I. "He never scored. He never drove in a run. The Dodgers were adrift, and he did not paddle. He just rode on the raft."

The advocate stammers. "I -- I don't know what that means, and it's not his fault he didn't score."

"He might have hit a home run." The unfairness of my demand silences the advocate. How can you argue against such reckless expectations? We both know the reason, anyway. We both know why Blake is doomed. It has nothing to do with walks or home runs. Neither of us will say it. Third inning, Mets batting, one out, runners on first and second. Sharp ground ball to Blake's left, and they have a name for this kind of ground ball: 5-4-3 DP. Instead, the opposite of DP happens. What's the opposite of DP? PD. Pants Dropped. Blake let the ball go by, and he couldn't have been more embarrassed if his pants had dropped around his ankles. Two more runs scored because of his pants dropping moment.

The next name I call is The Rookie Kuroda.

"Hiroki Kuroda" corrects the advocate. He's cranky now, after he read my official summary where I referred to Blake's error as a pants drop.

"It's a little joke I have, because his first name sounds like 'the rookie' if you kind of say it slightly wrong. He certainly pitched like a rookie last night."

"He would have done better if not for Blake's error. He would have done better if all those ground balls hadn't found holes."

"He would have done better if he hadn't allowed so many doubles," says I. "The error had nothing to do with him loading the bases with no outs in the fifth inning. Kuroda was bad when he was unlucky and he was bad when he wasn't unlucky."

The advocate has nothing else to say. He knows the case for Kuroda is very thin. He's still upset about Blake.

The last name I call is Andre Ethier.

"What is the point," says the advocate. "You've already made up your mind. If you wouldn't have leniency on Blake, what chance does Ethier have?"

"He had his chance," I say, my outrage gathering. It is not outrage against Ethier, but against what the advocate is saying. "You use the wrong tense. Ethier has no chance now. It is done. He had his chance then."

"He lined out with the bases loaded," protests the advocate feebly. "If not for that ..."

"You are fading, advocate, because you know how the world works, and the assumptions behind your arguments are childish lies." I have an arrogant gleam in my eye as I speak now. "If Ethier's line drive had gone past Wright's glove, then he would not be in peril. It was caught, to his misfortune, to the Dodgers' misfortune, and yet he still had his chance. He had his chance, with the tying run on second, and go-ahead run on first, with one out in the ninth inning. Matt Kemp was on deck. Matt Kemp is still on deck. Waiting for that at bat, that chance. It will never come. The result is final. My judgment is final."

Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )

Blake -- 1
Kuroda -- 1
Ethier -- 1

Unfair Win Shares ( Mets )

Parnell -- 1
Wright -- 1
Reed -- 1

Mostly About Kershaw: Game 83 Unfair Win Shares

2009-07-08T08:25:00.000-07:00

Does Matt Kemp lead the major leagues in outfield assists? Almost, but no. Kemp has 9 assists. Jay Bruce of the Reds has 10.

Kershaw has been amazing lately, but I have had two worries about him. First, that he might be a home park pitcher who struggles on the road, and second, that he doesn't go deep enough into games. Regarding the first point, Kershaw still has a pronounced home/road ERA split of 1.85 vs 4.80, but I don't think it's a big deal at this point. Kershaw had very bad starts in Houston and Colorado early in the season, followed by a poor start in Philadelphia. Since then, though, he's been great on the road, pitching gems in Miami, Anaheim and New York City, and pitching a solid game in Denver that in context could probably be called a gem as well.

In fact, if anything Kershaw's home/road performance has reversed over the last month and a half. In his last four road starts he's gone 6 innings twice and 7 innings twice, while he's reached 6 innings only once in his last 6 home starts. Weird, yeah? I don't know that it means much, though. With home/road splits I think one needs to wait at least a season, and then another season, before making firm conclusions. And then be ready to revise those conclusions after the third season.

There is another Minotaurean split that is worth more scrutiny, though. That's the difference in Kershaw's performance against right handed batters and left handed batters.

Kershaw just destroys lefty hitters. They have a batting average of 0.175 against him, with an OPS of 0.476. Righty hitters fare better, but not by a lot --- they are batting 0.214 against with a 0.668 OPS. This split, by itself, is not surprising. A southpaw should do better against left-handed hitters than against right handed hitters.

What's really interesting is his walk rate against each kind of hitter. Kershaw walks 7% of lefty batters he sees, which is good, and 16% of righty batters he sees, which is not good. Since opposing teams tend to stack their lineups with right-handed hitters against Kershaw, that 16% is the important ratio, and results in Kershaw walking an awful lot of the hitters he faces, which surprisingly doesn't often lead to runs being scored, but does lead to him using a lot of pitches and leaving games earlier than we'd like.

To me this is really fascinating, though, because I think it shows that Kershaw can have a low walk rate. It's not just intrinsic wildness. He is perfectly accurate against lefty batters. If he could just pitch to righty hitters the way he pitches to the lefties ...

Well, maybe not. It's probably not that simple. Is Kershaw's relatively low batting average allowed to right handed batters a result of his extreme care with them? If he reduced the walks given up to righty hitters would the benefit be wiped out by a lot of extra hits being given up as well? I just don't know. I suppose a big part of this is his curveball, how it breaks to the different hitters, how easily he can locate it effectively in the strike zone against right vs left.

Clayton Kershaw gets compared with Sandy Koufax a lot, for a lot of obvious reasons. Kershaw's numbers this year against left-handed hitters are still a relatively small sample, but if you do take them at face value, then he's there, right there with Koufax in his prime, at least against left handed hitters. These are the left-handed hitters good enough not to be platooned out of the lineup, remember. Kershaw is dominating them just the way Koufax did in his prime. Against right handed batters, obviously, Kershaw still has plenty of work to justify any comparison with Koufax. He might never get there, but I think he will. He's only 21, and already this good.

Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )

Kershaw -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Manny -- 1

Unfair Loss Shares ( Mets )

Pelfrey -- 2
Wright -- 1