by Joshua Worley
The past two games have forcefully reminded me how thin the Dodger margin for success is. The offense feels like it's ready to collapse into a puddle of stranded singles. The only reliable defenders the Dodgers have are their strikeout pitchers. So much is asked of the bullpen. They deliver, but I wonder how long they can. The Dodgers won by one run today in a wonderful comeback victory. They needed this unexpected win to stay in first place, and I fear they will need many more close, unexpected wins to remain in first place for the remainder of the season. If they can pull it off, that's great. How exciting that will be! But if not ... and the difference between first and second was one or two talented youngsters being denied playing time in favor of mediocre, highly-paid veterans, then the failure will as bitter as a ninth-inning loss to the Giants.
Being a baseball fan is essentially an emotional experience. This is an emotional review of the season so far.
Jon Broxton needs a good off-speed pitch. When the location of his fastball is a bit off he can be in trouble. When he misses up in the zone hitters can time it and rip it. If Broxton had a Gagne-like change-up hitters couldn't time the fastball as easily, and he could get away with not having perfect location on it. Broxton is already an elite relief pitcher with the pitches he throws now, but he could be nearly rally-proof if he increased the velocity range of his pitches. If Broxton had a good change-up, he would be like the gigantic love-child of Gagne and Saito.
What happens when Takashi Saito is no longer perfect, or is hurt for an extended period of time? What do the Dodgers do then? What will happen to their terrific record in close games? The Dodgers have so many players they rely on to win the way they do; if one falters then they will likely stumble deep into third place. Have we seen the first stumble of an essential Dodger player? Only losing Martin would hurt more than losing Saito.
Brad Penny wasn't going to give up no home runs for the entire year, but did he have to give up two in one game? Is he going to start to give them up in bunches? Does Penny even know how he was accomplishing this homer-less streak, or was it just him hoping things worked out with each pitch? Will he start striking out more batters now that he's started giving up home runs again? Will the Dodger offense start scoring more runs if Penny stops pitching like Jake Peavy, to make up the sudden performance deficit?
Jeff Kent cost the Dodgers and Kuo two runs on Saturday by failing to field a double play ball hit to his right. Jeff Kent has cost the Dodgers offense many precious outs during his week-long slump. He's cost the Dodgers a chance to run up the pitch count on starters by so often going out on the first pitch. He's going the cost the Dodgers millions of dollars when he piles up enough plate appearances to trigger his option for next year. He's also going to cost the Dodgers a roster spot and playing time that might better go to a younger player. Such a costly player, all for a few home runs. Right now the Dodgers aren't getting much for the high cost they're paying.
I felt sick when Juan Pierre was signed in the off-season. That feeling came from the knowledge that management was not careful with who they invited into the lineup. They ran heedless into a five year commitment. A pitcher may be easily booted from the rotation when he is awful, but a position player is often much harder to dislodge, especially a veteran with a long contract. Pierre stubbornly clings to a decent looking batting average as management stubbornly clings to the idea that Pierre deserves a spot in the lineup. Equally careless, equally clueless, Pierre and management share an embrace of mediocrity.
Nomar Garciaparra has lost his way. The fans who cheer the loudest for him during lineup introductions have lost their way too. They're cheering for singles and outs and nothing else. They're cheering for singles with runners on ... and lots of outs. They're cheering for first pitch outs and double plays to end the inning. They're cheering for James Loney in the minor leauges. I don't want them to boo Nomar. I ask, merely, that Nomar be greeted by polite applause. Seven perfunctory claps to match the syllables in his name, and nothing more.
If Andre Ethier can consistently hit crucial late-inning home runs for the Dodgers, I won't complain about his many faults as a hitter. I won't complain that he doesn't walk much, that he swings at crap too much. I won't complain about how his sky-high batting average from 2006 seems like such a lie now, a misrepresentation of what he was, like padding in a bra. I won't worry that the Dodgers can't score enough runs to stay in first place with a weak hitting right fielder in their lineup. If he keeps hitting those clutch home runs, I'll only think about his wonderful defense, and forget about his woeful offense. I won't whisper the name Matt Kemp. Do you have it in you, Ethier? Can you keep Matt Kemp at bay with your late inning magic?
Tony Abreu thrills me with his hitting. I close my eyes and see him ripping a double down the line. Either line; he does them both! Then I wonder, what happens when the hits stop coming? The man he replaced had a plan B. Andy LaRoche could contribute to the offense if the hits weren't falling. When Andy went 1 for 12, he would still got on base 3 or 4 times. How many times will Abreu get on base when he goes 1 for 12?
Russ Martin is the heart and soul of the Dodgers. Russ Martin is the blood and breath of the Dodgers. Russ Martin is the spirit and mind of the Dodgers. Russ Martin is the captain and chaplain of the Dodgers. Russ Martin swings the bat and losses turn into victories. He throws the ball and singles turn into outs. Russ Martin plays six days out of seven and turns a third place team into a first place team.
03 June 2007
01 June 2007
Pirates Preview
by Joshua Worley
The Pirates are boring and bad. They are 23-30, with a run differential of 218-256. Their dismal record is good for second in the NL central, tied with two other dismal teams. The Pirate offense is below average. The Pirate pitching is below average. The bullpen is especially awful, with a 4.78 ERA. Just last night they blew a 2-0 lead in the ninth to the Padres. Stupid Pirates.
This is the second preview I've written for the Pirates, which is a Dodgerama first. That first preview didn't have player capsules, though. It did list the Pirates lineup along with some awful on base percentages. Below is the current Pirate lineup, along with current on-base percentages and change in OBP from the last time these teams played. The order of the lineup has changed, but none of the players in it have, which is not good news for the Bucs. I would call it rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but the Bucs aren't interesting enough to be compared with the Titanic.
pos -- OBP -- change -- name
3B -- 0.346 -- (+42) -- Bautista
CF -- 0.296 -- (-59) -- Duffy
2B -- 0.314 -- (-10) -- Sanchez
LF -- 0.385 -- (+30) -- Bay
1B -- 0.319 -- (+69) -- LaRoche
RF -- 0.319 -- (-14) -- Nady
C -- 0.259 -- (+35) -- Paulino
SS -- 0.307 -- (-21) -- Wilson
Four players have improved their OBP from the last time these teams met, while four have declined, though overall there has been a net improvement. Still, I expected to see more improvement than this.
If Kuo is called up as expected, the pitching matchups are Wolf v Duke, Kuo v Snell, Penny v Gorzelanny, and Lowe v Maholm.
edit: Eric Hull has been called up, with Kuo still down for now. I have no idea what this means for the starter on Saturday.
edit-edit: Quote from the LA times, via link from True Blue LA: "Right now, I'm leaning toward Kuo," Little said. "I'm fairly confident that will be the guy." I guess that means it's Kuo. Who else can it be, realistically? Still, he didn't say it would be Kuo for sure.
Jose Antonio Bautista -- 3B
age: 26
bats: right
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.268 -- 0.346 -- 0.404
Bautista is batting leadoff now after spending the early part of the season batting eighth. Does this mean Jim Tracy likes him, or does it means he dislikes someone else?
Bautista seems a fairly average third baseman, maybe slightly below average. He hits a lot better on the road then at home over his last two seasons with the Pirates. If all goes well he will feature in a lot of 1-2-3 innings for the Dodger pitchers to keep Bay from coming up with men on base.
Jack Eugene Wilson -- SS
age: 29
bats: right
0.251 -- 0.307 -- 0.344
Wilson has been demoted to the eighth spot after batting second earlier in the year. But that's not going to hide him from hurting the Pirates. He just doesn't offer much to a team. His defense is about average; his hitting is way below average. He's a boring player on a boring team who should hit a lot of boring ground balls to short.
Now let me describe this mediocre offensive player's home/road splits in a very depressing way. At home he has the OPS of Juan Pierre. On the road he has the OPS of Nomar Garciaparra. If Nomar doesn't start hitting better soon he's going to leapfrog Pierre as the biggest offensive black hole on the Dodgers.
Ronny Leonel Paulino -- C
age: 26
bats: right
0.218 -- 0.259 -- 0.340
Even for a catcher this is bad. I've seen a lot of bad hitting catcher batting lines while doing these previews, but this is the worst. The sad part is that he's doing better that he was the last time the Dodgers played the Buccos ... a lot better!
The only qualified ML catcher with a worse OPS than Paulino is Jason Kendall, who is having a truly wretched, awful year. If the Dodger played the A's I would refuse to print Kendall's line, it's so bad. Kendall is so bad that the distance between him and Paulino is the same as the distance between Paulino and Brian McCann. And Brian McCann is really good.
Christopher Ellis Duffy -- CF
age: 27
bats: left
0.241 -- 0.296 -- 0.348
The Pirates are a depressing team; and Duffy is a despressing player on a despressing team. Last year Duffy and Tracy butted heads in spring training when Tracy wanted Duffy to change his approach at the plate. Duffy had batted 0.341 in 2005, and in the spring of 2006 I'm sure he thought there was no way he needed to change anything. And my initial inclination is to rip into Tracy for being a arrogant meddler who thinks he knows a lot more than he does. Okay, what did Tracy want to do with him?
Tracy attempted to convert him into a conventional leadoff hitter when spring training began, and Duffy never seemed comfortable taking a lot of pitches, drawing walks or looking to bunt.
That sounds okay, mostly. But a few months into 2006, Duffy wasn't hitting, and the Pirates wanted to demote him to AAA, only Duffy refused, so he was put on the restricted list. Duffy kept in shape at home doing "baseball related activities" while on the restricted list. Finally a month later Duffy relented and accepted his demotion, and a month after that Duffy was back up with the big club and did better in his second go around with the team in 2006.
The depressing part of all of this is that all this angst and conflict wasn't really necessary. The fact is Duffy probably just isn't that good. His 0.341 average in 2005 came in only 39 games; it's not a meaningful sample. He never showed much in the minor leagues given his age in each level. Duffy isn't as good as he thinks he is, and Tracy can't mold players the way he thinks he can. If everyone had just recognized initially that Duffy is a marginal big leaguer, then the restricted list mess might have been avoided. Duffy is not a diamond in the rough like LoDuca or Gagne. He's a fourth outfielder who is starting for a bad team.
Frederick Phillip Sanchez -- 2B
age: 29
bats: right
0.285 -- 0.314 -- 0.337
Sanchez didn't walk much last year or hit for much power, but he did have a 0.344 batting average. If his batting average ever came back down to earth, he was going to turn into a below average second baseman. Sadly for the Pirates, that's what has happened.
Sanchez's line drive rate has dropped from 28% to 18% this year, while he's striking out more. That's why he's batting below 0.300 now. Last year was probably a career year, this year is probably who he'll be for the rest of his likely brief starting career. Baseball is a brutal game.
In any case, here is another hitter the Dodger pitchers should get out a lot.
David Adam LaRoche -- 1B
age: 27
bats: left
0.214 -- 0.319 -- 0.352
Will he and brother Andy on the Dodgers have only one game against each other before Andy is send down to make room for Kuo?
Adam had a terrible OPS of 0.520 in April. In May his OPS of 0.805 is much closer to his career average of 0.820. The Pirates traded their best reliever of 2006 ( Mike Gonzalez ) to get LaRoche. Without Gonzalez, the Pirate 'pen has been pretty bad. With LaRoche and his crummy April, the Pirate offense has been as bad as ever. While the trade might eventually be a net plus for the Pirates, it should help the Dodgers in this series because they won't have to face Gonzalez with the game close.
Xavier Clifford Nady -- RF
age: 28
bats: right
0.284 -- 0.319 -- 0.465
Brewers, do you want to know why no one takes you and the division you lead seriously? Here's one answer: the second place team in your division has Xavier Nady as their second best hitter.
The other reason no one takes the Brewers very seriously these days is that they're in freefall with only a +8 run differential on the season.
Jason Raymond Bay -- LF
age: 28
bats: right
0.310 -- 0.385 -- 0.517
Bay has 14 hits with 3 home runs in his last 7 games. I say he's due for a slump!
Ryan Matthew Doumit -- RF/C
age: 26
bats: switch
0.326 -- 0.390 -- 0.526
This man can do everything! Bat left, bat right, catch, play the outfield, give someone the evil eye with both eyes without even trying, ride the bench while worse players start in front of him ...
I think more teams should have a back-up catcher who also can play at other places on the field. I hate it when a roster spot is wasted on a pure backup catcher who almost never plays or pinch hits. This is one area where the Pirates have it right.
Except, wait, the Pirates are carrying a third catcher! Arrrgggghhh! Not only are they not getting it right, they're getting it horribly wrong. Why exactly is Humberto Figueroa Cota on the roster? Is is just for his glorious name? He's played in all of 5 games, all catching. Doumit has played catcher in 10 games. Why couldn't Doumit have started the 5 games Cota started, giving him more playing time and allowing the Pirates to carry another useful player?
Such waste. Doumit needs to play more, get more of a chance to show what he can do, and Cota needs to be off the roster, but with Jim Tracy involved, what are the odds of either of these things happening?
All this said, the superstitious part of me hopes the Dodgers don't see Cota in this series. In Cota's five games played this year, the only one the Pirates won was a 7-5 decision against ... the Dodgers.
And a different, unrelated, but still irrational part of me hopes Doumit doesn't play because he has the most evil eyes I've ever seen. They're like two pools of pure night!
Zachary Thomas Duke -- P
age: 24
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
5.55 -- 60.0 -- 18 -- 13 -- 8
Is Duke hurt? His strikeout total is ridiculously low. Among major league pitchers with at least 20 innings pitched, Duke ranks 284 out of 287 in strikeouts per nine innings at a horrific 2.70.
Duke's K rate has been dropping ever since his K/9 was above 9 in high A at age 21. He was at 5.5 K/9 in AAA the next year, and then 6.2 K/9 after his callup to the Pirates that year. He went 8-2 with a 1.81 ERA in the last half of 2005 with the Bucs, and everyone thought he was the next big thing.
But in 2006 his K/9 was below 5, and this year it's just horrible. Combined with all the home runs Duke gives up it's amazing his ERA isn't higher than it is. The Dodgers should hammer him; they need to hammer him.
Ian Dante Snell -- P
age: 25
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.14 -- 71.2 -- 58 -- 22 -- 6
Snell has a much more impressive minor league record than Duke in the category of strikeouts per nine innings. He posted a K/9 of at least 8 at every minor league stop where he pitched at least 15 games, including AA and AAA.
I hope Kuo and the Dodger 'pen is up to the task of matching Snell.
Thomas Stephen Gorzelanny -- P
age: 24
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
2.39 -- 71.2 -- 43 -- 21 -- 3
So far Gorzelanny is following the Penny model of success: he has a decent but not great K rate to go with a fantastic home run rate. In fact Penny's line is 2.06 -- 70.0 -- 43 -- 22 -- 0, almost identical to Gorzelanny's. Eerie! We'll get to see who applies this model of pitching the best on Sunday as Gorzelanny and Penny face off. It's the battle of pitchers whose names end in "nny"!
Penny is better, though. He has the superior career track record and his ground ball to fly ball ratio is 2 this year, while Gorzelanny's is just 1. Penny has a much better shot of sustaining his low home run rate than Gorzelanny does.
Paul Gurner Maholm -- P
age: 24
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
5.35 -- 65.2 -- 39 -- 18 -- 12
He's Gorzelanny ( or Penny ) but with a ton of home runs given up. So, I guess if Penny ever starts giving up homers he'll turn into Paul Maholm. Kerbleh.
The Dodgers have a big advantage in the first and last games of the series, with Wolf and Lowe against Duke and Maholm. The middle two games look more like tossups, though the Dodgers do have the better offense going in each of those games unless a whole bunch of starters sit. Martin will likely rest during one of the middle games.
With a three way tie for first place entering the series and the Padres playing the Nats, the Dodgers really need to pick up the sweep here. It's in their reach. Minimum acceptable result here is 3 out of 4. Losing the series would be a complete disaster.
The Pirates are boring and bad. They are 23-30, with a run differential of 218-256. Their dismal record is good for second in the NL central, tied with two other dismal teams. The Pirate offense is below average. The Pirate pitching is below average. The bullpen is especially awful, with a 4.78 ERA. Just last night they blew a 2-0 lead in the ninth to the Padres. Stupid Pirates.
This is the second preview I've written for the Pirates, which is a Dodgerama first. That first preview didn't have player capsules, though. It did list the Pirates lineup along with some awful on base percentages. Below is the current Pirate lineup, along with current on-base percentages and change in OBP from the last time these teams played. The order of the lineup has changed, but none of the players in it have, which is not good news for the Bucs. I would call it rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but the Bucs aren't interesting enough to be compared with the Titanic.
pos -- OBP -- change -- name
3B -- 0.346 -- (+42) -- Bautista
CF -- 0.296 -- (-59) -- Duffy
2B -- 0.314 -- (-10) -- Sanchez
LF -- 0.385 -- (+30) -- Bay
1B -- 0.319 -- (+69) -- LaRoche
RF -- 0.319 -- (-14) -- Nady
C -- 0.259 -- (+35) -- Paulino
SS -- 0.307 -- (-21) -- Wilson
Four players have improved their OBP from the last time these teams met, while four have declined, though overall there has been a net improvement. Still, I expected to see more improvement than this.
If Kuo is called up as expected, the pitching matchups are Wolf v Duke, Kuo v Snell, Penny v Gorzelanny, and Lowe v Maholm.
edit: Eric Hull has been called up, with Kuo still down for now. I have no idea what this means for the starter on Saturday.
edit-edit: Quote from the LA times, via link from True Blue LA: "Right now, I'm leaning toward Kuo," Little said. "I'm fairly confident that will be the guy." I guess that means it's Kuo. Who else can it be, realistically? Still, he didn't say it would be Kuo for sure.
Jose Antonio Bautista -- 3B
age: 26
bats: right
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.268 -- 0.346 -- 0.404
Bautista is batting leadoff now after spending the early part of the season batting eighth. Does this mean Jim Tracy likes him, or does it means he dislikes someone else?
Bautista seems a fairly average third baseman, maybe slightly below average. He hits a lot better on the road then at home over his last two seasons with the Pirates. If all goes well he will feature in a lot of 1-2-3 innings for the Dodger pitchers to keep Bay from coming up with men on base.
Jack Eugene Wilson -- SS
age: 29
bats: right
0.251 -- 0.307 -- 0.344
Wilson has been demoted to the eighth spot after batting second earlier in the year. But that's not going to hide him from hurting the Pirates. He just doesn't offer much to a team. His defense is about average; his hitting is way below average. He's a boring player on a boring team who should hit a lot of boring ground balls to short.
Now let me describe this mediocre offensive player's home/road splits in a very depressing way. At home he has the OPS of Juan Pierre. On the road he has the OPS of Nomar Garciaparra. If Nomar doesn't start hitting better soon he's going to leapfrog Pierre as the biggest offensive black hole on the Dodgers.
Ronny Leonel Paulino -- C
age: 26
bats: right
0.218 -- 0.259 -- 0.340
Even for a catcher this is bad. I've seen a lot of bad hitting catcher batting lines while doing these previews, but this is the worst. The sad part is that he's doing better that he was the last time the Dodgers played the Buccos ... a lot better!
The only qualified ML catcher with a worse OPS than Paulino is Jason Kendall, who is having a truly wretched, awful year. If the Dodger played the A's I would refuse to print Kendall's line, it's so bad. Kendall is so bad that the distance between him and Paulino is the same as the distance between Paulino and Brian McCann. And Brian McCann is really good.
Christopher Ellis Duffy -- CF
age: 27
bats: left
0.241 -- 0.296 -- 0.348
The Pirates are a depressing team; and Duffy is a despressing player on a despressing team. Last year Duffy and Tracy butted heads in spring training when Tracy wanted Duffy to change his approach at the plate. Duffy had batted 0.341 in 2005, and in the spring of 2006 I'm sure he thought there was no way he needed to change anything. And my initial inclination is to rip into Tracy for being a arrogant meddler who thinks he knows a lot more than he does. Okay, what did Tracy want to do with him?
Tracy attempted to convert him into a conventional leadoff hitter when spring training began, and Duffy never seemed comfortable taking a lot of pitches, drawing walks or looking to bunt.
That sounds okay, mostly. But a few months into 2006, Duffy wasn't hitting, and the Pirates wanted to demote him to AAA, only Duffy refused, so he was put on the restricted list. Duffy kept in shape at home doing "baseball related activities" while on the restricted list. Finally a month later Duffy relented and accepted his demotion, and a month after that Duffy was back up with the big club and did better in his second go around with the team in 2006.
The depressing part of all of this is that all this angst and conflict wasn't really necessary. The fact is Duffy probably just isn't that good. His 0.341 average in 2005 came in only 39 games; it's not a meaningful sample. He never showed much in the minor leagues given his age in each level. Duffy isn't as good as he thinks he is, and Tracy can't mold players the way he thinks he can. If everyone had just recognized initially that Duffy is a marginal big leaguer, then the restricted list mess might have been avoided. Duffy is not a diamond in the rough like LoDuca or Gagne. He's a fourth outfielder who is starting for a bad team.
Frederick Phillip Sanchez -- 2B
age: 29
bats: right
0.285 -- 0.314 -- 0.337
Sanchez didn't walk much last year or hit for much power, but he did have a 0.344 batting average. If his batting average ever came back down to earth, he was going to turn into a below average second baseman. Sadly for the Pirates, that's what has happened.
Sanchez's line drive rate has dropped from 28% to 18% this year, while he's striking out more. That's why he's batting below 0.300 now. Last year was probably a career year, this year is probably who he'll be for the rest of his likely brief starting career. Baseball is a brutal game.
In any case, here is another hitter the Dodger pitchers should get out a lot.
David Adam LaRoche -- 1B
age: 27
bats: left
0.214 -- 0.319 -- 0.352
Will he and brother Andy on the Dodgers have only one game against each other before Andy is send down to make room for Kuo?
Adam had a terrible OPS of 0.520 in April. In May his OPS of 0.805 is much closer to his career average of 0.820. The Pirates traded their best reliever of 2006 ( Mike Gonzalez ) to get LaRoche. Without Gonzalez, the Pirate 'pen has been pretty bad. With LaRoche and his crummy April, the Pirate offense has been as bad as ever. While the trade might eventually be a net plus for the Pirates, it should help the Dodgers in this series because they won't have to face Gonzalez with the game close.
Xavier Clifford Nady -- RF
age: 28
bats: right
0.284 -- 0.319 -- 0.465
Brewers, do you want to know why no one takes you and the division you lead seriously? Here's one answer: the second place team in your division has Xavier Nady as their second best hitter.
The other reason no one takes the Brewers very seriously these days is that they're in freefall with only a +8 run differential on the season.
Jason Raymond Bay -- LF
age: 28
bats: right
0.310 -- 0.385 -- 0.517
Bay has 14 hits with 3 home runs in his last 7 games. I say he's due for a slump!
Ryan Matthew Doumit -- RF/C
age: 26
bats: switch
0.326 -- 0.390 -- 0.526
This man can do everything! Bat left, bat right, catch, play the outfield, give someone the evil eye with both eyes without even trying, ride the bench while worse players start in front of him ...
I think more teams should have a back-up catcher who also can play at other places on the field. I hate it when a roster spot is wasted on a pure backup catcher who almost never plays or pinch hits. This is one area where the Pirates have it right.
Except, wait, the Pirates are carrying a third catcher! Arrrgggghhh! Not only are they not getting it right, they're getting it horribly wrong. Why exactly is Humberto Figueroa Cota on the roster? Is is just for his glorious name? He's played in all of 5 games, all catching. Doumit has played catcher in 10 games. Why couldn't Doumit have started the 5 games Cota started, giving him more playing time and allowing the Pirates to carry another useful player?
Such waste. Doumit needs to play more, get more of a chance to show what he can do, and Cota needs to be off the roster, but with Jim Tracy involved, what are the odds of either of these things happening?
All this said, the superstitious part of me hopes the Dodgers don't see Cota in this series. In Cota's five games played this year, the only one the Pirates won was a 7-5 decision against ... the Dodgers.
And a different, unrelated, but still irrational part of me hopes Doumit doesn't play because he has the most evil eyes I've ever seen. They're like two pools of pure night!
Zachary Thomas Duke -- P
age: 24
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
5.55 -- 60.0 -- 18 -- 13 -- 8
Is Duke hurt? His strikeout total is ridiculously low. Among major league pitchers with at least 20 innings pitched, Duke ranks 284 out of 287 in strikeouts per nine innings at a horrific 2.70.
Duke's K rate has been dropping ever since his K/9 was above 9 in high A at age 21. He was at 5.5 K/9 in AAA the next year, and then 6.2 K/9 after his callup to the Pirates that year. He went 8-2 with a 1.81 ERA in the last half of 2005 with the Bucs, and everyone thought he was the next big thing.
But in 2006 his K/9 was below 5, and this year it's just horrible. Combined with all the home runs Duke gives up it's amazing his ERA isn't higher than it is. The Dodgers should hammer him; they need to hammer him.
Ian Dante Snell -- P
age: 25
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.14 -- 71.2 -- 58 -- 22 -- 6
Snell has a much more impressive minor league record than Duke in the category of strikeouts per nine innings. He posted a K/9 of at least 8 at every minor league stop where he pitched at least 15 games, including AA and AAA.
I hope Kuo and the Dodger 'pen is up to the task of matching Snell.
Thomas Stephen Gorzelanny -- P
age: 24
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
2.39 -- 71.2 -- 43 -- 21 -- 3
So far Gorzelanny is following the Penny model of success: he has a decent but not great K rate to go with a fantastic home run rate. In fact Penny's line is 2.06 -- 70.0 -- 43 -- 22 -- 0, almost identical to Gorzelanny's. Eerie! We'll get to see who applies this model of pitching the best on Sunday as Gorzelanny and Penny face off. It's the battle of pitchers whose names end in "nny"!
Penny is better, though. He has the superior career track record and his ground ball to fly ball ratio is 2 this year, while Gorzelanny's is just 1. Penny has a much better shot of sustaining his low home run rate than Gorzelanny does.
Paul Gurner Maholm -- P
age: 24
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
5.35 -- 65.2 -- 39 -- 18 -- 12
He's Gorzelanny ( or Penny ) but with a ton of home runs given up. So, I guess if Penny ever starts giving up homers he'll turn into Paul Maholm. Kerbleh.
The Dodgers have a big advantage in the first and last games of the series, with Wolf and Lowe against Duke and Maholm. The middle two games look more like tossups, though the Dodgers do have the better offense going in each of those games unless a whole bunch of starters sit. Martin will likely rest during one of the middle games.
With a three way tie for first place entering the series and the Padres playing the Nats, the Dodgers really need to pick up the sweep here. It's in their reach. Minimum acceptable result here is 3 out of 4. Losing the series would be a complete disaster.
31 May 2007
A LaRoche Lament
by Joshua Worley
Since Abreu was called up, here are the starters at third base:
22 May --- Abreu
23 May --- LaRoche
25 May --- Abreu
26 May --- Betemit ( Abreu at second base )
27 May --- LaRoche ( only two PA for Andy )
29 May --- Abreu
30 May --- Abreu
As I feared, the Dodgers have tried to jam three young players into one spot. The least deserving of the three has played the most, and the one with the highest ceiling has seen scant playing time. Only on one day have two of the three played at once. Since Abreu was called up, Abreu has 20 plate appearances to LaRoche's 7.
Of LaRoche and Abreu, who has shown the better plate discipline and contact skills in their brief stints at the big league level?
Player -- PA -- SO -- BB
LaRoche -- 52 -- 4 -- 15
Abreu -- 20 -- 3 -- 0
Things can change, but these samples, small though they be, create a stark contrast. LaRoche belongs in the big leagues far more than Abreu does, based on what they've done so far this year and what they've done previously. And yet who is likely to be sent down if Kuo is called up to make Saturday's start?
One objection to LaRoche's walks is that they've all come with him batting eighth in front of the pitcher. But this just isn't true. Here is a breakdown of his 15 walks:
4 --- intentional pass with pitcher up next and first base open
2 --- pitcher up next; first base open
2 --- pitcher up next; first base occupied
5 --- non-pitcher next; first base open
2 --- non-pitcher next; first base occupied
At least 9 of these walks are legit, including the situations when either a man is on first or a non-pitcher is up next. I would argue 10 of them are, since one of the walks with the pitcher coming up and first base open was actually a bases empty walk with one out which set up the sacrifice and then a possible RBI situation.
If we remove the 5 suspect walks, then LaRoche still has 10 walks in 47 plate appearances. That's terrific plate discipline. Why won't the Dodgers play LaRoche more?
********************************************
Russ Martin is in a small slump. During his last four games he's 2-16 with a walk and 5 strikeouts. The reason I call it a slump, and not just a statistical fluctuation, is the strikeouts. Prior to these last 4 games he only had 6 strikeouts in the month of May, so he's nearly doubled his monthly total of strikeouts the last 4 games.
It still might be merely statistical fluctuation, I guess. I'm not advocating that he needs to sit tonight, or tomorrow. And he did have that home run last night, so it's not all bad for Martin at the bat. I'm just keeping an eye on his batting line: if he has a few more hitless, high strikeout games then it could be a sign of something wrong. In the meantime I hope he gets his normal rest this Sunday or Saturday, but not before then.
Since Abreu was called up, here are the starters at third base:
22 May --- Abreu
23 May --- LaRoche
25 May --- Abreu
26 May --- Betemit ( Abreu at second base )
27 May --- LaRoche ( only two PA for Andy )
29 May --- Abreu
30 May --- Abreu
As I feared, the Dodgers have tried to jam three young players into one spot. The least deserving of the three has played the most, and the one with the highest ceiling has seen scant playing time. Only on one day have two of the three played at once. Since Abreu was called up, Abreu has 20 plate appearances to LaRoche's 7.
Of LaRoche and Abreu, who has shown the better plate discipline and contact skills in their brief stints at the big league level?
Player -- PA -- SO -- BB
LaRoche -- 52 -- 4 -- 15
Abreu -- 20 -- 3 -- 0
Things can change, but these samples, small though they be, create a stark contrast. LaRoche belongs in the big leagues far more than Abreu does, based on what they've done so far this year and what they've done previously. And yet who is likely to be sent down if Kuo is called up to make Saturday's start?
One objection to LaRoche's walks is that they've all come with him batting eighth in front of the pitcher. But this just isn't true. Here is a breakdown of his 15 walks:
4 --- intentional pass with pitcher up next and first base open
2 --- pitcher up next; first base open
2 --- pitcher up next; first base occupied
5 --- non-pitcher next; first base open
2 --- non-pitcher next; first base occupied
At least 9 of these walks are legit, including the situations when either a man is on first or a non-pitcher is up next. I would argue 10 of them are, since one of the walks with the pitcher coming up and first base open was actually a bases empty walk with one out which set up the sacrifice and then a possible RBI situation.
If we remove the 5 suspect walks, then LaRoche still has 10 walks in 47 plate appearances. That's terrific plate discipline. Why won't the Dodgers play LaRoche more?
********************************************
Russ Martin is in a small slump. During his last four games he's 2-16 with a walk and 5 strikeouts. The reason I call it a slump, and not just a statistical fluctuation, is the strikeouts. Prior to these last 4 games he only had 6 strikeouts in the month of May, so he's nearly doubled his monthly total of strikeouts the last 4 games.
It still might be merely statistical fluctuation, I guess. I'm not advocating that he needs to sit tonight, or tomorrow. And he did have that home run last night, so it's not all bad for Martin at the bat. I'm just keeping an eye on his batting line: if he has a few more hitless, high strikeout games then it could be a sign of something wrong. In the meantime I hope he gets his normal rest this Sunday or Saturday, but not before then.
30 May 2007
Little Did We Know
by Joshua Worley
The Dodgers are alone in first place, again. I hope we don't look back on this day later in the season and say, "Remember all the way back to the end of May, when we were still in first place? That was the high point of the season, before the pitching collapsed and we tumbled below 0.500, below the Padres, Snakes, even the Giants. Little did we know ..."
Most days of the season have the potential to be looked back on as either the true high or low point of the season, depending on what happens after. There are often likelihoods that the current trends will continue, to be sure, but no guarantees. Present success or failure may be reversed. I'm sure every Yankee fan is hoping that months from now they can look on yesterday as the low point of the season. It's a strange way of making the current awful moment seem remote and unreal, to imagine a future from which the present appears outlandish and wrong. "Really, we were tied for last, 14.5 games back of the Red Sux? Seems so strange, now that we're in first place. I know it happened, but it seems a lifetime ago ..."
Did Brad Penny have an inkling when he started the All-Star game last year that this would be the high point of the year for him? When he was getting shelled in relief in a playoff game after being booted from the postseason rotation did he ever look back at the time when he was a top-5 pitcher in the NL and think, "Little did I know ..."
For Hendrickson, this year, the date was 2 May. He had given up only 1 home run and struck out more than 25% of batters faced. That was the high point of his season, maybe of his career. Since then, he's given up 6 home runs and is on the edge of losing his place in the starting rotation.
There was no sign that Penny would collapse in the second half of last year, while there was ample evidence to tell us Hendrickson would tumble from his great first month. Sometimes we can have a pretty good idea that we've reached the high point, and other times we couldn't have any way of knowing. Enjoy the good times while they last, even as you hope that they will last.
That's not the end of it, though. It's not enough that the Dodgers merly hope that they haven't already reached the high point of the season. How do the Dodgers guard against having to four months from now say, "Little did we know ... "? The Dodgers have no superstars. They are a team built on depth, but for that depth to mean anything they have to use it when necessary. Depth isn't just for injuries. To guard against a premature high point to the season, they have to be willing to play young players in place of veterans who aren't getting the job done. They're already doing this with the pitching staff. It remains to be seen if they will do it with the outfield and first base should current trends continue.
The Dodgers are alone in first place, again. I hope we don't look back on this day later in the season and say, "Remember all the way back to the end of May, when we were still in first place? That was the high point of the season, before the pitching collapsed and we tumbled below 0.500, below the Padres, Snakes, even the Giants. Little did we know ..."
Most days of the season have the potential to be looked back on as either the true high or low point of the season, depending on what happens after. There are often likelihoods that the current trends will continue, to be sure, but no guarantees. Present success or failure may be reversed. I'm sure every Yankee fan is hoping that months from now they can look on yesterday as the low point of the season. It's a strange way of making the current awful moment seem remote and unreal, to imagine a future from which the present appears outlandish and wrong. "Really, we were tied for last, 14.5 games back of the Red Sux? Seems so strange, now that we're in first place. I know it happened, but it seems a lifetime ago ..."
Did Brad Penny have an inkling when he started the All-Star game last year that this would be the high point of the year for him? When he was getting shelled in relief in a playoff game after being booted from the postseason rotation did he ever look back at the time when he was a top-5 pitcher in the NL and think, "Little did I know ..."
For Hendrickson, this year, the date was 2 May. He had given up only 1 home run and struck out more than 25% of batters faced. That was the high point of his season, maybe of his career. Since then, he's given up 6 home runs and is on the edge of losing his place in the starting rotation.
There was no sign that Penny would collapse in the second half of last year, while there was ample evidence to tell us Hendrickson would tumble from his great first month. Sometimes we can have a pretty good idea that we've reached the high point, and other times we couldn't have any way of knowing. Enjoy the good times while they last, even as you hope that they will last.
That's not the end of it, though. It's not enough that the Dodgers merly hope that they haven't already reached the high point of the season. How do the Dodgers guard against having to four months from now say, "Little did we know ... "? The Dodgers have no superstars. They are a team built on depth, but for that depth to mean anything they have to use it when necessary. Depth isn't just for injuries. To guard against a premature high point to the season, they have to be willing to play young players in place of veterans who aren't getting the job done. They're already doing this with the pitching staff. It remains to be seen if they will do it with the outfield and first base should current trends continue.
29 May 2007
The series sweep that wasn't
By Griffster.
Boy, sometimes things break your way, and sometimes they do not. Remember a few games back, coming off getting swept by the Angels and dropping one to the Brewers? Soft rumblings of discomfort through sections of the fan base:
The offense isn't getting it done.
You can't make a run stand up every game.
You have to score to win.
You're not going to score if you can only hit singles from about 5 spots in the lineup and nothing from the other four.
Then those spinning lineup wheels found some purchase and the Dodgers bounced out of the home stand with two 2-1 series wins.
The wheels found purchase on some extra base hits. You really can't win with a lineup of singles hitters. We are carrying two of those already: Pierre, and 2007 Nomar. 2007 Gonzo is also worryingly singles-like, despite hitting the odd home run.
Speaking of singles and not getting it done, let's break down the past three series by what the Dodgers offense did. In the games against the Angels, here is the sequence of Dodger hits for each game. Innings indicated by spaces between lines, innings with only a walk, or no hits do not show up:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
single
single
double
double ( run scores )
double
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single ( run scores, thanks to a steal of second and advance to third on flyout )
double
Game 3
single
single
single
single
double ( run scores )
There is a lot of painfully dangling singles there. Apart from the manufactured run in the second game, the runs that did score scored on extra base hits. The runners stranded were mostly left holding their singles with nothing else to show for it.
That series was atypical, one would hope. Hunting for some context, here is the Angels' hitting sequences for the same series:
Angels
Game 1
walk
double ( run scores )
single
( steals second, advances on ground out, scores on another ground out )
walk
single
sac fly ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double
single
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
( steals second, scores on ground out and error )
home run ( run scores )
single
walk
single
ground out ( run scores )
single
double
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
double
single ( run scores )
single
single
single
single
single ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
triple
Does that tell us anything, apart from the fact that the Angels scored more runs because they had a heck of a lot more hits than the Dodgers did? Well, the Angels also had their little dangling singles, and they even had a inning of "single ( that word is starting to look weird now when I type it ) the opponent to death".
It does show that, of the 11 innings in which the Angels scored, they had extra base hits for 6 of those, assists from the opposing team in the form of walks or errors 4 times, and only once they scored on the virtue of singles alone ( and a lot of singles to boot! )
The Dodgers scored in three innings. Two due to an extra base hit in the inning, and once due to a walk, a steal, and two ground outs.
The moral of this story is: unless you have some help from the opposition and some extra base hits, you need a long string of singles to be sure of scoring a run.
That's it for that horrible series. ( Let us never speak of it again! ) Moving on to the next two series, won by the Dodgers, here is the same sequences for the Dodgers and the Brewers:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
double
single ( run scores )
home run ( runs score )
walk
single
single ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
steal
( dropped foul )
single ( run scores )
single
double
home run ( runs score )
Game 3
single
single
hit by pitch
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
error
single
double
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
sac bunt
walk
steal
balk
walk
sac fly ( run scores )
single
walk
single
Brewers
Game 1
single
home run ( run scores )
single
double ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double ( runs score )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
single
single ( run scores )
walk
double ( run scores )
single
Game 3
single
walk
sac bunt
walk
single
ground rule double
double
infield single
infield single to second
ground out
single ( run scores )
Yeah?
Well, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. Of those eight innings, 5 had extra base hits, and the other three had help from the opposition ( all three had walks, and two also had either an error, or a balk and a sac fly, to help things along ). Not one time was any runs scored on singles alone.
And the Brewers? They scored in 7 innings. 5 of those innings had extra base hits. One of the others had a walk as well, and the other was stringed together on a single, ground out, and single.
How about one more series, the most recent?
Dodgers
Game 1
single
error
walk
single ( run scores )
single
walk
home run ( runs score )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double
walk
single
single
single
single ( run scores )
wild pitch ( run scores )
walk
single ( run scores )
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
single
single
single
home run ( run scores )
walk
walk
intentional walk ( 2B open after steal )
hit by pitch ( run scores )
Cubs
Game 1
single
single
single
steal
ground rule double ( run scores )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
caught stealing ( no runners on )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
error ( run scores )
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
single
single
double
single ( run scores )
infield single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
walk
error
single
double
single
wild pitch
walk
single
double
single
single
single ( run scores )
In this series, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits. 2 of the remaining innings had walks in them as well. One of those were done entirely on walks and a hit by pitch! And only one had runs score on pure singles.
The Cubs scored in 5 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits, the other one was also a pure singles effort.
Moral of the story: you have to do more than hit singles to put up the runs that let you win ballgames. If you have a lineup of aging veterans "that knows how to win" yet mostly hits singles, you're going to struggle to see those veterans do what they know how to do. ( Just had to get that out of my system ) The 2007 Dodgers threaten to resemble a club of singles hitters, and singles hitters do not win games consistently.
There are players young and old on this team who could bring some power to the plate. Whether they do so with fair consistency will determine how often this team wins - provided the pitching remains stellar, else the 2007 Dodgers will be the 2007 Yankees before you could blink.
Now, on to explaining the title of this post. Who should have swept whom?
The ( losing record ) Cubs should have swept the Dodgers, we all know that. But for a huge, happy comeback in game 1 ( a jambalaya of trademarked singles, one wild pitch and a sac fly, it was done the Dodgers way ) and a freebie in game 3, we'd be looking up a two-game ladder at the Padres.
The dog days of summer, they're a-comin'. Swinging into June, the Dodgers have to find a higher notch and kick up into it. The Padres and the Diamondbacks have already done so, and they're up on rung one with us. We sat back on our heels long enough. Time to pull away. ( But no wheelies and mysterious broken wrists, please! )
Boy, sometimes things break your way, and sometimes they do not. Remember a few games back, coming off getting swept by the Angels and dropping one to the Brewers? Soft rumblings of discomfort through sections of the fan base:
The offense isn't getting it done.
You can't make a run stand up every game.
You have to score to win.
You're not going to score if you can only hit singles from about 5 spots in the lineup and nothing from the other four.
Then those spinning lineup wheels found some purchase and the Dodgers bounced out of the home stand with two 2-1 series wins.
The wheels found purchase on some extra base hits. You really can't win with a lineup of singles hitters. We are carrying two of those already: Pierre, and 2007 Nomar. 2007 Gonzo is also worryingly singles-like, despite hitting the odd home run.
Speaking of singles and not getting it done, let's break down the past three series by what the Dodgers offense did. In the games against the Angels, here is the sequence of Dodger hits for each game. Innings indicated by spaces between lines, innings with only a walk, or no hits do not show up:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
single
single
double
double ( run scores )
double
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single ( run scores, thanks to a steal of second and advance to third on flyout )
double
Game 3
single
single
single
single
double ( run scores )
There is a lot of painfully dangling singles there. Apart from the manufactured run in the second game, the runs that did score scored on extra base hits. The runners stranded were mostly left holding their singles with nothing else to show for it.
That series was atypical, one would hope. Hunting for some context, here is the Angels' hitting sequences for the same series:
Angels
Game 1
walk
double ( run scores )
single
( steals second, advances on ground out, scores on another ground out )
walk
single
sac fly ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double
single
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
( steals second, scores on ground out and error )
home run ( run scores )
single
walk
single
ground out ( run scores )
single
double
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
double
single ( run scores )
single
single
single
single
single ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
triple
Does that tell us anything, apart from the fact that the Angels scored more runs because they had a heck of a lot more hits than the Dodgers did? Well, the Angels also had their little dangling singles, and they even had a inning of "single ( that word is starting to look weird now when I type it ) the opponent to death".
It does show that, of the 11 innings in which the Angels scored, they had extra base hits for 6 of those, assists from the opposing team in the form of walks or errors 4 times, and only once they scored on the virtue of singles alone ( and a lot of singles to boot! )
The Dodgers scored in three innings. Two due to an extra base hit in the inning, and once due to a walk, a steal, and two ground outs.
The moral of this story is: unless you have some help from the opposition and some extra base hits, you need a long string of singles to be sure of scoring a run.
That's it for that horrible series. ( Let us never speak of it again! ) Moving on to the next two series, won by the Dodgers, here is the same sequences for the Dodgers and the Brewers:
Dodgers
Game 1
single
double
single ( run scores )
home run ( runs score )
walk
single
single ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
steal
( dropped foul )
single ( run scores )
single
double
home run ( runs score )
Game 3
single
single
hit by pitch
double ( runs score )
single ( run scores )
error
single
double
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
sac bunt
walk
steal
balk
walk
sac fly ( run scores )
single
walk
single
Brewers
Game 1
single
home run ( run scores )
single
double ( run scores )
single
single
walk
single
single ( run scores )
single ( runs score )
double ( runs score )
home run ( run scores )
Game 2
walk
single
single ( run scores )
walk
double ( run scores )
single
Game 3
single
walk
sac bunt
walk
single
ground rule double
double
infield single
infield single to second
ground out
single ( run scores )
Yeah?
Well, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. Of those eight innings, 5 had extra base hits, and the other three had help from the opposition ( all three had walks, and two also had either an error, or a balk and a sac fly, to help things along ). Not one time was any runs scored on singles alone.
And the Brewers? They scored in 7 innings. 5 of those innings had extra base hits. One of the others had a walk as well, and the other was stringed together on a single, ground out, and single.
How about one more series, the most recent?
Dodgers
Game 1
single
error
walk
single ( run scores )
single
walk
home run ( runs score )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double
walk
single
single
single
single ( run scores )
wild pitch ( run scores )
walk
single ( run scores )
sac fly ( run scores )
Game 2
single
single
single
double
home run ( run scores )
single
single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
single
single
single
home run ( run scores )
walk
walk
intentional walk ( 2B open after steal )
hit by pitch ( run scores )
Cubs
Game 1
single
single
single
steal
ground rule double ( run scores )
single
walk
double ( runs score )
double ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
caught stealing ( no runners on )
single
single
single ( run scores )
double ( run scores )
error ( run scores )
Game 2
home run ( run scores )
home run ( run scores )
single
single
double
single ( run scores )
infield single
single ( run scores )
single
single
Game 3
walk
error
single
double
single
wild pitch
walk
single
double
single
single
single ( run scores )
In this series, the Dodgers scored in 8 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits. 2 of the remaining innings had walks in them as well. One of those were done entirely on walks and a hit by pitch! And only one had runs score on pure singles.
The Cubs scored in 5 innings. 4 of those innings had extra base hits, the other one was also a pure singles effort.
Moral of the story: you have to do more than hit singles to put up the runs that let you win ballgames. If you have a lineup of aging veterans "that knows how to win" yet mostly hits singles, you're going to struggle to see those veterans do what they know how to do. ( Just had to get that out of my system ) The 2007 Dodgers threaten to resemble a club of singles hitters, and singles hitters do not win games consistently.
There are players young and old on this team who could bring some power to the plate. Whether they do so with fair consistency will determine how often this team wins - provided the pitching remains stellar, else the 2007 Dodgers will be the 2007 Yankees before you could blink.
Now, on to explaining the title of this post. Who should have swept whom?
The ( losing record ) Cubs should have swept the Dodgers, we all know that. But for a huge, happy comeback in game 1 ( a jambalaya of trademarked singles, one wild pitch and a sac fly, it was done the Dodgers way ) and a freebie in game 3, we'd be looking up a two-game ladder at the Padres.
The dog days of summer, they're a-comin'. Swinging into June, the Dodgers have to find a higher notch and kick up into it. The Padres and the Diamondbacks have already done so, and they're up on rung one with us. We sat back on our heels long enough. Time to pull away. ( But no wheelies and mysterious broken wrists, please! )
Washington Preview: I miss the Expos
by Joshua Worley
The Nats are so awful and nondescript. The only thing interesting about them is the shortening of their team name into "Nats", which feels like a throwback nickname, if that makes sense. It should, because indeed, the original Washington Senators were also called the Nationals for most of their existence as well, and the nickname "Nats" was frequently used for the team in the first half of the twentieth century.
I miss the old days, when the National League had just 12 teams. I guess I should be more specific, since I was just going on about the original Senators: to me the old days is the 1980's. Back then there was no team in an abomination of a ballpark in Arizona ( shudder ). There was no Arena-baseball being played in Denver. The Brewers were in the American League where they belonged, with all the other boring American League teams. There was no team in Florida buying World Series titles.
There was, however, a team in Montreal. The Expos were the odd duck of the NL east, a team playing in French Canadian Montreal. Back then the Expos were still relevant, still popular, still good. They had Gary Carter, Tim Raines, Tim Wallach and Andre Dawson. They weren't just a sad lame duck franchise, as they became in later years, with no players and no hope and no fanbase. There was a time when the Expos had more of a claim to fame then being the home team of the mascot Youppi!
Yeah, I miss the Expos. I miss the old Expos logo, an M that strangely doubled as a lowercase "elb". I miss having a non-American city in the NL; almost a European city in character. I miss getting to hear "O Canada" before Expos games ... the only chance of hearing that now is if the Dodgers play the Blue Jays, but how often does that happen? ( Okay, it happens this year! ) I even miss that horrible stadium, that artificial turf house of horrors where the Dodgers so often lost, because when they did win it was that much sweeter. I remember the Dodgers carrying sod with them into the Montreal dugout to break their artificial turf jinx one year.
I hope the Dodgers won't have any trouble winning in Washington this year. The Nats are really awful, especially on offense. Only the Cardinals are worse in the NL at scoring runs. The Nats are 21-30, with a run differential of 191-241. Now the Nats do have a 12-5 record in their last 17 games, and they've scored at least 4 runs in each of their last 8 games. Regardless of this recent success of the Nats, the Dodgers need to win this series. Arizona and San Diego have each already taken their first series from the Nats, and the Dodgers need to do the same.
The pitching matchups are Penny v Simontacchi, Lowe v Bacsik, and Hendrickson v Bowie. I have to admit I've not heard of any of the Nats pitchers. I'm also really tired to seeing Hendrickson's name as an upcoming pitcher. I look very much forward to the day, I hope coming very soon, when there is no Dodger starter whose name makes me shudder.
Dmitri Dell Young -- 1B
age: 33
bats: switch
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.298 -- 0.387 -- 0.468
Young is by far the Nats best hitter. That's a rather amazing and pathetic turn of events, because Young came to the team as a non-roster spring training invitee on a minor league contract in February. Young had legal and alcohol problems last year, and did not hit well with the Tigers, with an OPS of 0.700 in fewer than 200 plate appearances. And yet Young had the self-absorption to accuse the Tigers of unfairly releasing him last year, after he played so awfully and missed playing time because of problems he created for himself. Jim Leyland, the famed manager who once disgracefully quit on the Colorado Rockies, fired back a rip of his own at Dmitri. All this happened in February; things have been quiet in Dmitri-land since. Young has revived his career and seems to have turned his life back around. The one pothole in the road so far happened just two days ago, when he had to leave the Nats game after a collision with Scott Rolen at first base. Young is hopeful that he will be able to play today, though I think he should take at least three days off and make sure he's fully healthy before coming back.
Seriously, if he can't play it will be a big blow to the Nats offense, such as it is. He leads the team in slugging percentage and on base percentage.
Ryan Matthew Church -- CF/LF
age: 28
bats: left
0.263 -- 0.372 -- 0.455
Church and Young are the only Nats with an OPS above 0.800. Church is one of the few bright spots on the Nats, a relatively young player who can really hit. And yet at age 28 he's never yet had a full year at the big league level. What gives?
Well, in 2005 after being named the NL rookie of the month for May, Church had injury troubles and ended up with only about 300 plate appearances. Yet he still had an OPS of 0.819 on the year and he seemed a lock to be the team's starting center fielder the next year. What happened next shows the utter incompetence and small-minded pettiness of the Nats GM Jim Bowden. Church was demoted to AAA at the start of 2006 after having a poor spring training; in his place Brandon Watson was promoted. Said Bowden: "Brandon Watson outplayed him, outhit him, got on base, stole bases, got a good percentage of stolen bases, did the things that we asked him to do." Church, who was understandably shocked, said, "I didn't think it was a competition." Why would he, after winning the starting job during the regular season the previous year?
Bowden doesn't seem to realize that spring training stats don't matter. Or he just felt like punishing a player who didn't have a spring as good as he thought he should have. Or maybe he honestly thought Brandon Watson was the better player. But if he really thought that, then he really mistreated Watson, because Watson got to play in all of 8 games after his great spring before being demoted again. What kind of chance is that? This makes me think Bowden either wasn't buying the snake oil he was selling about Watson being better than Church, and just wanted to punish Church, or that Bowden is just the stupidest, most arrogant GM to ever walk the earth.
When Watson was sent down, Church was called right back up, which I think confirms my "punishment for a bad spring" theory. But then after 23 games Church was sent down to AAA again, with a line of 0.215 -- 0.346 -- 0.452. Are you kidding me, Bowden? What does anyone want to bet that all Bowden looked at was the batting average, and didn't notice the great secondary averages? Once Church's batting average reverted to a more normal level his OPS would have been around 0.900. The Nats had a center fielder who was already putting up an OPS of 0.800 and a good bet to do a lot better, and Bowden threw it away because of a low batting average. Unbelievable.
Church finally was back up to the big leagues to stay on 22 July 2006, and on the year he ended up with an OPS of 0.891. I'm sure Bowden felt that his demotions were just the kick in the pants Church needed to reach this level of excellence, and would take credit for Church's success. While Church was languishing in AAA a collection of mostly stiffs played in center field for the Nats:
Player Name --- games --- OPS
Ryan Church --- 51 --- 0.892
Marlon Byrd --- 57 --- 0.667
Nook Logan --- 26 --- 0.726
Damien Jackson --- 22 --- 0.666
Alex Escobar --- 23 --- 0.969
Brandon Watson --- 8 --- 0.385
Marlon Anderson --- 7 --- 0.754
Escobar did his damage in less than 100 at bats; his career OPS is 0.743 in about 400 plate appearances. Is anyone else disturbed that a man named Damien ended up with an OPS of 0.666? There's just no excuse for letting this collection of players man center field when you have Ryan Church available.
I can't help but think of James Loney in all this. Now the situations aren't even close to being parallel, except in the sense that again there is a player not getting the chance at the big league level he deserves. Loney in 2007 is far younger than Church in 2006 was, and Loney doesn't have quite the big league track record Church had put together previously. Loney wasn't demoted because of a bad spring; he was demoted in spite of a great spring. And the players chosen over Church were all bad, while Nomar has been chosen over Loney. Nomar did have a good 2006 and ownership must have put considerable pressure on Colletti to resign this fan favorite.
Still, when I look at the sad abuse of Church by Bowden I do think of Colletti and Loney a little bit.
Ryan Wallace Zimmerman -- 3B
age: 22
bats: right
0.249 -- 0.306 -- 0.402
When I look at his name I am reminded of "Charles Wallace" from "A Wrinkle in Time". Zimmerman is scuffling along this year, and he had a good but not great OPS of 0.822 last year. Why all the hype surrounding him? Well, he's only 22. So yeah, he's really good if he's putting up an OPS of 0.800 at age 21.
No one else has played third base for the Nats this year. I think his biggest problem on the year so far is his strikeouts outnumber his walks 32 to 16. I'd like to see Dodger pitching keep up this trend.
Felipe Lopez Jr. -- 2B/SS
age: 27
bats: switch
0.255 -- 0.304 -- 0.363
I'm going to have a really hard time finding something interesting to say about all the awful Nats hitters to come. Lopez has an alarming number of strikeouts ( 40 ) for someone with not much power. There are a lot of Nat hitters with strikeout totals that exceed their walk totals by a wide margin, which typically produces low batting averages and low on base percentages. The Nats are 354-169 in strikeouts to walks, while the Dodgers are 252-183.
Lopez started the year as the regular shortstop, and then moved to second when Guzman became the regular shortstop.
Christian Antonio Guzman -- SS
age: 29
bats: switch
0.269 -- 0.326 -- 0.397
Yet another crappy switch hitter. He's not doing that bad, actually. I mean, this is the same guy who put up an OPS of 0.574 in 142 games back in 2005 for one of the worst offensive seasons in baseball history. Guzman missed all of 2006 after having shoulder surgery.
Ronald Belliard -- 2B
age: 32
bats: right
0.281 -- 0.323 -- 0.356
He lost his regular second base job after a hot April. He might start a game in this series, or see some action as a pinch hitter.
Austin Ryan Kearns -- RF
age: 27
bats: right
0.262 -- 0.324 -- 0.414
Same old story as so many other Nats: 37 strike outs, 15 walks. That's a good recipe for an OPB of only 0.320, which isn't quite good enough for a corner outfielder. He hits the occasional home run or double.
Kearns does a lot better on the road than at home, like many other Nats. I guess it's worth noting that the Nats aren't quite as bad offensively as these stats show, since their home stadium is a pitchers park. The Nats home OPS is 50 points lower than their road OPS.
Brian Duncan Schneider -- C
age: 30
bats: left
0.236 -- 0.320 -- 0.345
He's a regular old catcher. Makes me so glad to have Russ on the Dodgers.
Exavier Prente Logan -- CF
age: 27
bats: switch
0.265 -- 0.308 -- 0.367
Words fail me -- what a name! How did he get to be called "Nook"? I'm sure Vinny knows, and will tell us. He's probably told the story before, and I've forgotten. I know some people incorrectly say the name "Xavier" by pronouncing the intitial X like the letter X instead of with a Z sound: I guess Exavier's parents made this alternate pronunciation explicit, which I find rather bizarre.
He missed some time in April on the DL with a foot injury. Since he came back Church has moved over to left field to make way for Logan in center.
Jason William Simontacchi -- P
age: 33
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
4.37 -- 22.2 -- 16 -- 7 -- 2
Simontacchi pitched with the Cardinals from 2002-2004, then was out of the majors until this year. He gave up too many walks and home runs in his go arounds with the Cards, and why would anything really be different now?
He's not lasted longer than 6 innings in any of his 4 starts so far. The Dodgers should see plenty of the bullpen when he starts today. The Nats 'pen has been pretty average, with an ERA of 3.79 and a record of 9-7. The Dodger 'pen, in contrast, has an ERA of 3.20 and a record of 9-3.
One strange aside: the vaunted Padre bullpen, with a NL best ERA of 2.26, has a record of just 7-9. The Padre 'pen along with some limp late-inning offense has let some games get away.
Michael J. Bacsik -- P
age: 29
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
1.98 -- 13.2 -- 5 -- 2 -- 2
I'm willing to let that J. stay uninvestigated, since this way he reminds me of Michael J. Fox. Here is another pitcher whose last year in the big leagues before this one was 2004. Man, do the Nats suck. He's never shown anything previously at the big league level. He's allowed three runs so far on those two home runs. His ERA will soon be leaping up above 4, maybe even 5.
Bacsik has made just two starts; in his only home start he shut out the Orioles for 6 innings. That better not happen to the Dodgers.
Micah Andrew Bowie -- P
age: 32
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.91 -- 25.1 -- 18 -- 6 -- 4
Yet another pitcher with a two year gap in his big league resume! He pitched 19 inning with the Nats last year, then before that his last big league stint was in 2003. He's been thrust into the starting rotation after being in the 'pen to start the year. I don't feel so bad for not recognizing any of the Nat starters anymore.
What's with all these starters who weren't starters to start the year? Well, the Nats have had 4 pitchers go on the DL. Only Matt Chico is still standing from the start of the year; Patterson, Williams, Hill, and Bergmann have all gone on the DL.
The Dodgers have no excuse not to win at least 2 of 3 in this series, no matter how hot the Nats have been lately. Strike that: With the Padres and Snakes right with the Dodgers in the NL West standings, the Dodgers better sweep.
The Nats are so awful and nondescript. The only thing interesting about them is the shortening of their team name into "Nats", which feels like a throwback nickname, if that makes sense. It should, because indeed, the original Washington Senators were also called the Nationals for most of their existence as well, and the nickname "Nats" was frequently used for the team in the first half of the twentieth century.
I miss the old days, when the National League had just 12 teams. I guess I should be more specific, since I was just going on about the original Senators: to me the old days is the 1980's. Back then there was no team in an abomination of a ballpark in Arizona ( shudder ). There was no Arena-baseball being played in Denver. The Brewers were in the American League where they belonged, with all the other boring American League teams. There was no team in Florida buying World Series titles.
There was, however, a team in Montreal. The Expos were the odd duck of the NL east, a team playing in French Canadian Montreal. Back then the Expos were still relevant, still popular, still good. They had Gary Carter, Tim Raines, Tim Wallach and Andre Dawson. They weren't just a sad lame duck franchise, as they became in later years, with no players and no hope and no fanbase. There was a time when the Expos had more of a claim to fame then being the home team of the mascot Youppi!
Yeah, I miss the Expos. I miss the old Expos logo, an M that strangely doubled as a lowercase "elb". I miss having a non-American city in the NL; almost a European city in character. I miss getting to hear "O Canada" before Expos games ... the only chance of hearing that now is if the Dodgers play the Blue Jays, but how often does that happen? ( Okay, it happens this year! ) I even miss that horrible stadium, that artificial turf house of horrors where the Dodgers so often lost, because when they did win it was that much sweeter. I remember the Dodgers carrying sod with them into the Montreal dugout to break their artificial turf jinx one year.
I hope the Dodgers won't have any trouble winning in Washington this year. The Nats are really awful, especially on offense. Only the Cardinals are worse in the NL at scoring runs. The Nats are 21-30, with a run differential of 191-241. Now the Nats do have a 12-5 record in their last 17 games, and they've scored at least 4 runs in each of their last 8 games. Regardless of this recent success of the Nats, the Dodgers need to win this series. Arizona and San Diego have each already taken their first series from the Nats, and the Dodgers need to do the same.
The pitching matchups are Penny v Simontacchi, Lowe v Bacsik, and Hendrickson v Bowie. I have to admit I've not heard of any of the Nats pitchers. I'm also really tired to seeing Hendrickson's name as an upcoming pitcher. I look very much forward to the day, I hope coming very soon, when there is no Dodger starter whose name makes me shudder.
Dmitri Dell Young -- 1B
age: 33
bats: switch
AVG -- OBP -- SLG
0.298 -- 0.387 -- 0.468
Young is by far the Nats best hitter. That's a rather amazing and pathetic turn of events, because Young came to the team as a non-roster spring training invitee on a minor league contract in February. Young had legal and alcohol problems last year, and did not hit well with the Tigers, with an OPS of 0.700 in fewer than 200 plate appearances. And yet Young had the self-absorption to accuse the Tigers of unfairly releasing him last year, after he played so awfully and missed playing time because of problems he created for himself. Jim Leyland, the famed manager who once disgracefully quit on the Colorado Rockies, fired back a rip of his own at Dmitri. All this happened in February; things have been quiet in Dmitri-land since. Young has revived his career and seems to have turned his life back around. The one pothole in the road so far happened just two days ago, when he had to leave the Nats game after a collision with Scott Rolen at first base. Young is hopeful that he will be able to play today, though I think he should take at least three days off and make sure he's fully healthy before coming back.
Seriously, if he can't play it will be a big blow to the Nats offense, such as it is. He leads the team in slugging percentage and on base percentage.
Ryan Matthew Church -- CF/LF
age: 28
bats: left
0.263 -- 0.372 -- 0.455
Church and Young are the only Nats with an OPS above 0.800. Church is one of the few bright spots on the Nats, a relatively young player who can really hit. And yet at age 28 he's never yet had a full year at the big league level. What gives?
Well, in 2005 after being named the NL rookie of the month for May, Church had injury troubles and ended up with only about 300 plate appearances. Yet he still had an OPS of 0.819 on the year and he seemed a lock to be the team's starting center fielder the next year. What happened next shows the utter incompetence and small-minded pettiness of the Nats GM Jim Bowden. Church was demoted to AAA at the start of 2006 after having a poor spring training; in his place Brandon Watson was promoted. Said Bowden: "Brandon Watson outplayed him, outhit him, got on base, stole bases, got a good percentage of stolen bases, did the things that we asked him to do." Church, who was understandably shocked, said, "I didn't think it was a competition." Why would he, after winning the starting job during the regular season the previous year?
Bowden doesn't seem to realize that spring training stats don't matter. Or he just felt like punishing a player who didn't have a spring as good as he thought he should have. Or maybe he honestly thought Brandon Watson was the better player. But if he really thought that, then he really mistreated Watson, because Watson got to play in all of 8 games after his great spring before being demoted again. What kind of chance is that? This makes me think Bowden either wasn't buying the snake oil he was selling about Watson being better than Church, and just wanted to punish Church, or that Bowden is just the stupidest, most arrogant GM to ever walk the earth.
When Watson was sent down, Church was called right back up, which I think confirms my "punishment for a bad spring" theory. But then after 23 games Church was sent down to AAA again, with a line of 0.215 -- 0.346 -- 0.452. Are you kidding me, Bowden? What does anyone want to bet that all Bowden looked at was the batting average, and didn't notice the great secondary averages? Once Church's batting average reverted to a more normal level his OPS would have been around 0.900. The Nats had a center fielder who was already putting up an OPS of 0.800 and a good bet to do a lot better, and Bowden threw it away because of a low batting average. Unbelievable.
Church finally was back up to the big leagues to stay on 22 July 2006, and on the year he ended up with an OPS of 0.891. I'm sure Bowden felt that his demotions were just the kick in the pants Church needed to reach this level of excellence, and would take credit for Church's success. While Church was languishing in AAA a collection of mostly stiffs played in center field for the Nats:
Player Name --- games --- OPS
Ryan Church --- 51 --- 0.892
Marlon Byrd --- 57 --- 0.667
Nook Logan --- 26 --- 0.726
Damien Jackson --- 22 --- 0.666
Alex Escobar --- 23 --- 0.969
Brandon Watson --- 8 --- 0.385
Marlon Anderson --- 7 --- 0.754
Escobar did his damage in less than 100 at bats; his career OPS is 0.743 in about 400 plate appearances. Is anyone else disturbed that a man named Damien ended up with an OPS of 0.666? There's just no excuse for letting this collection of players man center field when you have Ryan Church available.
I can't help but think of James Loney in all this. Now the situations aren't even close to being parallel, except in the sense that again there is a player not getting the chance at the big league level he deserves. Loney in 2007 is far younger than Church in 2006 was, and Loney doesn't have quite the big league track record Church had put together previously. Loney wasn't demoted because of a bad spring; he was demoted in spite of a great spring. And the players chosen over Church were all bad, while Nomar has been chosen over Loney. Nomar did have a good 2006 and ownership must have put considerable pressure on Colletti to resign this fan favorite.
Still, when I look at the sad abuse of Church by Bowden I do think of Colletti and Loney a little bit.
Ryan Wallace Zimmerman -- 3B
age: 22
bats: right
0.249 -- 0.306 -- 0.402
When I look at his name I am reminded of "Charles Wallace" from "A Wrinkle in Time". Zimmerman is scuffling along this year, and he had a good but not great OPS of 0.822 last year. Why all the hype surrounding him? Well, he's only 22. So yeah, he's really good if he's putting up an OPS of 0.800 at age 21.
No one else has played third base for the Nats this year. I think his biggest problem on the year so far is his strikeouts outnumber his walks 32 to 16. I'd like to see Dodger pitching keep up this trend.
Felipe Lopez Jr. -- 2B/SS
age: 27
bats: switch
0.255 -- 0.304 -- 0.363
I'm going to have a really hard time finding something interesting to say about all the awful Nats hitters to come. Lopez has an alarming number of strikeouts ( 40 ) for someone with not much power. There are a lot of Nat hitters with strikeout totals that exceed their walk totals by a wide margin, which typically produces low batting averages and low on base percentages. The Nats are 354-169 in strikeouts to walks, while the Dodgers are 252-183.
Lopez started the year as the regular shortstop, and then moved to second when Guzman became the regular shortstop.
Christian Antonio Guzman -- SS
age: 29
bats: switch
0.269 -- 0.326 -- 0.397
Yet another crappy switch hitter. He's not doing that bad, actually. I mean, this is the same guy who put up an OPS of 0.574 in 142 games back in 2005 for one of the worst offensive seasons in baseball history. Guzman missed all of 2006 after having shoulder surgery.
Ronald Belliard -- 2B
age: 32
bats: right
0.281 -- 0.323 -- 0.356
He lost his regular second base job after a hot April. He might start a game in this series, or see some action as a pinch hitter.
Austin Ryan Kearns -- RF
age: 27
bats: right
0.262 -- 0.324 -- 0.414
Same old story as so many other Nats: 37 strike outs, 15 walks. That's a good recipe for an OPB of only 0.320, which isn't quite good enough for a corner outfielder. He hits the occasional home run or double.
Kearns does a lot better on the road than at home, like many other Nats. I guess it's worth noting that the Nats aren't quite as bad offensively as these stats show, since their home stadium is a pitchers park. The Nats home OPS is 50 points lower than their road OPS.
Brian Duncan Schneider -- C
age: 30
bats: left
0.236 -- 0.320 -- 0.345
He's a regular old catcher. Makes me so glad to have Russ on the Dodgers.
Exavier Prente Logan -- CF
age: 27
bats: switch
0.265 -- 0.308 -- 0.367
Words fail me -- what a name! How did he get to be called "Nook"? I'm sure Vinny knows, and will tell us. He's probably told the story before, and I've forgotten. I know some people incorrectly say the name "Xavier" by pronouncing the intitial X like the letter X instead of with a Z sound: I guess Exavier's parents made this alternate pronunciation explicit, which I find rather bizarre.
He missed some time in April on the DL with a foot injury. Since he came back Church has moved over to left field to make way for Logan in center.
Jason William Simontacchi -- P
age: 33
throws: right
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
4.37 -- 22.2 -- 16 -- 7 -- 2
Simontacchi pitched with the Cardinals from 2002-2004, then was out of the majors until this year. He gave up too many walks and home runs in his go arounds with the Cards, and why would anything really be different now?
He's not lasted longer than 6 innings in any of his 4 starts so far. The Dodgers should see plenty of the bullpen when he starts today. The Nats 'pen has been pretty average, with an ERA of 3.79 and a record of 9-7. The Dodger 'pen, in contrast, has an ERA of 3.20 and a record of 9-3.
One strange aside: the vaunted Padre bullpen, with a NL best ERA of 2.26, has a record of just 7-9. The Padre 'pen along with some limp late-inning offense has let some games get away.
Michael J. Bacsik -- P
age: 29
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
1.98 -- 13.2 -- 5 -- 2 -- 2
I'm willing to let that J. stay uninvestigated, since this way he reminds me of Michael J. Fox. Here is another pitcher whose last year in the big leagues before this one was 2004. Man, do the Nats suck. He's never shown anything previously at the big league level. He's allowed three runs so far on those two home runs. His ERA will soon be leaping up above 4, maybe even 5.
Bacsik has made just two starts; in his only home start he shut out the Orioles for 6 innings. That better not happen to the Dodgers.
Micah Andrew Bowie -- P
age: 32
throws: left
ERA -- IP -- SO -- BB -- HR
3.91 -- 25.1 -- 18 -- 6 -- 4
Yet another pitcher with a two year gap in his big league resume! He pitched 19 inning with the Nats last year, then before that his last big league stint was in 2003. He's been thrust into the starting rotation after being in the 'pen to start the year. I don't feel so bad for not recognizing any of the Nat starters anymore.
What's with all these starters who weren't starters to start the year? Well, the Nats have had 4 pitchers go on the DL. Only Matt Chico is still standing from the start of the year; Patterson, Williams, Hill, and Bergmann have all gone on the DL.
The Dodgers have no excuse not to win at least 2 of 3 in this series, no matter how hot the Nats have been lately. Strike that: With the Padres and Snakes right with the Dodgers in the NL West standings, the Dodgers better sweep.
28 May 2007
The Rest of Russ
by Joshua Worley
Paul LoDuca was often called the "heart and soul" of the Dodgers, especially after he was traded away, but was he, really? He was a good hitter for average, a popular player, but ... did he ever mean as much to Dodgers as Russ Martin means to the Dodgers now? I don't think so. LoDuca was good, but not as good as Russ.
Russ leads the NL in OPS by a catcher at 0.838, and is fourth in the major leagues in OPS by a catcher. He's stolen 8 of 9 bases, which makes him the most valuable base stealer on the team, according to linear weights. I've used the linear weights formula that Andrew Grant at True Blue LA uses, which has a plus 0.178 for a steal and a minus 0.441 for a caught stealing. Juan Pierre has more steals, but his caught stealing number makes him less valuable than Russ as a base-stealer. In overall linear weights Russ is second on the Dodgers so far to Jeff Kent.
Yet there's so much more to Russ Martin than his offense, as every Dodger fan knows. In Sunday's 2-1 win over the Cubs, Martin made four outs in four plate appearances, and yet defensively he was brilliant. He threw out foolish Mike Barrett trying to steal third with two outs in the second inning. He saved several possible wild pitches from Wolf with a man on third in the fifth inning. He made a terrific over-the-rope-fence catch in the seventh inning.
Martin has thrown out 34% of base-stealers, good for seventh in the major leagues. His catcher ERA is second in the major leagues, for what that's worth ... which is probably nothing. But anecdotal evidence such as the famous story of him telling Lowe he would stay out at the mound until Lowe calmed down suggests that Martin is very good at handling pitchers. He has only 2 passed balls, but more importantly, the Dodgers as a team have only 12 wild pitches, putting them in the bottom ten in the major leagues in wild pitches thrown. Martin has saved a lot of wild pitches during the season.
Martin also leads the major leagues in games started among catchers, with 45. Jason Kendall is second with 43; most starting catchers have between 30-40 starts right now.
Before Sunday's game, Jon Weisman said: Don't want to hear any complaining about Russell Martin being in the lineup. He rested Thursday and he'll rest again Monday.
There has been a lot of talk in the comments at Dodger Thoughts about the rest Russ is getting, questioning if it's enough. To be honest, I hate it when Russ rests, though I know he absolutely has to have some. I'm more likely to complain if he isn't in the lineup, especially if it's a game I'm seeing in person.
So, how much rest has Russ received? Below is a text graphic showing each week of the season so far ( a week starts on a Monday here ). If Russ started at catcher, there is an X, if he didn't start at catcher, there is an underscore. There is a lowercase x for one game Russ started then came out of after Tomko kerploded. ( I was at that game. )
XXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
XX_XXXX
_XXXXXX
_XX_XX_
XXXXXXX
xXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
Russ has had 11 days off so far. The entire team had the day off 6 times; Lieberthal started at catcher 5 times. Russ was the DH once when Lieberthal started, but I've counted this as a day off. Russ has started 45 games in 56 days. That seems like enough rest to me.
Russ has had one long stretch of 10 days playing catcher in a row; otherwise he usually plays 4 or 5 in a row then gets a rest day. He's had at least one rest day in all but one week ( during his 10 in a row ) and multiple rest days in 3 separate weeks.
I don't think Russ should start 10 days in a row very often, but I don't have a problem if he does it 2 or 3 times in a season. The Dodgers may need him to start 10 in a row down the stretch; and it's good to see how he holds up doing that once early in the season. And he did get a half-game off in the middle of the 10 in a row, for what that is worth.
About the possible stretch drive: The Dodgers have every Monday off during the last three weeks of the season, so Martin could easily start every game of the last three weeks and still have enough rest during that time.
After today's off day the Dodgers have 16 games in a row. Martin should rest at least once during this stretch, probably twice, but no more. It's just not the same team without him in the lineup and behind the plate. I want to see him play!
Paul LoDuca was often called the "heart and soul" of the Dodgers, especially after he was traded away, but was he, really? He was a good hitter for average, a popular player, but ... did he ever mean as much to Dodgers as Russ Martin means to the Dodgers now? I don't think so. LoDuca was good, but not as good as Russ.
Russ leads the NL in OPS by a catcher at 0.838, and is fourth in the major leagues in OPS by a catcher. He's stolen 8 of 9 bases, which makes him the most valuable base stealer on the team, according to linear weights. I've used the linear weights formula that Andrew Grant at True Blue LA uses, which has a plus 0.178 for a steal and a minus 0.441 for a caught stealing. Juan Pierre has more steals, but his caught stealing number makes him less valuable than Russ as a base-stealer. In overall linear weights Russ is second on the Dodgers so far to Jeff Kent.
Yet there's so much more to Russ Martin than his offense, as every Dodger fan knows. In Sunday's 2-1 win over the Cubs, Martin made four outs in four plate appearances, and yet defensively he was brilliant. He threw out foolish Mike Barrett trying to steal third with two outs in the second inning. He saved several possible wild pitches from Wolf with a man on third in the fifth inning. He made a terrific over-the-rope-fence catch in the seventh inning.
Martin has thrown out 34% of base-stealers, good for seventh in the major leagues. His catcher ERA is second in the major leagues, for what that's worth ... which is probably nothing. But anecdotal evidence such as the famous story of him telling Lowe he would stay out at the mound until Lowe calmed down suggests that Martin is very good at handling pitchers. He has only 2 passed balls, but more importantly, the Dodgers as a team have only 12 wild pitches, putting them in the bottom ten in the major leagues in wild pitches thrown. Martin has saved a lot of wild pitches during the season.
Martin also leads the major leagues in games started among catchers, with 45. Jason Kendall is second with 43; most starting catchers have between 30-40 starts right now.
Before Sunday's game, Jon Weisman said: Don't want to hear any complaining about Russell Martin being in the lineup. He rested Thursday and he'll rest again Monday.
There has been a lot of talk in the comments at Dodger Thoughts about the rest Russ is getting, questioning if it's enough. To be honest, I hate it when Russ rests, though I know he absolutely has to have some. I'm more likely to complain if he isn't in the lineup, especially if it's a game I'm seeing in person.
So, how much rest has Russ received? Below is a text graphic showing each week of the season so far ( a week starts on a Monday here ). If Russ started at catcher, there is an X, if he didn't start at catcher, there is an underscore. There is a lowercase x for one game Russ started then came out of after Tomko kerploded. ( I was at that game. )
XXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
XX_XXXX
_XXXXXX
_XX_XX_
XXXXXXX
xXX_X_X
XXX_XXX
Russ has had 11 days off so far. The entire team had the day off 6 times; Lieberthal started at catcher 5 times. Russ was the DH once when Lieberthal started, but I've counted this as a day off. Russ has started 45 games in 56 days. That seems like enough rest to me.
Russ has had one long stretch of 10 days playing catcher in a row; otherwise he usually plays 4 or 5 in a row then gets a rest day. He's had at least one rest day in all but one week ( during his 10 in a row ) and multiple rest days in 3 separate weeks.
I don't think Russ should start 10 days in a row very often, but I don't have a problem if he does it 2 or 3 times in a season. The Dodgers may need him to start 10 in a row down the stretch; and it's good to see how he holds up doing that once early in the season. And he did get a half-game off in the middle of the 10 in a row, for what that is worth.
About the possible stretch drive: The Dodgers have every Monday off during the last three weeks of the season, so Martin could easily start every game of the last three weeks and still have enough rest during that time.
After today's off day the Dodgers have 16 games in a row. Martin should rest at least once during this stretch, probably twice, but no more. It's just not the same team without him in the lineup and behind the plate. I want to see him play!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)