Picture the Dodgers uniform, the road gray, script blue lettering on the front, large blue number on the back, smaller red number on the front, all tied together with a Dodger blue cap with the classic interlocked LA logo in white. The uniform is elegant and complete. A man wearing this uniform is a Dodger, at a glance.
Change the cap to red, and the LA logo to a mash of red and white and stars and blue, and the uniform is broken. Stick a horn on a horse, and the noble beast is gone, replaced by a garish fantasy creature. Make the Dodgers wear red caps, and they are the unicorn Dodgers.
How is gaudiness a tribute? Why would anyone think making the uniform ugly and jarring honored anyone? It's a sacrifice --- but a pointless one.
Bud Selig pays tribute with a sledgehammer. Everyone will wear 42. Everyone will wear a red cap for a day. No, everyone will wear a red cap for a whole series. Frank McCourt follows his lead. God Bless America, every game! Soon Bud will mandate that every team sings God Bless America in the seventh inning stretch, and that every team wears ugly camouflage jerseys on Sundays. For Commissar Bud there is nothing that can't be improved by making it everywhere and all the time. And if you want to pay tribute? Just stick a horn on it and call it majestic.
07 July 2009
06 July 2009
The Juan Pierre Pity Party
I don't care so much if Matt Kemp makes the All-Star game. I really think he should, and I actually I really don't want to see him lose to any of the candidates in the fan vote, among them a spam-eating cry-baby diva jackass, an over-hyped strikeout machine Snake, and a Giant ( spit! ) with a cutesy nickname. But if he loses out I'll have forgotten about it a week later. It's an exhibition game. Who cares?
I care a lot more about Kemp's other battle, the one he's going to be waging most of the rest of the season, I fear. The battle to stay in center field.
Why would Kemp have to vacate center field? He's been great there defensively, after all, and with the bat he's been the Dodgers offensive MVP of the first half. So why? Why? Juan Pierre. Juan bleeping Pierre. And not because of any talent Pierre possesses, but because of a talent he doesn't possess.
When Pierre plays in place of Manny, there is no problem. Pierre slides into left field and Kemp stays in center. Given that Manny has only played in a third of the team's innings so far, maybe we can leave it at this. Pierre will get all the playing time he deserves, and more ( far more! ) just subbing for Manny. But let's be serious --- we know Manny is going to eventually get into playing shape ( or Torre will stop being so damn cautious ) and then Pierre will have to find more of his outfield innings at someone other player's expense.
That player will probably be Ethier, most of the time, and not Kemp. Ethier is batting 0.250, while both Pierre and Kemp are batting over 0.300. Never mind home runs or ability to wear a batting helmet without having to have a cap underneath it, even if that cap is red and the visual result is hideous and soul-crushing --- and never mind slugging percentage and career averages or anything else --- Pierre will have to play because he has a shiny batting average and he "makes things happen" and he's done everything the Dodgers have asked of him without complaining very much and he's a hard worker while Ethier is a lazy drug cheat --- er, wait, that's Manny, but Ethier will have to stand in for him because of course Manny has to play!
So, okay, Pierre is going to sub for Ethier way more than he should, and that is going to truly suck, but what does that have to do with Kemp? Well, you know what it has to do with Kemp, but I'm going to draw this out in agonizing description just so we can all see how stupid this is --- if Pierre subs in for Ethier then Kemp will have to move over and play right field, because why? Why? WHY? Because Pierre has an arm made of Nerf foam and he can't make the throws from right field, and left field is taken up by some guy with goofy Sideshow Bob hair who also happens to be an amazing hitter, so Pierre has to go into center, even though his arm really isn't strong enough for center field either. Really, it's not. He can't make the throws a center fielder needs to make. Let's not pretend he can. He can barely make the throws a left fielder needs to make. This is awful. Because of Pierre's limitations, Kemp has to move over if Ethier sits. Even if Pierre was marginally better than Ethier on offense ( and he's not ) you still wouldn't choose Pierre over Ethier because it will just cripple the team's outfield defense. It will destroy it.
And, of course, sometimes Pierre will start in place of Matt Kemp. Even though Kemp is better than Pierre offensively and defensively, without question. Does Kemp ever need a day off? Does he? He's not a catcher. He's a young star outfielder. Unless he gets injured, he needs at most three or four days off in the entire season. He probably doesn't need any days off. So why would you ever sit him? But it will happen, and not because Kemp needs the day off, but because Pierre needs to play. Why does Pierre need to play? Because we're throwing a pity party for him, and every terrible announcer from Fox Sports is invited.
I care a lot more about Kemp's other battle, the one he's going to be waging most of the rest of the season, I fear. The battle to stay in center field.
Why would Kemp have to vacate center field? He's been great there defensively, after all, and with the bat he's been the Dodgers offensive MVP of the first half. So why? Why? Juan Pierre. Juan bleeping Pierre. And not because of any talent Pierre possesses, but because of a talent he doesn't possess.
When Pierre plays in place of Manny, there is no problem. Pierre slides into left field and Kemp stays in center. Given that Manny has only played in a third of the team's innings so far, maybe we can leave it at this. Pierre will get all the playing time he deserves, and more ( far more! ) just subbing for Manny. But let's be serious --- we know Manny is going to eventually get into playing shape ( or Torre will stop being so damn cautious ) and then Pierre will have to find more of his outfield innings at someone other player's expense.
That player will probably be Ethier, most of the time, and not Kemp. Ethier is batting 0.250, while both Pierre and Kemp are batting over 0.300. Never mind home runs or ability to wear a batting helmet without having to have a cap underneath it, even if that cap is red and the visual result is hideous and soul-crushing --- and never mind slugging percentage and career averages or anything else --- Pierre will have to play because he has a shiny batting average and he "makes things happen" and he's done everything the Dodgers have asked of him without complaining very much and he's a hard worker while Ethier is a lazy drug cheat --- er, wait, that's Manny, but Ethier will have to stand in for him because of course Manny has to play!
So, okay, Pierre is going to sub for Ethier way more than he should, and that is going to truly suck, but what does that have to do with Kemp? Well, you know what it has to do with Kemp, but I'm going to draw this out in agonizing description just so we can all see how stupid this is --- if Pierre subs in for Ethier then Kemp will have to move over and play right field, because why? Why? WHY? Because Pierre has an arm made of Nerf foam and he can't make the throws from right field, and left field is taken up by some guy with goofy Sideshow Bob hair who also happens to be an amazing hitter, so Pierre has to go into center, even though his arm really isn't strong enough for center field either. Really, it's not. He can't make the throws a center fielder needs to make. Let's not pretend he can. He can barely make the throws a left fielder needs to make. This is awful. Because of Pierre's limitations, Kemp has to move over if Ethier sits. Even if Pierre was marginally better than Ethier on offense ( and he's not ) you still wouldn't choose Pierre over Ethier because it will just cripple the team's outfield defense. It will destroy it.
And, of course, sometimes Pierre will start in place of Matt Kemp. Even though Kemp is better than Pierre offensively and defensively, without question. Does Kemp ever need a day off? Does he? He's not a catcher. He's a young star outfielder. Unless he gets injured, he needs at most three or four days off in the entire season. He probably doesn't need any days off. So why would you ever sit him? But it will happen, and not because Kemp needs the day off, but because Pierre needs to play. Why does Pierre need to play? Because we're throwing a pity party for him, and every terrible announcer from Fox Sports is invited.
Sideshow Manny
As I have previously stated, there are a lot of things I accept about Manny's return.
What I don't accept is that Manny can't play a full game, or that he already needs a day off. I accept that he's rusty, but I don't accept him being gassed after five and a half innings. Manny was suspended, not injured. He missed about two months of games, but nothing was stopping him from staying in playing shape during that time. He wasn't paid during the suspension ( his own damn fault ) but he knew he would be paid in full the moment his suspension ended, so he had a duty to be at full strength the moment his suspension ended. He even was given a week of rehab games to finish the job of getting back into playing shape. Was all the controversy over that for nothing?
This is ridiculous. I feel like one of those hack sportswriters getting all upset and high-horsey about the lazy crooked ballplayers of today, and I don't want to feel like that. I don't want to write this kind of stuff, but when Manny plays only 10 of 30 possible innings in the field I feel that I have no choice. It doesn't make sense to me. Someone has screwed up here. Maybe Manny is ready, and Torre is being way too cautious. I don't know. What I do know is that I saw way too much of Juan Pierre last weekend.
Manny was a sideshow in that series. He didn't really have any impact on the games, and that is not all his fault --- some of it is circumstance. But playing so little didn't help. It's almost like he was being paraded out, showcased, while the real game took place somewhere else. He goes 0-3 and the Dodgers win. He hits a home run and the Dodgers lose. Manny simply had zero effect on the series. His at bats were theater. At times it seemed like no one really cared about what he did at the plate. It was all about the reaction, the cheers, the boos, the signs.
Or were the Dodgers the sideshow, and Manny the main event? Do I have this all backwards?
What I don't accept is that Manny can't play a full game, or that he already needs a day off. I accept that he's rusty, but I don't accept him being gassed after five and a half innings. Manny was suspended, not injured. He missed about two months of games, but nothing was stopping him from staying in playing shape during that time. He wasn't paid during the suspension ( his own damn fault ) but he knew he would be paid in full the moment his suspension ended, so he had a duty to be at full strength the moment his suspension ended. He even was given a week of rehab games to finish the job of getting back into playing shape. Was all the controversy over that for nothing?
This is ridiculous. I feel like one of those hack sportswriters getting all upset and high-horsey about the lazy crooked ballplayers of today, and I don't want to feel like that. I don't want to write this kind of stuff, but when Manny plays only 10 of 30 possible innings in the field I feel that I have no choice. It doesn't make sense to me. Someone has screwed up here. Maybe Manny is ready, and Torre is being way too cautious. I don't know. What I do know is that I saw way too much of Juan Pierre last weekend.
Manny was a sideshow in that series. He didn't really have any impact on the games, and that is not all his fault --- some of it is circumstance. But playing so little didn't help. It's almost like he was being paraded out, showcased, while the real game took place somewhere else. He goes 0-3 and the Dodgers win. He hits a home run and the Dodgers lose. Manny simply had zero effect on the series. His at bats were theater. At times it seemed like no one really cared about what he did at the plate. It was all about the reaction, the cheers, the boos, the signs.
Or were the Dodgers the sideshow, and Manny the main event? Do I have this all backwards?
Unfair Shares of the Red Cap Series
This was my least favorite series of the year, even though the Dodgers won two out of three. If the Dodgers ever get swept, then that series will become my least favorite, but for now this is it. I'll explain why I hated this series later, in a non-unfair shares post.
Game 80 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )
Mota -- 1
Furcal -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Game 80 Unfair Loss Shares ( Padres )
Gaudin -- 1
Kouzmanoff -- 1
Headley -- 1
Is Kuroda back at full strength yet? I guess he must be, but I keep thinking of him as a pitcher who just came back, and probably can't go deep into games too often. In fact he returned at the start of June, and Friday's Dodger win was his seventh start since returning. So he's been back for awhile. And he should be able to go deep into games. But he doesn't, not often. Kuroda had one start where he came within an out of a complete game, but otherwise he's been a five or six inning pitcher. Friday, too, Kuroda had to come out early, and the suddenly reliable Mota cleaned up his trouble. I don't feel very much alarm over the Dodger starters not going deep into games, I have to admit, but it would be nice if Kuroda could start to hit seven innings in at least half his starts. If a starter can go seven strong innings and hand off a lead to the bullpen, then either Belisario or Troncoso gets the day off. If the starter only goes six innings, they might both have to pitch, or Mota might have to get involved.
Game 81 Unfair Win Shares ( Padres )
Geer -- 1
Cabrera -- 1
Bell -- 1
Game 81 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )
Blake -- 1
Belisario -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Belisario kicked off two days of reliable-reliever meltdowns by losing the game in the seventh inning. The Dodgers had a chance to tie the game in the eighth, but both Ethier and Blake stranded the tying run at second base against Heath Bell. Blake then made sure that the Dodgers would lose with his horrible throwing error in the bottom of the eighth.
Game 82 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )
Billingsley -- 1
Weaver -- 1
Blake -- 1
Game 82 Unfair Loss Shares ( Padres )
Banks -- 1
Mujica -- 1
Eckstein -- 1
Broxton was very close to getting his first three unfair loss shares of the season all in one gulp, until Eliezer Alfonso saved him with his silly overslide of third base. But Broxton still would have been on the hook for at least two unfair loss shares if the Dodgers had gone on to lose in extra innings. Instead he was saved by Loney and Weaver. Usually hitting a game-winning home run will get you an unfair win share, but early game heroes Billingsley and Blake make it a battle for the last spot between Weaver and Loney, and I was just a little more impressed by what Weaver did. He got the win and the save, if you were allowed to award a save to a pitcher who also was the pitcher of record. I think a pitcher should be allowed to get a win and a save in the same game. Weaver earned the win by keeping the Padres from winning in the bottom of the eleventh and twelfth innings, and then he preserved the one run lead in the bottom of the thirteenth. Why should it matter that the same guy did both things? Give him credit for both.
Game 80 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )
Mota -- 1
Furcal -- 1
Kemp -- 1
Game 80 Unfair Loss Shares ( Padres )
Gaudin -- 1
Kouzmanoff -- 1
Headley -- 1
Is Kuroda back at full strength yet? I guess he must be, but I keep thinking of him as a pitcher who just came back, and probably can't go deep into games too often. In fact he returned at the start of June, and Friday's Dodger win was his seventh start since returning. So he's been back for awhile. And he should be able to go deep into games. But he doesn't, not often. Kuroda had one start where he came within an out of a complete game, but otherwise he's been a five or six inning pitcher. Friday, too, Kuroda had to come out early, and the suddenly reliable Mota cleaned up his trouble. I don't feel very much alarm over the Dodger starters not going deep into games, I have to admit, but it would be nice if Kuroda could start to hit seven innings in at least half his starts. If a starter can go seven strong innings and hand off a lead to the bullpen, then either Belisario or Troncoso gets the day off. If the starter only goes six innings, they might both have to pitch, or Mota might have to get involved.
Game 81 Unfair Win Shares ( Padres )
Geer -- 1
Cabrera -- 1
Bell -- 1
Game 81 Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )
Blake -- 1
Belisario -- 1
Ethier -- 1
Belisario kicked off two days of reliable-reliever meltdowns by losing the game in the seventh inning. The Dodgers had a chance to tie the game in the eighth, but both Ethier and Blake stranded the tying run at second base against Heath Bell. Blake then made sure that the Dodgers would lose with his horrible throwing error in the bottom of the eighth.
Game 82 Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )
Billingsley -- 1
Weaver -- 1
Blake -- 1
Game 82 Unfair Loss Shares ( Padres )
Banks -- 1
Mujica -- 1
Eckstein -- 1
Broxton was very close to getting his first three unfair loss shares of the season all in one gulp, until Eliezer Alfonso saved him with his silly overslide of third base. But Broxton still would have been on the hook for at least two unfair loss shares if the Dodgers had gone on to lose in extra innings. Instead he was saved by Loney and Weaver. Usually hitting a game-winning home run will get you an unfair win share, but early game heroes Billingsley and Blake make it a battle for the last spot between Weaver and Loney, and I was just a little more impressed by what Weaver did. He got the win and the save, if you were allowed to award a save to a pitcher who also was the pitcher of record. I think a pitcher should be allowed to get a win and a save in the same game. Weaver earned the win by keeping the Padres from winning in the bottom of the eleventh and twelfth innings, and then he preserved the one run lead in the bottom of the thirteenth. Why should it matter that the same guy did both things? Give him credit for both.
04 July 2009
Acceptance
Why should I cheer for him? A walk? Okay, that's a good thing. That walk helped glue together that big inning --- without it, and many other clutch and fortunate moments, the Dodgers would have scored not at all. So yeah, that walk was good, made better by the circumstances, but that's all there was. The other three plate appearances were weak outs, and he was gone by the sixth inning. Replaced by a man who made a catch at the wall in the late innings when the game was still in doubt. Would he have made that catch? I don't know, that's getting to far into conjecture, and down that road lies only ruin, especially when it concerns him. So a walk, and 0-3 otherwise, barely an imprint on the game, really. So why should I cheer for him?
Because he came back. Yes, and so? His exile was of his own sour making. One cannot invoke misfortune, as of the player who is struck down by random injury, and one cannot invoke heroic redemption, as of the player who falls due to his own extraordinary efforts and then strives mightily to return. I find no cause to judge the man, or think poorly of him, even, but the exile and return must be characterized as it is. It is a suspension for wrongdoing, and he returns now because his suspension is served, and I will cheer when he does something great, and not one moment sooner. Manny must earn his adulation, and I have no doubt he will earn it, and I will give it without reservation, when the time comes. I have no patience for sentimentality or sanctimony, meaning: that I will not praise him just for showing up again in Dodger blue; and I will not curse him as a convenient vessel for all the anger and uncertainty we have over the era of performance enhancing drugs.
It is a different team now. Manny has been a comet through the Dodger firmament. Two months of glory in the heady days of first knowing Manny at the ascendant end of 2008, then a postseason of inflicted terror, then a tense spring of negotiation, a triumphant return, 21-8, and then --- silence. Half a year, half a season of games, and we hardly know him, but still we love him. He is an enigma now, and an enigma forever, I suppose. Manny being Manny, a statement which means nothing, or perhaps everything --- a zen koan for the modern age. And yet, for 50 games, he was Manny being nothing, he was an enigma wrapped in silence. The Dodgers were 29-21, still a good team, even a great team at times. In the words of Vinny, the game is larger than one man.
So much happened while you were gone, Manny. The season is more without him than with him. We got to know Juan Pierre again, as if for the first time. We would say, maybe, that he finally got off on the right foot with us, after two years of trying, and failing. In truth he is the same slap-hitting Juan Pierre we have always known, but for the that first month of base hits and RBIs he was there and Manny was not. That's really what it comes down to, for me, finally, after not thinking about it much for 50 games. You weren't there, Manny, and it's your own damn fault. I accept your punishment, and I accept your enigmatic apology, and I accept your return. I accept that there are things we will never know, about you and many other players of this age. I accept that you may struggle for a time. I accept your presence on the Dodgers, even though it may cause controversy and attacks from the moral guardians of the game. I accept all of it.
But I don't cheer any of it. I cheer for performance.
And isn't that the problem? Does that mean that I am cheering, however indirectly, for the use of the drugs that may enhance that performance? I don't know. This is an unsettling riddle that I cannot unravel. I think I have to accept that too.
Because he came back. Yes, and so? His exile was of his own sour making. One cannot invoke misfortune, as of the player who is struck down by random injury, and one cannot invoke heroic redemption, as of the player who falls due to his own extraordinary efforts and then strives mightily to return. I find no cause to judge the man, or think poorly of him, even, but the exile and return must be characterized as it is. It is a suspension for wrongdoing, and he returns now because his suspension is served, and I will cheer when he does something great, and not one moment sooner. Manny must earn his adulation, and I have no doubt he will earn it, and I will give it without reservation, when the time comes. I have no patience for sentimentality or sanctimony, meaning: that I will not praise him just for showing up again in Dodger blue; and I will not curse him as a convenient vessel for all the anger and uncertainty we have over the era of performance enhancing drugs.
It is a different team now. Manny has been a comet through the Dodger firmament. Two months of glory in the heady days of first knowing Manny at the ascendant end of 2008, then a postseason of inflicted terror, then a tense spring of negotiation, a triumphant return, 21-8, and then --- silence. Half a year, half a season of games, and we hardly know him, but still we love him. He is an enigma now, and an enigma forever, I suppose. Manny being Manny, a statement which means nothing, or perhaps everything --- a zen koan for the modern age. And yet, for 50 games, he was Manny being nothing, he was an enigma wrapped in silence. The Dodgers were 29-21, still a good team, even a great team at times. In the words of Vinny, the game is larger than one man.
So much happened while you were gone, Manny. The season is more without him than with him. We got to know Juan Pierre again, as if for the first time. We would say, maybe, that he finally got off on the right foot with us, after two years of trying, and failing. In truth he is the same slap-hitting Juan Pierre we have always known, but for the that first month of base hits and RBIs he was there and Manny was not. That's really what it comes down to, for me, finally, after not thinking about it much for 50 games. You weren't there, Manny, and it's your own damn fault. I accept your punishment, and I accept your enigmatic apology, and I accept your return. I accept that there are things we will never know, about you and many other players of this age. I accept that you may struggle for a time. I accept your presence on the Dodgers, even though it may cause controversy and attacks from the moral guardians of the game. I accept all of it.
But I don't cheer any of it. I cheer for performance.
And isn't that the problem? Does that mean that I am cheering, however indirectly, for the use of the drugs that may enhance that performance? I don't know. This is an unsettling riddle that I cannot unravel. I think I have to accept that too.
02 July 2009
Pentastic --- Game 79 Unfair Win Shares
So what happened to the offense? Five runs in three games. Five runs in 31 innings. Damn, that's weak. The manager must be pulling out his hair, if he could actually get a hold of it, as it is rather short. The fans must be wondering where the magic went, cursing that it should disappear right when they needed it most, facing their mighty division foes. What happened to the Rockies offense?
Yes, for all the angst I have over the Dodger offense, I can at least take consolation that the Rockies have it worse. The Rockies not only lost the series, but they were also beat by the Dodgers in the run efficiency department: while both teams scored just five runs in the series, the Dodgers took one fewer inning to do it, thanks to yesterday's non-walk-off home win.
It really was a strange series. Pitchers knocked in 4 of the 10 runs scored. If you remove all the pitcher RBIs, then the Rockies would have outscored the Dodgers 3-1 in the series, winning the first game 2-0, winning the second game 1-0, and losing the last game 1-0. ( Ethier never would have hit his extra inning homer because the Rockies would have won in standard innings. )
Here are the innings and runs allowed by Dodger pitchers this past series:
Bills --- 7.2 -- 3
Wolf --- 6.0 -- 2
Kersh --- 5.0 -- 0
'pen --- 12.1 -- 0
I'm leaving the 'pen together to emphasize just how good they were. More than 4 innings per game and they still didn't allow a run. I'm still marveling over that Monday game, when 7 different 'pen pitchers pitched a scoreless inning. Not a weak link there. Mota? Not anymore. Perhaps I was wrong about him being a terrible signing, though to be sure he's only had one good month so far. But what a month it was! He's allowed only one run in 16 innings pitched this month ( though that run did cost the Dodgers a game ) and he's not doing it with luck, either, as he has 11 strikeouts and only 2 walks. Weaver, as the weak link, perhaps? Perhaps, but he's been a fine long man and spot starter all year, and frankly, if this is what your 11th or 12th best pitcher on staff gives you during the year, you've got an unbelievable staff.
Billingsley was the goat in the series, if there was one among the pitchers, but in another way he was the sacrificial hero. The 'pen pitched a lot of innings, between the long extra inning game and Kershaw typical brilliant but short 5 inning performance, and it would have been even more if Billingsley hadn't gone deep into Tuesday's game and given most of them the night off. Today is a day off, so even after this tough series the 'pen should be fully rested, with the possible exception of Belisario, who pitched two innings yesterday.
I want to give the 'pen three unfair win shares for this past game, just because they've been so great. But Furcal has to get one for his pinch hit RBI, and really I think Kershaw probably has to get one, leaving Belisario with the last one. It's so hard to choose between the relievers. On Monday I had to pick just one of the magnificent seven to get an unfair win share, and it ended up being McDonald just because he was the last. This time it goes to Belisario because he pitched the most.
Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )
Furcal -- 1
Kershaw -- 1
Belisario -- 1
Unfair Loss Shares ( Rockies )
Barmes -- 1
Tulowitzki -- 1
Spilborghs -- 1
Yes, for all the angst I have over the Dodger offense, I can at least take consolation that the Rockies have it worse. The Rockies not only lost the series, but they were also beat by the Dodgers in the run efficiency department: while both teams scored just five runs in the series, the Dodgers took one fewer inning to do it, thanks to yesterday's non-walk-off home win.
It really was a strange series. Pitchers knocked in 4 of the 10 runs scored. If you remove all the pitcher RBIs, then the Rockies would have outscored the Dodgers 3-1 in the series, winning the first game 2-0, winning the second game 1-0, and losing the last game 1-0. ( Ethier never would have hit his extra inning homer because the Rockies would have won in standard innings. )
Here are the innings and runs allowed by Dodger pitchers this past series:
Bills --- 7.2 -- 3
Wolf --- 6.0 -- 2
Kersh --- 5.0 -- 0
'pen --- 12.1 -- 0
I'm leaving the 'pen together to emphasize just how good they were. More than 4 innings per game and they still didn't allow a run. I'm still marveling over that Monday game, when 7 different 'pen pitchers pitched a scoreless inning. Not a weak link there. Mota? Not anymore. Perhaps I was wrong about him being a terrible signing, though to be sure he's only had one good month so far. But what a month it was! He's allowed only one run in 16 innings pitched this month ( though that run did cost the Dodgers a game ) and he's not doing it with luck, either, as he has 11 strikeouts and only 2 walks. Weaver, as the weak link, perhaps? Perhaps, but he's been a fine long man and spot starter all year, and frankly, if this is what your 11th or 12th best pitcher on staff gives you during the year, you've got an unbelievable staff.
Billingsley was the goat in the series, if there was one among the pitchers, but in another way he was the sacrificial hero. The 'pen pitched a lot of innings, between the long extra inning game and Kershaw typical brilliant but short 5 inning performance, and it would have been even more if Billingsley hadn't gone deep into Tuesday's game and given most of them the night off. Today is a day off, so even after this tough series the 'pen should be fully rested, with the possible exception of Belisario, who pitched two innings yesterday.
I want to give the 'pen three unfair win shares for this past game, just because they've been so great. But Furcal has to get one for his pinch hit RBI, and really I think Kershaw probably has to get one, leaving Belisario with the last one. It's so hard to choose between the relievers. On Monday I had to pick just one of the magnificent seven to get an unfair win share, and it ended up being McDonald just because he was the last. This time it goes to Belisario because he pitched the most.
Unfair Win Shares ( Dodgers )
Furcal -- 1
Kershaw -- 1
Belisario -- 1
Unfair Loss Shares ( Rockies )
Barmes -- 1
Tulowitzki -- 1
Spilborghs -- 1
01 July 2009
Game 78 Unfair Loss Shares
I have often wondered how unfair loss shares should be distributed if a team is shut down by a perfect game. Who gets the blame on the losing side, when every hitter is 0-3?
The Dodgers were not run out 27 straight, but Marquis came very close. Close enough for the same questions to hold. Well, Loney and Castro had hits, so they are safe. And then? And then we come right up to one of the many weaknesses of the unfair shares. There is something very inflexible about having to award three, exactly three, indivisibly three, every game. How much simpler and fairer it would be to just give everyone on the offense a third of an unfair loss share, or better yet, to just give none at all. Marquis was just too good. You can't blame the Dodgers. Well, I don't. I was ready to blame them in the fifth inning, ready to write about how the offense had become a grim and woeful thing, a misshapen beast with dysfunctional limbs. By the eighth inning I realized it was all about Marquis that night. He made the Dodgers irrelevant.
It is bootless to lament the injustice of the unfair loss shares. They are as they are, and if this game makes clear the limitations of this device, then so be it. Let no thing hide from the light of truth. Here, the margin of decision is laughably thin. Furcal and Pierre are damned for having the misfortune of batting four fruitless times against Marquis, while the rest are saved because they never got that fourth chance to chop an easy grounder out. And for the last, I choose Billingsley. His performance was not bad, but again he let the opposing team get to him with a big inning full of many baserunners, if a two run inning can be called a big inning, and it can, when faced against such a performance of Marquis'. Down one, the Dodgers had hope, even if it would ultimately prove false, but down three, against His Efficiency, they had none. In short, Billingsley gets an unfair loss share because the opposing pitcher was so good.
Unfair Win Shares ( Rockies )
Marquis -- 3
Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )
Pierre -- 1
Furcal -- 1
Billingsley -- 1
The Dodgers were not run out 27 straight, but Marquis came very close. Close enough for the same questions to hold. Well, Loney and Castro had hits, so they are safe. And then? And then we come right up to one of the many weaknesses of the unfair shares. There is something very inflexible about having to award three, exactly three, indivisibly three, every game. How much simpler and fairer it would be to just give everyone on the offense a third of an unfair loss share, or better yet, to just give none at all. Marquis was just too good. You can't blame the Dodgers. Well, I don't. I was ready to blame them in the fifth inning, ready to write about how the offense had become a grim and woeful thing, a misshapen beast with dysfunctional limbs. By the eighth inning I realized it was all about Marquis that night. He made the Dodgers irrelevant.
It is bootless to lament the injustice of the unfair loss shares. They are as they are, and if this game makes clear the limitations of this device, then so be it. Let no thing hide from the light of truth. Here, the margin of decision is laughably thin. Furcal and Pierre are damned for having the misfortune of batting four fruitless times against Marquis, while the rest are saved because they never got that fourth chance to chop an easy grounder out. And for the last, I choose Billingsley. His performance was not bad, but again he let the opposing team get to him with a big inning full of many baserunners, if a two run inning can be called a big inning, and it can, when faced against such a performance of Marquis'. Down one, the Dodgers had hope, even if it would ultimately prove false, but down three, against His Efficiency, they had none. In short, Billingsley gets an unfair loss share because the opposing pitcher was so good.
Unfair Win Shares ( Rockies )
Marquis -- 3
Unfair Loss Shares ( Dodgers )
Pierre -- 1
Furcal -- 1
Billingsley -- 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)