The line between fact and opinion in baseball is as fuzzy as this metaphor. The numbers describing certain facets of baseball are so comprehensive and deep that statements which might usually be seen as opinion take on the characteristics of fact. In baseball, there is truth, damned truth, and VORP. Players are numbers, governed by known equations, easily ordered by value.
But no, this is too much. Fact has not overtaken opinion that much.
Even hitting, the most numerically mapped athletic discipline in existence, is not easily pinned under a single matrix of numbers. The year to year fluctuations of player stats are proof enough of that. But even if each player was reducible to a single number, the games would still be living things, unpredictable, unknowable, endlessly debatable. An opportunity for fun, a playground for opinion. Even Juan Pierre can hit a home run. Even Chan Ho Park can pitch a scoreless inning.
Except he didn't. Did you see that? That was great. Last night it wasn't just an opinion that Chan Ho Park is a terrible pitcher who will give up home runs and make you weep if he's on your team. It was a stone cold fact. I love that even a team like the Yankees who pay for only the finest players still have to rely on someone like Chan Ho Park in the seventh inning. Middle relief is the great leveler. Even the best and richest teams will sometimes struggle to find quality middle relief. There's just no stability there, in performance and in team personnel, not year to year, often not even from month to month! Still, Chan Ho Park? Really, Yankees? Ha ha ha!
I couldn't believe it when my wife said, "Isn't that Chan Ho Park pitching for the Yankees?" I scoffed. But it was him. That made my night. I don't know, maybe I'm being too hard on him. He was great for the Dodgers in 2008, and not too bad for the Phillies in 2009. But still, does anyone really think Chan Ho Park can handle the AL East this year? The only thing more desperate a team could do would be to employ Russ Ortiz as a relief pitcher.
Sigh.
05 April 2010
04 April 2010
The 2010 Opening Day Russter
For every player there is a story. Sometimes it is a boring story, in which case it's best to make something up.
Here are the stories of the 25 players most likely to make the opening roster for the Dodgers.
Matt Kemp
What do we want to see more of from Matt Kemp? More steals? More home runs? Could he be a 40-40 guy? Yes! What else? More great plays in center field? More cannon throws to exterminate runs at the plate? Indeed, yes. More moments when he seems the most physically gifted player to ever wear the Dodger Blue? Absolutely. It's all possible.
But then there is one more thing, and it isn't a "more" at all, it's a "less". Or a "fewer", if we wish to be grammatically correct. We want to see fewer outs. It's not very exciting but when I look at what he did last year this is where it appears the Bison can make the most improvement. 0.352 OBP last year, and 0.340 the year before. These are not bad numbers, not for a good defensive center fielder with power. But if he is to become a superstar, he needs to improve, I think. Can he? I have no idea.
Even if he never does, he's still the most fun Dodger to watch in a long time.
Andre Ethier
This year his clutch hits will come before the ninth inning. That's usually when they come. Think of how often the three run home run in the third inning ends up being the crucial moment in a game. Can you think of how often this happens? Maybe not, because it's just not a memorable way for a game to be decided. But it happens all the same. If Andre hits well, that's clutch enough, isn't it?
Manny Ramirez
He removes himself from the ordinary circles of the baseball world without even trying. His hits are art. His slumps are drama. His words are comic theatre. His silence is a window to the soul. His hair is Bob Marley. His fielding is Cosmo Kramer. His name is Manny. And that's who he is.
Garret Anderson
This might mean something --- to someone who likes the Angels --- or has a sense of solidarity --- with our Metropolitan baseball cousins --- but I don't care --- he's just another old guy --- just a guy with a bat --- and a glove, I guess --- I don't know his stats --- or his hopes --- all I know is that he's washed up --- just filling out his baseball time --- filling out a roster --- filling outfield spaces --- when the outfield isn't full.
Reed Johnson
Oh man, I got nothing. Really. I can't even make anything up. How about a game? Let's see who ends up with a better Dodger career --- him or Brady Clark? Do you remember Brady Clark? Perhaps, but is there a compelling reason to remember him? I think Reed Johnson is going to be the same way.
Russell Martin
So here he is, back from injury early, ready to play on opening day. Will the lack of playing time this spring hurt him? Will it give him an excuse to get off to a slow start, thereby taking the pressure off to produce, thereby allowing him to instead get off to a fast start?
Brad Ausmus
Bad Ausmus, I call him, when he makes an out in a game. Would it be more creative to call him Brad Outmas instead? How about Brad Ausmiss if he strikes out? At least he doesn't get turned into a boy named Sue ( or some other female name ) when he does poorly. My wife still calls JD Drew "Judy Drew". Sometimes this will annoy me because he's a pretty good player but other times I think it's pretty funny. Some people prefer to feminize Drew by calling him Nancy, but really do people even read Nancy Drew books anymore? I think Nancy Drew grew up and became Mary Worth.
James Loney
What keeps James in the big leagues? He doesn't hit a whole lot of home runs or doubles. He's not fast. He doesn't pitch, not anymore. He doesn't walk a whole lot. He doesn't play catcher or shortstop or some other tough defensive position. Basically he plays a good defense at first base and makes a lot of contact. That's about it. Is that really enough for a first baseman? Maybe it is when you have a outfield like the Dodgers have and you're getting paid low arbitration dollars. But soon, if he doesn't improve, I don't think it will be enough.
Rafael Furcal
I'm not really expecting much out of the Furbolg this season. Maybe get on base at a 0.340 clip, don't make too many bad throws, hit a few random home runs and please don't get hurt! Oh, and no more DUIs, please.
Blake DeWitt
How long a leash do you think Blake has? How long can he struggle without Joe Torre playingAngel Berroa Ronnie Belliard too much? I wish Torre could undergo psychological conditioning to make him think that Blake DeWitt was a veteran.
Jamey Carroll
Good signing. Seems like a solid bench guy. Doesn't he make Ronnie Belliard unnecessary?
Ronnie Belliard
Just to remind you ( I had forgotten ) but Ronnie Belliard was amazing for the Dodgers last year. He had an OPS of 1.034. Five home runs in a month of games. He was Marlon Anderson version 2. I kind of wish his all time career OPS as a Dodger could have stayed above 1.000. Instead --- how low will it go? Belliard has had some decent seasons fairly recently, but his age and his weight problems make it seem likely he'll crash into uselessness one of these years.
Casey Blake
I think the Dodgers should be allowed to void his contract if he's clean shaven. His beardlessness reduces his value to the fans by at least 50%. They should start selling "Free Casey Blake's Beard" shirts outside Dodger Stadium.
Clayton Kershaw
All the stuff I was going to say about him has been ruled a "jinx" by the jinxing committee.
Chad Billingsley
Order of importance that certain parties believe in the ability of Chad Billingsley:
1. Chad Billingsley
2. Joe Torre
3. Ned Colletti
4. Some gambler in Vegas who bet lots of money on the "over" on Billingsley wins
5. Teammates
...
46. The fans
...
103. Sportswriters
104. Bill Plaschke
It's interesting how many people focus on Billingsley when trying to figure out how good the Dodgers will be in 2010. Are the likely upper and lower limits of his performance really any wider than they are for most of the other Dodgers? Does a bad season from Chad hurt more than a bad season from Loney or Martin? If Chad pitches worse than expected, or hoped, the difference could still be made up by another player having a better than expected season. And yet people talk about his performance this year like it will make or break the team.
Vicente Padilla
In 39 Dodger innings last year Padilla struck out 38 batters. That is the kind of ratio that would indeed make him worthy of being the opening day starter. Unfortunately he had never posted a ratio anything like that over a full season, and he's not about to start now at age 32. But if he keeps his walks down he might yet be league average this season, which would be great.
Hiroki Kuroda
How can you not root for a guy who comes back weeks after giving up a ground rule double off of his own head? Why didn't he get the opening day start, if it couldn't go to Billingsley or Kershaw?
Kuroda had an ERA of 3.73 in 2008. He had an ERA of 3.76 in the 2009 regular season. He had an ERA of 40.50 in the 2009 postseason. So, running a linear regression analysis on these numbers I find that his predicted ERA in 2010 is 89.57. Ah, so that's why he isn't being given the opening day start.
Charlie Haeger
Tom Candiotti was the last knuckleball pitcher in the Dodger starting rotation. Candiotti lasted 6 years with the Dodgers, and they were mostly good years. His ERA+ in those six years were 116, 124, 97, 109, 87, and 108. A better than average pitcher more often than not, and never truly awful, unless he was pitching in Denver. But he only made three starts in Denver. The Dodgers learned quickly that the knuckleball just didn't work in the thin air.
What chance does Haeger have of a Dodger career as good as Candiotti's? Not much, I guess. But I'm rooting for him. I just hope the Dodgers have the sense not to pitch Haeger in Coors field.
Ramon Troncoso
The Troncuilizer returns! I'm expecting good things from him this year. With a few exceptions, relievers are very unpredictable, so I think the most you can ask of them entering a season is that their best case scenarios be good ones. I think that is the case with Troncoso.
Jeff Weaver
What is his best case scenario? Just below league average ERA, I think. But that's not so bad for a long relief man.
George Sherrill
I just have a feeling he won't end the year as a Dodger.
Carlos Monasterios
This is the perfect name for a rule 5 guy. These guys just come out of nowhere, like they were living at a monastery before, right? I mean, if they didn't seem like they were coming out of nowhere I guess they couldn't be rule 5 guys.
Jonathan Broxton
Can he forget? Can we forget? Should there be any forgetting at all? I think with Broxton, will all the talent he has, it is fair to say that he still has the majority of his career ahead of him. So, let's not conclude right now what kind of pitcher he is. Don't close the book on him being a great, clutch pitcher. He's already had some great moments. He's also had some awful moments. Oh yes. But that's not necessarily what will define his career, even if one accepts that they should define his career up to this point.
Ramon Ortiz
What? He made the team? Russ Ortiz made the team? What? Oh, Ramon Ortiz. Oh. Well, that's okay, I guess.
Wait, his last major league season was 2007? He spent 2008 in Japan and 2009 in AAA with the Giants? How could the Dodgers say Fresyes to a pitcher who pitched in Fresno last year?
Well, I guess it could be worse. They could have put Russ Ortiz on the roster. At least they picked the right Ortiz, if they had to pick one.
Russ Ortiz
Nooooooooooooo!
Here are the stories of the 25 players most likely to make the opening roster for the Dodgers.
Matt Kemp
What do we want to see more of from Matt Kemp? More steals? More home runs? Could he be a 40-40 guy? Yes! What else? More great plays in center field? More cannon throws to exterminate runs at the plate? Indeed, yes. More moments when he seems the most physically gifted player to ever wear the Dodger Blue? Absolutely. It's all possible.
But then there is one more thing, and it isn't a "more" at all, it's a "less". Or a "fewer", if we wish to be grammatically correct. We want to see fewer outs. It's not very exciting but when I look at what he did last year this is where it appears the Bison can make the most improvement. 0.352 OBP last year, and 0.340 the year before. These are not bad numbers, not for a good defensive center fielder with power. But if he is to become a superstar, he needs to improve, I think. Can he? I have no idea.
Even if he never does, he's still the most fun Dodger to watch in a long time.
Andre Ethier
This year his clutch hits will come before the ninth inning. That's usually when they come. Think of how often the three run home run in the third inning ends up being the crucial moment in a game. Can you think of how often this happens? Maybe not, because it's just not a memorable way for a game to be decided. But it happens all the same. If Andre hits well, that's clutch enough, isn't it?
Manny Ramirez
He removes himself from the ordinary circles of the baseball world without even trying. His hits are art. His slumps are drama. His words are comic theatre. His silence is a window to the soul. His hair is Bob Marley. His fielding is Cosmo Kramer. His name is Manny. And that's who he is.
Garret Anderson
This might mean something --- to someone who likes the Angels --- or has a sense of solidarity --- with our Metropolitan baseball cousins --- but I don't care --- he's just another old guy --- just a guy with a bat --- and a glove, I guess --- I don't know his stats --- or his hopes --- all I know is that he's washed up --- just filling out his baseball time --- filling out a roster --- filling outfield spaces --- when the outfield isn't full.
Reed Johnson
Oh man, I got nothing. Really. I can't even make anything up. How about a game? Let's see who ends up with a better Dodger career --- him or Brady Clark? Do you remember Brady Clark? Perhaps, but is there a compelling reason to remember him? I think Reed Johnson is going to be the same way.
Russell Martin
So here he is, back from injury early, ready to play on opening day. Will the lack of playing time this spring hurt him? Will it give him an excuse to get off to a slow start, thereby taking the pressure off to produce, thereby allowing him to instead get off to a fast start?
Brad Ausmus
Bad Ausmus, I call him, when he makes an out in a game. Would it be more creative to call him Brad Outmas instead? How about Brad Ausmiss if he strikes out? At least he doesn't get turned into a boy named Sue ( or some other female name ) when he does poorly. My wife still calls JD Drew "Judy Drew". Sometimes this will annoy me because he's a pretty good player but other times I think it's pretty funny. Some people prefer to feminize Drew by calling him Nancy, but really do people even read Nancy Drew books anymore? I think Nancy Drew grew up and became Mary Worth.
James Loney
What keeps James in the big leagues? He doesn't hit a whole lot of home runs or doubles. He's not fast. He doesn't pitch, not anymore. He doesn't walk a whole lot. He doesn't play catcher or shortstop or some other tough defensive position. Basically he plays a good defense at first base and makes a lot of contact. That's about it. Is that really enough for a first baseman? Maybe it is when you have a outfield like the Dodgers have and you're getting paid low arbitration dollars. But soon, if he doesn't improve, I don't think it will be enough.
Rafael Furcal
I'm not really expecting much out of the Furbolg this season. Maybe get on base at a 0.340 clip, don't make too many bad throws, hit a few random home runs and please don't get hurt! Oh, and no more DUIs, please.
Blake DeWitt
How long a leash do you think Blake has? How long can he struggle without Joe Torre playing
Jamey Carroll
Good signing. Seems like a solid bench guy. Doesn't he make Ronnie Belliard unnecessary?
Ronnie Belliard
Just to remind you ( I had forgotten ) but Ronnie Belliard was amazing for the Dodgers last year. He had an OPS of 1.034. Five home runs in a month of games. He was Marlon Anderson version 2. I kind of wish his all time career OPS as a Dodger could have stayed above 1.000. Instead --- how low will it go? Belliard has had some decent seasons fairly recently, but his age and his weight problems make it seem likely he'll crash into uselessness one of these years.
Casey Blake
I think the Dodgers should be allowed to void his contract if he's clean shaven. His beardlessness reduces his value to the fans by at least 50%. They should start selling "Free Casey Blake's Beard" shirts outside Dodger Stadium.
Clayton Kershaw
All the stuff I was going to say about him has been ruled a "jinx" by the jinxing committee.
Chad Billingsley
Order of importance that certain parties believe in the ability of Chad Billingsley:
1. Chad Billingsley
2. Joe Torre
3. Ned Colletti
4. Some gambler in Vegas who bet lots of money on the "over" on Billingsley wins
5. Teammates
...
46. The fans
...
103. Sportswriters
104. Bill Plaschke
It's interesting how many people focus on Billingsley when trying to figure out how good the Dodgers will be in 2010. Are the likely upper and lower limits of his performance really any wider than they are for most of the other Dodgers? Does a bad season from Chad hurt more than a bad season from Loney or Martin? If Chad pitches worse than expected, or hoped, the difference could still be made up by another player having a better than expected season. And yet people talk about his performance this year like it will make or break the team.
Vicente Padilla
In 39 Dodger innings last year Padilla struck out 38 batters. That is the kind of ratio that would indeed make him worthy of being the opening day starter. Unfortunately he had never posted a ratio anything like that over a full season, and he's not about to start now at age 32. But if he keeps his walks down he might yet be league average this season, which would be great.
Hiroki Kuroda
How can you not root for a guy who comes back weeks after giving up a ground rule double off of his own head? Why didn't he get the opening day start, if it couldn't go to Billingsley or Kershaw?
Kuroda had an ERA of 3.73 in 2008. He had an ERA of 3.76 in the 2009 regular season. He had an ERA of 40.50 in the 2009 postseason. So, running a linear regression analysis on these numbers I find that his predicted ERA in 2010 is 89.57. Ah, so that's why he isn't being given the opening day start.
Charlie Haeger
Tom Candiotti was the last knuckleball pitcher in the Dodger starting rotation. Candiotti lasted 6 years with the Dodgers, and they were mostly good years. His ERA+ in those six years were 116, 124, 97, 109, 87, and 108. A better than average pitcher more often than not, and never truly awful, unless he was pitching in Denver. But he only made three starts in Denver. The Dodgers learned quickly that the knuckleball just didn't work in the thin air.
What chance does Haeger have of a Dodger career as good as Candiotti's? Not much, I guess. But I'm rooting for him. I just hope the Dodgers have the sense not to pitch Haeger in Coors field.
Ramon Troncoso
The Troncuilizer returns! I'm expecting good things from him this year. With a few exceptions, relievers are very unpredictable, so I think the most you can ask of them entering a season is that their best case scenarios be good ones. I think that is the case with Troncoso.
Jeff Weaver
What is his best case scenario? Just below league average ERA, I think. But that's not so bad for a long relief man.
George Sherrill
I just have a feeling he won't end the year as a Dodger.
Carlos Monasterios
This is the perfect name for a rule 5 guy. These guys just come out of nowhere, like they were living at a monastery before, right? I mean, if they didn't seem like they were coming out of nowhere I guess they couldn't be rule 5 guys.
Jonathan Broxton
Can he forget? Can we forget? Should there be any forgetting at all? I think with Broxton, will all the talent he has, it is fair to say that he still has the majority of his career ahead of him. So, let's not conclude right now what kind of pitcher he is. Don't close the book on him being a great, clutch pitcher. He's already had some great moments. He's also had some awful moments. Oh yes. But that's not necessarily what will define his career, even if one accepts that they should define his career up to this point.
Ramon Ortiz
What? He made the team? Russ Ortiz made the team? What? Oh, Ramon Ortiz. Oh. Well, that's okay, I guess.
Wait, his last major league season was 2007? He spent 2008 in Japan and 2009 in AAA with the Giants? How could the Dodgers say Fresyes to a pitcher who pitched in Fresno last year?
Well, I guess it could be worse. They could have put Russ Ortiz on the roster. At least they picked the right Ortiz, if they had to pick one.
Russ Ortiz
Nooooooooooooo!
08 March 2010
Russell Unathletic
When there is real news in Spring Training, it's usually bad. The Dodger news of the weekend ( and the new week ) is that Russell Martin is expected to be out for four to six weeks with a strained adductor, otherwise knowns as a groin strain. Given that timetable, our young catcher in search of baseball redemption would miss opening day and opening week, at least. Given that he would probably need a rehab assignment, the whole month of April might be lost.
But I wonder if it might be more. Could this be the middle of the end for Russell Martin as a Dodger? I don't really believe that it is, and yet, my thoughts do go there. This is the sort of pessimistic speculation that is sure to infuriate some people. I think it would infuriate me if I had not heard it from the dire whispering of my own thoughts.
The beginning of the end for Russell Martin as a Dodger, if there is an ongoing end to be spoken of, and I really hope there isn't, would have come in 2008, when his offensive statistics began their decline. He was still good that year, very good offensively for a catcher, even, and he was a deserving all star selection that year, and yet -- it seemed like he could have done better. I thought he would be better in 2009, or at least not worse, and Martin talked about a renewed focus and dedication that spring, but instead he slumped to offensively average at best for a catcher that year. By his standards it was a genuinely bad year. That year was when a lot of Dodger fans began to question the previously unshakable assumption that Martin was the catcher of the future, a long term fixture as Dodger catcher, as long as we didn't lose him to free agency. But if 2009 was the new normal, then maybe we would want him to leave in free agency? What a horrible thought, and yet also true to being a fan. We love you if you are good.
And now, the groin strain. The middle of the end, maybe. This is the kind of injury that can linger. Isn't it? I am not Will Carroll, injury expert, so what I say here is based on feel, on half-memories, perhaps false memories. This seems like the kind of injury that might keep a player always two weeks from recovery. There's not that much wrong at any one time, but something small keeps going wrong. Remember Rafael Furcal's back injury in 2008? I worry that it might be like that. Setbacks, false recoverings, and then revelation that the injury was more extensive than thought. New timetables. Polite yet frustrated quotes from management. Do you have to, do you have to let it linger? There is no reason to think it will go like this, though! Except, maybe Martin will push it. We know how he is. Wanting to play everyday. Wanting to push through pain and slumps and common sense. He's already talking about it. Martin: "My goal is to not miss one game ... They gave me a time frame. If I keep bugging them, maybe then I'll get it down." Nooooooo! You have to get it completely healed! But wait, there's more: "Odds are it won't work. You'd rather be safe than sorry. One thing I have to understand, even though I don't like it, it's what I have to do." That's better. It's clear he gets this, in his head. But will he take it to heart?
Maybe the bigger point here is that this is something else Martin has to fight. He has to fight his slump of last year, and now on top of that he has this injury. But is a slump something you fight? Maybe it's better if he just focuses on being healthy. Maybe this injury could work to his advantage, in the long run. The pressure isn't on to perform anymore, it's simply to get healthy.
There is more. This injury is not only a potential blow against the Dodger career of Martin, but against the Dodger hopes in 2010. In the worst case for 2010 Martin is never able to come back, and Ellis and Ausmus give the Dodger something close to nothing from catcher. Maybe Colletti makes a terrible trade for a veteran "upgrade" catcher at the deadline at the cost of a good young prospect. Maybe Vinny retires in disgust because the catching is so bad!
Yeah, it's easy to overreact. This is one bad thing, maybe a very mild bad thing. If Martin misses one or two weeks, and then comes back at full strength, it barely qualifies as a bad thing. There will be good things that happen too. And more bad things. Expectations are set to be defied. Odds are the odds are wrong. Kemp slumps, Loney breaks out, Manny joins a monastery. It could happen, or something crazier. Even the things we know, we don't really know. People talk about known unknowns, which are the things that you know you don't know, and the unknowns unknowns, which are the things you don't even realize that you don't know, but there are also the unknown knowns, which are the things you think you know but you really don't.
So this injury to Martin is the first entry in the ledger of surprises for 2010. It won't be the last.
But I wonder if it might be more. Could this be the middle of the end for Russell Martin as a Dodger? I don't really believe that it is, and yet, my thoughts do go there. This is the sort of pessimistic speculation that is sure to infuriate some people. I think it would infuriate me if I had not heard it from the dire whispering of my own thoughts.
The beginning of the end for Russell Martin as a Dodger, if there is an ongoing end to be spoken of, and I really hope there isn't, would have come in 2008, when his offensive statistics began their decline. He was still good that year, very good offensively for a catcher, even, and he was a deserving all star selection that year, and yet -- it seemed like he could have done better. I thought he would be better in 2009, or at least not worse, and Martin talked about a renewed focus and dedication that spring, but instead he slumped to offensively average at best for a catcher that year. By his standards it was a genuinely bad year. That year was when a lot of Dodger fans began to question the previously unshakable assumption that Martin was the catcher of the future, a long term fixture as Dodger catcher, as long as we didn't lose him to free agency. But if 2009 was the new normal, then maybe we would want him to leave in free agency? What a horrible thought, and yet also true to being a fan. We love you if you are good.
And now, the groin strain. The middle of the end, maybe. This is the kind of injury that can linger. Isn't it? I am not Will Carroll, injury expert, so what I say here is based on feel, on half-memories, perhaps false memories. This seems like the kind of injury that might keep a player always two weeks from recovery. There's not that much wrong at any one time, but something small keeps going wrong. Remember Rafael Furcal's back injury in 2008? I worry that it might be like that. Setbacks, false recoverings, and then revelation that the injury was more extensive than thought. New timetables. Polite yet frustrated quotes from management. Do you have to, do you have to let it linger? There is no reason to think it will go like this, though! Except, maybe Martin will push it. We know how he is. Wanting to play everyday. Wanting to push through pain and slumps and common sense. He's already talking about it. Martin: "My goal is to not miss one game ... They gave me a time frame. If I keep bugging them, maybe then I'll get it down." Nooooooo! You have to get it completely healed! But wait, there's more: "Odds are it won't work. You'd rather be safe than sorry. One thing I have to understand, even though I don't like it, it's what I have to do." That's better. It's clear he gets this, in his head. But will he take it to heart?
Maybe the bigger point here is that this is something else Martin has to fight. He has to fight his slump of last year, and now on top of that he has this injury. But is a slump something you fight? Maybe it's better if he just focuses on being healthy. Maybe this injury could work to his advantage, in the long run. The pressure isn't on to perform anymore, it's simply to get healthy.
There is more. This injury is not only a potential blow against the Dodger career of Martin, but against the Dodger hopes in 2010. In the worst case for 2010 Martin is never able to come back, and Ellis and Ausmus give the Dodger something close to nothing from catcher. Maybe Colletti makes a terrible trade for a veteran "upgrade" catcher at the deadline at the cost of a good young prospect. Maybe Vinny retires in disgust because the catching is so bad!
Yeah, it's easy to overreact. This is one bad thing, maybe a very mild bad thing. If Martin misses one or two weeks, and then comes back at full strength, it barely qualifies as a bad thing. There will be good things that happen too. And more bad things. Expectations are set to be defied. Odds are the odds are wrong. Kemp slumps, Loney breaks out, Manny joins a monastery. It could happen, or something crazier. Even the things we know, we don't really know. People talk about known unknowns, which are the things that you know you don't know, and the unknowns unknowns, which are the things you don't even realize that you don't know, but there are also the unknown knowns, which are the things you think you know but you really don't.
So this injury to Martin is the first entry in the ledger of surprises for 2010. It won't be the last.
23 February 2010
How Tiger Woods is Like Spring Training
I think that Tiger Woods apology conference was a lot like the start of spring training. A lot of hoopla and no substance. Does the return of Eric Gagne to the fringes of the Dodger roster count as substance?
There are really only two questions that matter in the Tiger Woods situation, and he answered neither of them. First, is he going to stay married to Elin? He did not say. You might argue that this is none of my business, but the state of being married or not married to someone is a basic public fact. And I'm not going to pretend to be above wanting to know if he and Elin are going to stay together, not after the bizarre car accident and all that followed. I'm not asking for details, for what has been said and all that. It's a basic question. Give us an answer, instead of just a long self-serving apology.
Second, and the appropriateness and relevance of this question is beyond debate, I should think -- when is he going to start playing golf again? Golf is the only reason Tiger Woods is important or famous. But he wouldn't answer that question either. I suppose his position is that he doesn't know. He doesn't know any of the answers to the important questions. Then why is he speaking to us? Don't waste our time if you have nothing of substance to say.
The Tiger apology speech last week really was like a Spring Training puff piece. Full of platitudes and the fake shine of vague optimism that now a trajectory to improvement and better times is being followed. Oh sure. Who is more believable, Tiger saying he's sorry to all the kids who looked up to him, or the journeyman pitcher saying this is the spring that the mechanical adjustment turns it all around for him? What about the middle infielder who will strike out less because he meditates?
In the battle of baseball and Tiger Woods, baseball wins, because I know when baseball substance will return. We drink baseball's spring moonshine because it's ultimately harmless, a manifestation of the desire we all have, to reach the pinnacle and take that pennant. Why would we drink Tiger's moonshine? He's just a guy desperate to hang on to the sponsorships he has left.
There are really only two questions that matter in the Tiger Woods situation, and he answered neither of them. First, is he going to stay married to Elin? He did not say. You might argue that this is none of my business, but the state of being married or not married to someone is a basic public fact. And I'm not going to pretend to be above wanting to know if he and Elin are going to stay together, not after the bizarre car accident and all that followed. I'm not asking for details, for what has been said and all that. It's a basic question. Give us an answer, instead of just a long self-serving apology.
Second, and the appropriateness and relevance of this question is beyond debate, I should think -- when is he going to start playing golf again? Golf is the only reason Tiger Woods is important or famous. But he wouldn't answer that question either. I suppose his position is that he doesn't know. He doesn't know any of the answers to the important questions. Then why is he speaking to us? Don't waste our time if you have nothing of substance to say.
The Tiger apology speech last week really was like a Spring Training puff piece. Full of platitudes and the fake shine of vague optimism that now a trajectory to improvement and better times is being followed. Oh sure. Who is more believable, Tiger saying he's sorry to all the kids who looked up to him, or the journeyman pitcher saying this is the spring that the mechanical adjustment turns it all around for him? What about the middle infielder who will strike out less because he meditates?
In the battle of baseball and Tiger Woods, baseball wins, because I know when baseball substance will return. We drink baseball's spring moonshine because it's ultimately harmless, a manifestation of the desire we all have, to reach the pinnacle and take that pennant. Why would we drink Tiger's moonshine? He's just a guy desperate to hang on to the sponsorships he has left.
25 January 2010
Into the Arms of America
Based on the 2009 regular season, you could debate which was the better team between the Dodgers and the Phillies, but based only on the 2009 NLCS ( which is all that really mattered ) it was clear that the Phillies played better. So, for a Dodger fan, it was a bad loss, but it was not a senseless loss. The pain of the loss came from the feeling that the team should have played better. It could have been worse. It could have been the kind of contest after which the losing fans feel that a cruel script has been drawn up for them, been laid upon them, like an old world curse, that strange chance and untimely weakness has tragically unwound all skill and achievement and delivered, at the end of struggle, bitter defeat.
And that was the fate of Viking fans yesterday. Better, by far, to have been a Jets fan yesterday, and know that your team played well, achieved beyond sensible dreams, but just wasn't as good as the Colts. But for the Vikings, what logic determined their fate? They outgained the Saints by over 200 yards, but could not hold on to the ball. Both teams, in fact, had trouble handling the football. The Vikings fumbled six times, and lost the ball three of those times, while the Saints fumbled three times, and lost the ball once. In spite of this barrage of fumbles, the Vikings were in position to win the game as regulation came to a close. The game was tied 28 apiece, and Brett Favre has driven the Vikings to the doorstep of a make-able, game-winning field goal. Third and 10, and maybe a run up the middle for five yards would be just the thing to set up the field goal and win the game. But before anything like that could happen then there was a senseless penalty for 12 men in the huddle. Suddenly the field goal was a little too long, and it was third and 15, and a play had to be made to save the chance at the game-winning kick. I'm sure that's what he was thinking, Mr. Favre, as he came out of the huddle for that fateful play. He had to make a throw. He had to make something happen. I think maybe Brett Favre was the greatest ever at making something happen in the history of sports. And here, finally, in a game full of fumbles and muffs and strange plays was the inner logic that would guide the game to its conclusion. What had to happen, happened.
The Saints came after Favre, and he was chased to his right. Thinking, probably, that he had to make something happen, Favre threw back to his left, against the grain, as they say, against sanity, they might just as well say, for those poor Vikings fans. But for the rest of us? It was the greatest throw of Brett Favre's career.
I would like to think he made that throw for us, the rest of us. The ones who were tired of the how much announcers gushed over him. The ones who were sick of his yearly retirement dance, which first began in 2006 and has become worse and worse with each passing year, culminating in the sleazy farce this year where he said he was retired for good at the start of training camp only to then suddenly come out of retirement after training camp was over. That throw was for us, intended or not. It revealed the truth, that Favre is still an overrated gunslinger. Everything that came after, the overtime coin flip won by the Saints, the overtime penalties, the pure field goal for the win by the shaky young kicker, it all seemed to flow from that throw. That beautiful throw. An interception, from Brett Favre's hand, across the field, into the arms of America.
And that was the fate of Viking fans yesterday. Better, by far, to have been a Jets fan yesterday, and know that your team played well, achieved beyond sensible dreams, but just wasn't as good as the Colts. But for the Vikings, what logic determined their fate? They outgained the Saints by over 200 yards, but could not hold on to the ball. Both teams, in fact, had trouble handling the football. The Vikings fumbled six times, and lost the ball three of those times, while the Saints fumbled three times, and lost the ball once. In spite of this barrage of fumbles, the Vikings were in position to win the game as regulation came to a close. The game was tied 28 apiece, and Brett Favre has driven the Vikings to the doorstep of a make-able, game-winning field goal. Third and 10, and maybe a run up the middle for five yards would be just the thing to set up the field goal and win the game. But before anything like that could happen then there was a senseless penalty for 12 men in the huddle. Suddenly the field goal was a little too long, and it was third and 15, and a play had to be made to save the chance at the game-winning kick. I'm sure that's what he was thinking, Mr. Favre, as he came out of the huddle for that fateful play. He had to make a throw. He had to make something happen. I think maybe Brett Favre was the greatest ever at making something happen in the history of sports. And here, finally, in a game full of fumbles and muffs and strange plays was the inner logic that would guide the game to its conclusion. What had to happen, happened.
The Saints came after Favre, and he was chased to his right. Thinking, probably, that he had to make something happen, Favre threw back to his left, against the grain, as they say, against sanity, they might just as well say, for those poor Vikings fans. But for the rest of us? It was the greatest throw of Brett Favre's career.
I would like to think he made that throw for us, the rest of us. The ones who were tired of the how much announcers gushed over him. The ones who were sick of his yearly retirement dance, which first began in 2006 and has become worse and worse with each passing year, culminating in the sleazy farce this year where he said he was retired for good at the start of training camp only to then suddenly come out of retirement after training camp was over. That throw was for us, intended or not. It revealed the truth, that Favre is still an overrated gunslinger. Everything that came after, the overtime coin flip won by the Saints, the overtime penalties, the pure field goal for the win by the shaky young kicker, it all seemed to flow from that throw. That beautiful throw. An interception, from Brett Favre's hand, across the field, into the arms of America.
22 January 2010
The Two Year Plan
I look forward to the season. I look forward to the games, so much, because they will drive away the feeling of hopelessness I have about the Dodger franchise right now. It was not a second loss to the Phillies in the playoffs that took away my spirit for the Dodgers. I was the revelation of the deep cracks in the Dodger foundation. There is a crisis in the Dodger ownership. The divorce. Revelations of personal greed that undermined the franchise. Insincere assurances. Arrogant proclamations that everything is fine. Financial decisions that point to looming ruin for the product on the field. The wretchedly dysfunctional Dodger ownership passed up on free draft picks because there was a small chance that it might cost them some money. So yes, I look forward to the season, because while the Dodger name has been tarnished, the Dodger team that takes the field for this season is not yet been ruined.
I look forward to the season because this, right now, is my favorite Dodger team of all time. These Dodgers haven't won the most, but they're the ones I've grown fondest of, the ones I've watched break in and thrive on the big stage. These Dodgers, who have never been anything else. These Dodgers, Kemp and Ethier and Kershaw and Billingsley and Broxton and Loney and Dewitt and McDonald. We've had two years of these Dodgers, and we'll have two more, at least. And two more years at most, probably. For some of them. A team too cheap to make a play for valuable draft picks that might very well save money in the long run is not going to be able to keep Kemp and Ethier and Billingsley around when their service time strikes midnight.
I think of it as a two year plan. All my favorite players will be around two years more. Vinny will be around for another year at least, but maybe also two years. I hope. And then, after two years, when Vinny is probably retired, and the oldest of the young players start leaving --- what? I don't know. It's a two year plan. I don't have the emotional budget for year three right now.
I look forward to the season because this, right now, is my favorite Dodger team of all time. These Dodgers haven't won the most, but they're the ones I've grown fondest of, the ones I've watched break in and thrive on the big stage. These Dodgers, who have never been anything else. These Dodgers, Kemp and Ethier and Kershaw and Billingsley and Broxton and Loney and Dewitt and McDonald. We've had two years of these Dodgers, and we'll have two more, at least. And two more years at most, probably. For some of them. A team too cheap to make a play for valuable draft picks that might very well save money in the long run is not going to be able to keep Kemp and Ethier and Billingsley around when their service time strikes midnight.
I think of it as a two year plan. All my favorite players will be around two years more. Vinny will be around for another year at least, but maybe also two years. I hope. And then, after two years, when Vinny is probably retired, and the oldest of the young players start leaving --- what? I don't know. It's a two year plan. I don't have the emotional budget for year three right now.
21 January 2010
A Pitcher With No Name
The Dodgers can do better than Vicente Padilla for their fourth starter. He's more of a fifth starter, or even a fifth-point-five starter, the kind of guy you bring in at the end of a season when you've lost too many other pitchers to injury and regression and curious head games. He was that kind of guy last year. Padilla is Eric Stults with a resume and a briefcase full of service time. But really Padilla is the horse with no name. He'll give you some innings, make you glad to be out of the rain, get you through the metaphorical desert, but that's it.
But you know what? Orel Hershiser is not walking through that door. Sandy Koufax is not walking through that door. ( Unless Kershaw counts for that, but we're talking about the fourth starter here, remember. ) There are no shiny free agents walking through that door. Let's give thanks for that, probably. How often, really, is giving a pitcher a multi-year deal a good idea? With Padilla it's just one year, five million dollars. That's less than they're paying Juan Pierre to go away. And Padilla is a horse, by which I mean, a functional pitcher. It's better to have a horse with no name than no horse at all. I don't know who the Dodgers fourth starter would be if it wasn't Padilla. But I know who the fifth starter would be. Russell Reid Ortiz.
Are you scared yet? Or just skeptical? Maybe it really wouldn't be, but not having Padilla would make us one step closer to having Ortiz in the rotation. Remember Jose Lima? He was another washed up pitcher who was a spring training invitee. Yeah, Lima worked out, but that doesn't make him fundamentally a good pitcher or at the time a good bet, it makes him a gateway drug. Lima was the gateway drug that convinced the Dodgers that drugs were cool ( in other words, that inviting terrible terrible washed up pitchers to spring training is cool ). And Ortiz is the terrible, awful drug at the harrowing end of the drug journey, the cautionary tragedy at the heart of an ABC afterschool special, or the centerpiece of a very special episode of Diff'rent Strokes. Anything that helps keep Ortiz away from the mound of Dodger Stadium is fine by me.
But you know what? Orel Hershiser is not walking through that door. Sandy Koufax is not walking through that door. ( Unless Kershaw counts for that, but we're talking about the fourth starter here, remember. ) There are no shiny free agents walking through that door. Let's give thanks for that, probably. How often, really, is giving a pitcher a multi-year deal a good idea? With Padilla it's just one year, five million dollars. That's less than they're paying Juan Pierre to go away. And Padilla is a horse, by which I mean, a functional pitcher. It's better to have a horse with no name than no horse at all. I don't know who the Dodgers fourth starter would be if it wasn't Padilla. But I know who the fifth starter would be. Russell Reid Ortiz.
Are you scared yet? Or just skeptical? Maybe it really wouldn't be, but not having Padilla would make us one step closer to having Ortiz in the rotation. Remember Jose Lima? He was another washed up pitcher who was a spring training invitee. Yeah, Lima worked out, but that doesn't make him fundamentally a good pitcher or at the time a good bet, it makes him a gateway drug. Lima was the gateway drug that convinced the Dodgers that drugs were cool ( in other words, that inviting terrible terrible washed up pitchers to spring training is cool ). And Ortiz is the terrible, awful drug at the harrowing end of the drug journey, the cautionary tragedy at the heart of an ABC afterschool special, or the centerpiece of a very special episode of Diff'rent Strokes. Anything that helps keep Ortiz away from the mound of Dodger Stadium is fine by me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)