Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
I can't tell you how much I don't enjoy writing this. But in the endless history of Juan Pierre hagiography, this piece from Kevin Baxter in the Times deserves special mention.
Baxter writes:
Pierre, who was batting .277 in 73 games before Angels shortstop Erick Aybar accidentally fell on his knee during a play at second, could be back in the big leagues as early as tonight when the Dodgers, a game back in the National League West, play the Washington Nationals in the opener of a 10-game homestand.
Problem No. 1: We'll start with a low-key but fundamental issue. There are several more useful ways to summarize a player's abilities than batting average. It's like starting off by telling us that my kid is a B student at Hits Per At Bat Elementary.
That's more than two weeks ahead of some doctors' estimates -- but not a moment too soon for the Dodgers, who clearly miss Pierre's speed at the top of the lineup.
This is gonna be tough to prove. The Dodgers have a .550 winning percentage and are averaging 4.75 runs per game since Pierre was hurt - both better than they were doing with him. Now, it's possible that the Dodgers would have done still better with Pierre than with his replacements in the lineup, Delwyn Young, Jason Repko and Andruw Jones. But Baxter has set up the question as an issue of who's batting leadoff.
Although Matt Kemp, who has batted first most often in Pierre's absence, has a .393 on-base percentage and a .532 slugging percentage in the leadoff spot -- both far superior to Pierre's .327 and .318 figures -- he has also struck out nearly a third of the time, and only six of his 22 stolen bases have come when he was batting leadoff.
This is the clip they'll show at the awards ceremony. Talk about being committed to an agenda. The construction of the sentence suggests that Kemp's superior on-base and slugging percentages are less important than a) the kind of outs he makes and b) ...
I tell you, b) deserves its own reward. Baxter is actually knocking Kemp down for having a low percentage of his season stolen bases in the leadoff spot. Kemp has batted leadoff in 22.2 percent of his plate appearances. He has stolen 27.2 percent of his bases in the leadoff spot. I mean, Baxter's measuring stick is not only nonsensical, it actually works against him.
As for a) - in general, strikeouts are no worse an out than any other kind of out. Yes, there are times when a flyball or grounder will advance a runner, just as there are times when those might cause a double play. But overall, there's simply no question which is more important: out types or one's OPS.
The crazy part is that there is no spot in the batting order where strikeouts are less of an issue than the leadoff spot. In the first at-bat of the game, there are literally no runners to advance. In most later at-bats, you're batting after the pitcher's spot. It's simply crazy to suggest that strikeouts are a problem for a leadoff hitter.
Oh, and by the way: Kemp and Pierre have both seen 3.8 pitches per plate appearance this season.
Pierre, meanwhile, is the toughest outfielder in the majors to strike out, and his 35 steals still rank second in the league despite the fact he has missed a month.
"He doesn't give us the power threat that Matt gives us. But he knows how to lead off," said Dodgers Manager Joe Torre, who promised Pierre would be at the top of the order when he returns but did not say where he would play him in the team's crowded outfield. "He's going to make the pitcher work hard and be a threat on the bases. He's a good spark plug for us."
And the Dodgers could certainly use a spark plug. Although they are 11-9 without Pierre, the Dodgers have hit .253 -- slightly below their season average -- during that span, scoring two or fewer runs six times.
Again, Baxter relies on an objectively less relevant stat - batting average - to make his argument. Yet the Dodgers' on-base percentage (.327) and slugging percentage (.402) have both been higher in Pierre's absence.
"He's got speed, he's got everything," said Mike Easler, the former Dodgers batting coach and now their minor league hitting instructor. "He can turn a ballgame around." ...
Pierre doesn't have everything. I mean, we know this. If someone says something that's completely false, the reporter isn't required to accept it. Unless he just wants to.
The thing is, Pierre's return to the lineup could help the Dodgers at this point. They have a serious problem in the outfield right now, so serious that even Pierre might help solve it. And yet, Andruw Jones' name doesn't even appear in Baxter's story.
I understand the reality that Pierre will bat leadoff when he returns to the lineup. But is that what journalism is about? Cobbling together flawed evidence to justify a flawed reality?
There's no reason Kemp has to remain the team's leadoff hitter. The .925 OPS and speed has provided there can be an equal or greater asset in the heart of the order. But to suggest that the leadoff spot has been a problem, that the Dodgers are lacking a spark plug, is irresponsible. And it's not like it's even difficult to see. In fact, the only way you can't see it is if you're so determined to advance a storyline that you'll steamroll your way through it, logic or no logic.
Editorially, it makes sense to write about Pierre's imminent return from the disabled list. Analytically, someone needed to challenge the conclusions in this story before it went to print.
Update: After I wrote this piece, I was thinking about it and realizing that if it weren't for this one part - "and only six of his 22 stolen bases have come when he was batting leadoff" - I might not have bothered writing this morning. Without that portion, you're left with comparing Kemp's batting skills to his strikeouts, which is tiresome but nothing particularly unusual to see. There were other problems with the story, but this line about the stolen bases was just so strange and vexing.
Then, when reading the Times sports section in print, I noticed that the online version was actually edited from this: "while stealing only six bases."
In other words, someone in the sports department - Baxter or an editor - actually gave this portion of the article special attention, for good reason, since criticizing Kemp for stealing "only six bases" in 19 games (a pace for 51 in 162 games) would be ludicrous. Yet the edit doesn't solve the problem, it exacerbates it.
Either that, or the online version was the intended version, and the print version had extra words cut for space, yet preserved the silliness of using Kemp's six steals against him. Neither scenario is very consoling.
It's one thing for coaches and players to speak in cliches. They're experts at it. It's too bad when writers and broadcasters fall into the same bad habits.
It's either an(other) oversight in a seemingly rushed story, or it's Baxter's bias shining through again.
Although Jon: I'm sorry you consider the time you spent deconstructing this nonsense as a wasted hour of your life. It's a dirty job, but a blogger's got to do it. There are lots of fans out there starved for baseball commentary that isn't breath-takingly stupid. Keep up the good work.
"In fact, the only way you can't see it is if you're so determined to advance a storyline that you'll steamroll your way through it, logic or no logic."
One of the main themes of of Joe Torre's first year as Dodger Manager was and his belief that Juan Pierre must bat at the top of the order for his team to succeed. Logic be damed!
Matt Kemp while a very talented player who seems to be working very hard at adopting to the changes Torre has tried to implement throughout the year can never satisfy Torre's expectations, batting leadoff or in the middle of the line-up.
There may very well be some dysfunction in the head office at Dodger Stadium, but if we were really trying to move Kemp for C.C., than I am glad Frank stepped in. I would rather look like a team that is hard to deal with, rather than showing we don't know where to place our current value along with our greatest need.
Thanks for calling attention to it.
Why is it that sports reporters love Juan Pierre so much? Why? Does he send them nice presents at Christmas? Does he introduce them to supermodels? The Dodgers have played above .500 at two points this season: Early, when Furcal was batting leadoff and Pierre was a part-timer, and since Pierre's injury. Can't they see that?
On the other hand there's Andruw Jones and the Mendoza line...any bets on if he breaks it this season? What happens for next year when the Dodgers are looking at his big paycheck and low stats...what happens next year?
Their 1st inning runs average shot through the roof with Kemp leading off, and Pierre not in the lineup.
His triple slash stats are actually worse with the Dodgers.
So Joey, are you saying that Ned C. does not know who to do his job? Ned hired JP to play a role in the Dodgers offense, JP plays the role exactly in the way he was hired to. Not as a power hitter, not a big offense force, a small ball, get on base, steal a base player.
Is your problem with JP or with Ned because he does not know how to build a winning team that has an offense?
1. bat first
2. take until you get a strike
2.5 look at a lot of pitches for the benifit of your team
3. run really, really fast
4. get on base a lot
4.5 tell the rest of the team "what the pitcher's got" if you don't
5. waste a lot of time if the pitcher just made the 2nd out
6. steal bases
7. get in "pitcher's head"
8. make sure uniform is dirty at end of game
9. drink a lot of sports drink
He's not very good at this, which negates his speed.
10. Not hit lazy fly balls because your probably a punching judy at best.
1. Be fast
Pierre is the best person for the job.
LA Dodger 2008 OBP (including pitchers, Sweeney and Jones) = .323
do the dodgers still have the Annual Jose Rafael Gonzalez Spring Training Race-off™?
"Juan Pierre can't wait to get back to Dodgers."
At least he didn't title his piece, "The Dodgers can't wait for Juan Pierre to get back"
That's all. Sweep the Nats.
1. Be fast
Pierre is the best person for the job.
I don't think that's quite right.
What Torre is not doing:
1. Asking himself "Who is the fastest player on the team, because I want him to leadoff?", answering to himself "Juan Pierre", and then putting Pierre in the leadoff spot.
What Torre is doing:
1. Asking himself, "Given that Juan Pierre is gonna be in my starting outfield, which lineup position is he best suited for?", answering "Leadoff, because of his speed", and then putting Pierre in the leadoff spot.
The fact that Ned believes he needs a Juan Pierre on the team is the fundamental reason why he should not be the GM. He doesnt possess any analytical skills, doesnt know how runs are created/prevented, etc.
But my point was really about just casual fans. Ned's a product of that environment (ex-PR guy). Until the casual fans become more educated, I think they'll always be a place for a Ned Colletti in major league baseball.
Its just too bad he has to be on the Dodgers ruining them, when he could just as easily be in Baltimore, or San Franciso, Seattle (sorry USS Mariner), Pittsburgh, Cubs, Nationals, Kansas City etc.
Gradually, the old school baseball types are being phased out I think but it wont totally be driven out till the casual fans become more educated, or the entities that are educating them (ESPN, Baseball Tonight, Mainstream Media) becomes more educated.
Its amazing that for instance CNBC, or Fox Business, or Bloomberg--> they have analysts on everyday evaluating the market. And these guys use every type of statistic/indicator available to try to predict what will happen the next day. And generally, investors want this information. They want everything they can get their hands on that will make them more informed.
Why cant that attitude carry over with the casual baseball fan?
In the information age, where more & more is become available, its almost as if Baseball media types dont want access too it or to acknowledge it.
as long as he doesn't take PT away from Kemp and Ethier he makes our team better there's no doubt, and sure i'd rather see him bat 8th or 9th, but i've been told numerous times here that batting order has very little effect on run scoring.
Yep that big old fall off on JP's OPS numbers over the years.
2005 84
2006 82
2007 75
2008 69
Jones
2007 88
2008 36
By the way, JP is number 12 in the Dodgers OBP at .327, ahead of Dewitt, Young and Kent.
How about if the Dodgers had any offense power at all in the batting order (any of Joe's orders), JP would a heck of a lot better.
I feel old for knowing this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy
JP is not a power hitter...rinse, repeat, rinse. Not a hard concept is it?
(Sorry, I sound lazy but I mean it, and am running late to work.)
The fact, too, is that Pierre replacing Jones will actually be a plus, which none of us thought we'd say. But he should be returning to bat 8th (or 9th), not 1st, end of story. And he should be replacing Jones and not Kemp or Ethier (except to maybe spell the latter once in a blue moon.)
Glad to have someone checking these lazy stories, Jon.
I'd still rather have Jones in playing over Pierre. In spite of his troubles, Jones still stands to contribute more as a hole than Pierre does.
Actually, no, it's not crazy. Assuming that once every three time the lead off hitter comes up after the pitcher, there is a runner on base, it is highly likely that the pitcher just sacrificed the runner over to second (or if we're real lucky to third). In these spots, once again, the strike out does nothing to advance the offense. This, of course, depends on the number of outs and whathaveyou.
I really think too many around here undervalue the costs of a batter striking out.
However, all things considered, I'd still take Kemp as the lead off man over Pierre. Everyday of the week and twice on Sundays (not that they play Sunday double headers anymore)
We 1. Score more runs and 2. Win more games sans Pierre.
Nice guy, fast guy, plays hard, but shouldn't take PT from Kemp or Ethier. If he platoons with Jones that's somewhat acceptable i guess.
2005 84
2006 82
2007 75
2008 69
Not sure if you meant to be sarcastic here, but that IS a huge dropoff for Pierre (I assume those are OPS+ numbers?).
Not off the cliff like Jones, but still, substantial.
So to answer your (possibly rhetorical?) questions above:
1. Colletti brought Pierre in to be a certain type of player. That was a mistake. That type of player is of very little value, and shouldn't be starting every day, let alone leading the team in PAs (which he did between Jones's injury and his own) and making $45M.
2. Pierre has certainly been the "type" of player expected, but a lower-than-expected quality version of that type. He has been worse than should have been expected, and those expectations were very very low to begin with.
But let me tell you how I REALLY feel....
Also, Is Pierre's speed back up to 100%? If he is less and he is not aggressive when he is on the basepaths, his main asset is neutralized and Baxter's and Torre's argument is basically flushed down the proverbial toilet!
17 - Yes, you are right! That is the real question. Do we end up with 2 black holes in the lineup or just one? Jones and Pierre in the lineup will suck the energy of the rest of the lineup down with them into the vortex of the black hole. If Ethier goes back to being 3.5 and playing just 2-3 games a week again after proving again that he can be a consistent steady hitter as an everyday player, then the Dodgers deserve whatever happens to them. Ethier may not be a spectacular player, but he is a grinder as well, and even when he makes out some times, he has worked the pitcher into 8-12 pitch at bats, plays a good outfield and has a steady line drive swing. Again, he has done nothing to deserve being taken out of the lineup and benched, other than just being undervalued in the eyes of Dodger management.
No matter who is in the middle of the order, Pierre would still have his basic career line of .280/.320/.330. And a .650 OPS for a corner OF'er is awful.
Why blame other players for Pierre's suckiness?
If you're arguing that Andruw Jones is a bigger disappointment---> I'd agree.
But how he hits has no effect on Juan Pierre.
Free Delwyn Young!
Thanks
however, I think it is a simple baseball truth that it is easier to score a runner the closer he is to home: No runners on requires a home run; runner on first requires an extra base hit; runner on second requires a base hit; runner on third can score on a fly ball out.
This piece is a new low in the use of statistics and logic. I have to stop reading it....
But, how much value does a "productive" out have if the out is going to mean that there would be 2 outs regardless?
Having a guy at 2nd base with 2 outs (if the leadoff guy Ks), or having him at 3rd base and 2 outs (if the leadoff guy gets him over to 3b)---> cant be that much more valuable.
Because with 2 outs, batters are running on contact anyway. So most are going to score on any hit to the OF be it from 2nd or 3b.
Even if you do advance the runner, your expected runs only go from .346 to .453.
The No. 9 spot in the Dodger batting order has 30 sacrifice hits in 381 plate appearances this season (8 percent). The No. 8 and No. 9 spots in the batting order have a combined 22 doubles and triples in 771 plate appearances this season. Even throwing in the other ways runners could be in scoring position, I'm not sure how you can argue that strikeouts have been a noteworthy issue for the leadoff hitter.
On this much we agree
"1. Colletti brought Pierre in to be a certain type of player. That was a mistake. That type of player is of very little value, and shouldn't be starting every day, let alone leading the team in PAs (which he did between Jones's injury and his own) and making $45M."
So Colletti has built a baseball team based on no real offensive power and a pretty good set of arms, well if you don't count Schmidt who if rumors were true was damaged goods when he arrived at the Dodgers. That's the real problem for the Dodgers this year, and last year and probably next year.
Next year take a look at the power lineup for the Dodgers.
Kent probably gone.
Jones hitting below the Mendoza line.
Garcipara...gone probably, even if healthy.
Raffie is a big big question mark and this is his walk year.
Dodgers need a bat, two would be nice, for 2009, plain and simple.
Quick...someone send a note to Manny and tell him about Venice Beach and how well he'd fit with Manny being Manny.
It'd definitely cut down on his DPs.
One in three seems way too high. Pitchers don't actually get that many sacrifice opportunities.
And yes, a strikeout is worse than other kinds of outs in some circumstances. Better than others (DPs). But the more important consideration is WHETHER a batter creates an out. Higher OBP matters more.
Oh, and since we're giving credit to players who make contact because their outs may be productive, consider this: Pierre almost never hits fly balls deep enough to advance runners. His popups are no better than strikeouts. And many of his SBs are after FCs - he vultures the spot on base that someone else earned, because his groundouts are also no better than strikeouts.
So what you'd have to do to make a case that Pierre is a better leadoff hitter than Kemp is to figure out how many more of his (much greater number of) outs actually were "productive" (relative to Kemp's non-K outs), and compare that to the differences in OBP and (let's not forget) SLG. I haven't run the numbers, but I can predict what they'd show.
So I go away for a few days and nothing is resolved.
At least my predction of Kershaw coming back by the first turn of the second half came true. (Sorry Clayton, I told them to start you in Arizona but Lowe can't pitch there so there you go.)
I'm surprised Jon hasn't figured out a way to post some sort of countdown clock to 7/31/08 1:00 p.m. PDT.
"I'm surprised Jon hasn't figured out a way to post some sort of countdown clock to 7/31/08 1:00 p.m. PDT."
I'm surprised you'd think I'd want to put a focus on that.
It's rarely wrong to point out the truth. My point, admittedly speculative, was that given consistent playing time, that would no longer be true. I can't know that that is correct - but I think it would be. What are Young's MLEs from his minor league stats, compared to Pierre's numbers?
But thats the type of out of the box thinking that would liven up the game.
I can just see the "Loney clogging the bases" comments ;)
Also, don't take what I've been saying as a defense of Pierre. I agree entirely that he isn't even good at getting productive outs, such as the FC you point to.
I'm really talking from a more philosophical position here than I am from the facts on the ground, with this particular team and this particular line up.
Created a countdown page:
http://www.bored.com/makecountdowns/show.php?id=139637
Thats because he's not getting regular starts. The big argument for LaRoche is that he needed at bats to show his worth, the same argument can be used for Young. Young's problem is that there's two guys blocking him with huge contacts instead of a fellow rookie (who admit ally has Torre's back).
i am intrigued by this sit n go you speak of.
In 2006, Curtis Granderson and Grady Sizemore both struck out over 150 times as leadoff hitters.
Do you actually expect the Dodgers to trade or even rent players to make a big push to win the West?
I see no indication that Parking Lot Frank needs to win and win big this year, or even next to force the Dodgers into getting aggressive in the trade market. Nope the song on Parking Lot Frank's lips is "Kids are Alright"...at least for now.
To what end do you do a trade?
Mo Arms...Dodgers do arms pretty well now.
Mo Bats...Dodgers have had little offense this year and no signs of an offense showing up.
Going for a big Bat now shows me that Ned is trying to make a run to win the West this year, even if it means giving up one of the kids. Anything else is more of the same old Ned muddle of a mess based on "Hope and Change" astride a Unicorn.
88/94. Yeah, so Young wouldn't set the house on fire, but it doesn't look like he'd be worse than Pierre. Add in that he should improve, while Pierre can only decline, and it's pretty obvious to me.
Save Pierre to PH and PR.
Such a trade would decrease the number of "Conor Jackson going on audition" stories coming from Vin.
I cannot imagine that the DBacks could pry away Texeira without giving up Jackson though.
The Braves don't want Chad Tracy or Tony Clark.
By the way Jon, great catch on the Easler quote.. "he's got everything". Indeed! And for Torre to throw out the "he knows how to lead off" line. Isn't that like saying his skills are craptastic? Like, "you're gonna love this girl I want to set you up with, she's not as good looking as Norbit's wife, but she's got a great personality".
Still, he'd be an improvement over Jones--if Torre would have the brains to bat him 8th.
Here we go again.
Most important skill for a leadoff hitter, according to Joe Torre
1. Know how to lead off.
Game, set and match, Mr. Pierre.
"L.A. Times staff writer Kevin Baxter has spent the past two decades covering sports and Hispanic arts and culture. Co-author of the 2004 book "Miracle Over Miami: How the 2003 Marlins Shocked the World," he has reported from throughout Latin America for several publications including The Sporting News, The Nation, Baseball America and La Opinion. Prior to rejoining the Times, he worked for the Miami Herald."
Ahhh who was on the 2003 Marlins? Look for additional glowing reportage on Big Brad.
You are overestimating the level of the reader of the LA Times sports page. The people who read the LA Times sports page are the same people who go to the stadium. If you think the majority of people at the stadium don't think BA is still very important you have never spent any time talking to the average fan who inhabits the ballpark.
It is still a terrible article but hardly anyone who reads the article will recognize it as such. The idea that baseball fans are an enlightened bunch seems far fetched.
However, the silver lining is that over his last 13 IP against SF, Haren has 7 walks against only 2 strikeouts.
Clearly, the Giants must thus be heavy favorites this evening to extend their own winning streak to four. :)
Strike that, my reading comprehension skills are poor at best. Those Haren stats are wrong, but the Giants will still win 9-4 tonight. Mark it down!
Nationals' starter John Lannan has never faced the Dodgers. I believe he was quoted as saying, "In my life I've never pitched at Dodger Stadium. I'm so excited, I called my mother. How do you sleep before a game like this? I'm glad I will get to pitch there, so I don't have to look back when I'm 64 and lament never pitching there. I would have been one jealous guy, and no woman would want to grow old with me." Before tonight, he has had to imagine what it's like to face them.
Asked where he would rather pitch than Dodger Stadium, Lannan replied, "Nowhere, man."
Although not in the field of medicine, Lannan was asked to comment on injured Nationals' OF Wily Mo Peña, whom Lannan described as "Crippled inside." Lannan is confident the outfielder will return, noting that with Peña's help, the club to come together next season.
While some Dodgers people think Kemp still has some maturing to do, until further notice, I remain doubtful the Dodgers could execute a small deal, much less something that big.
How do these clauses fit together? The Dodgers' ability to execute a deal depends on Kemp's achieving maturity? Is he implying Kemp is in charge of trades? Or does Kemp's maturing process merely effect Heyman's consciousness of doubt?
If he had just written "I doubt the Dodgers can execute any deal," he would have been clearer and saved 22 words.
But lack of syntactical skill is probably to be expected from a writer who propounds the the bizarre notion that the Dodgers can only prove their front office's functionality by trading Kemp, their best or second-best hitter.
Negative. I should have said, "my sources tell me he was quoted as saying..."
Nope. I want Young in there. I recognize that the difference would be small, but I think it would be greater than zero (in the right direction).
In his debut, behind 3-2 with one out in the fifth inning, Lannan hit Chase Utley with a fastball (breaking Utley's hand) and then hit Ryan Howard on the next pitch, whereupon umpire Hunter Wendelstedt immediately ejected Lannan from the game; Lannan was the first Major Leaguer in a decade to be tossed from his debut.
Above from Wikipedia
Andruw Jones is paid $14,000,000.00 this season.
Matt Kemp is paid $400,000.00 this season.
Do the salaries need to justify the playing time or does the playing time need to justify the salaries?
Jon, your great article above demonstrates again that logic and common sense are not the determining factors regarding this issue.
It will be interesting to see who is in the starting line-up tonight.
NL LF: .266/.346/.450
MLB LF: .266/.342/.438
Lannan was the first Major Leaguer in a decade to be tossed from his debut
Instant Karma?
Heck, even if that's a journalistic fabrication, I'm impressed.
1) Andruw Jones to displace Pierre from the starting lineup and hopefully from the team.
2) Andy LaRoche to win the 3B job out of spring training and maintain the job all year.
This season is playing out like the 1 percentile PECOTA projection for these two things.
Well, I agree with that. I guess I should have clarified by saying, since Torre is going to play Pierre no matter what...
Baseball fans...or the rest of the world, for that matter.
So who is baseball's Voltaire?
I aim to be Baseball Toaster's David Hume.
George Will does pretty good at the role, ignoring his politics, but heck of a commentator on baseball.
Hopefully they'll do their duty against the Dodgers this weekend.
Lannan's a likeable young pitcher, but no ace.
Bob is pumped for Bergmannnnnnnnn tomorrow I am sure.
"The second-place Dodgers passed on acquiring CC Sabathia, Casey Blake and Jamey Carroll, a deal that could have won them the division."
Apparently the Dodgers just lost the division. How does he get away with stuff like this?
http://tinyurl.com/6mmp8n
Rosenthal is literally a broken record.
If your assumptions are correct, and your logic is valid, then your conclusions MUST be true.
If either your assumptions are wrong, OR your logic is invalid, then you'd be very lucky to reach the correct conclusions, and you most likely will not.
If your assumptions are wrong AND your logic is invalid, however, you're qualified to be a baseball GM. Or maybe even a sportswriter for a major newspaper.
The argument for Juan Pierre over Matt Kemp reminds me of the argument used by President Hirohito of the Chimpokomon Company.
Probably NSFW: Forward to the 6:40 mark.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103586/
*Yeah ... be careful with a fool ...
you know someday he may get smart*
Gallagher plays in a easier League to hit in but he is facing more advanced pitching. He is around 3-4 years younger than average age for the league.
*230 AB 326/372/522 34XBHs 18bb 56k
Meanwhile, Lambo dwells in one of the toughest hitting environments in the minors but is facing less advanced competition. He is around 2-3 years younger than the average age in the league.
365 AB 293/351/490 42XBHs 32bb 86k
Both bat left-handed, both project basically to LF, and both are pretty big boys with Gallagher 6'5 220lb probably and Lambo at 6'3 200lb or so.
You choose!
like when bonds passed aaron last year?
Clever.
Still, someone gets credit for using "lament" in a sentence. I'll give it to Eric.
Woo hoo! I was lamenting not getting credit for that. :)
But GoTrojans. Sorry.
Gerry Upland Ca: What do the Dodgers have to do to pass the D-backs in the West....Trade for a Bat or a Pitcher? any chance we can get Tex from Atl?
Jayson Stark: I get the sense the Dodgers are more focused on a bat than an arm, even a bullpen arm. Their problem is that they have no place to put that bat except third base or short. So outside of Casey Blake or maybe Blalock, there isn't much to choose from. The Braves would love to deal them Teixeira for James Loney. But I see just about zero chance of that one happening. The Dodgers still like Loney too much, and they'd have him for four more years.
How do scouts rate their tools?
How do you do?
I really don't know, I don't see much talk/coverage about them.
You actually think the 'new' breed of GM are better than the 'old' baseball types like Branch Rickey, who considered OBP the most important hitting stat, or Buzzy Bavasi or Al Campanis? There isn't a GM around that I wouldn't trade for one of those 3. It's not a new vs. old argument. The fact is that deN has no idea what he's looking at if/when he looks at any research on a player so he can have all the info in the world his analysis is just wrong if he can evaluate it at all.
I will never tire of that phrase. I promise you.
Branch Rickey ≠ Al Campanis
Rickey is a little too 19th Centuryish for most people's tastes. Most of his good ideas (specifically training methods and statistical evaluation of players) have already been adopted by every team.
After Rickey left the Dodgers in 1950, he didn't fare so well. Somehow the 1964 Cardinals won the World Series despite Rickey's best attempts to ruin the team and front office.
And if not, what's the point of trading right now?
We have major, major needs both this year and next, at 2B, SS, and possibly 3B and P.
I don't want to just make the playoffs, and go out with a whimper like we have so many times since 1988. I want to win the series, and that's a 2-3 year project that only works by holding on to our young talent.
The only confounding issue is that the free-agent market looks a little dry next year.
I'm not saying that Branch Rickey couldn't have handled it all with aplomb - I'm saying we don't and can't know.
I think finding the perfect GM is sort of like finding an Ace pitcher who can also hit. The reason most pitchers can't hit is that very few people can hit, and very few people can pitch, and the overlap of those set is teeny.
A modern GM has to be good at more things than was true 50-70 years ago. The number of people who are good at all of them is vanishingly small. Billy Beane is in an exclusive club. The only exceptions to the "has to be" that I can think of are guys whose owners give them carte blanche, or nearly so. We don't actually know if Brian Cashman is a good GM - he's allowed to make lots of expensive mistakes.
Rickey was in some ways like Beane in that he was able to exploit market inefficiencies in order to parlay his small budget into making his team a contender.
When Rickey took over the Cardinals, the team was horrible. It hadn't contended at all in the 20th Century.
Rickey started off by finding very good scouts who were able to find some hidden gems. But then teams like the Giants caught on to what he was doing, so they would just shadows his scouts and then just offer the player more money to sign.
So Rickey then decided to go and create the farm system and just go with a plan to sign a whole bunch of cheap players and control them indefinitely and train them the way he wanted them. He didn't have to worry about signing bonuses then. And with no antitrust laws or even rules against owning multiples team in one league, the Cardinals were able to control around 600 players at a time.
That gives them 14 of their first 15 picks and 15 of 18.
White also mentioned that they would not sign #10 - RHP Chris Joyce out of Dos Pueblos high school, Goleta, CA. He had mentioned earlier that he was skeptical about signing either of the two high school youngsters.
On the International front, White signed RHP Yohanse Morillo from the Dominican Republic. White reported he is very is projectable and loose with a 86-90 with a fair breaking ball. "His arm action and delivery is pretty good for a young kid" he said.
http://rays.scout.com/a.z?s=322&p=2&c=772259
don't let me on tv
Esteban Loaiza was released by the White Sox.
The word is out that McCourt has blocked at least one deal which would have added to payroll and sent some of the kids away.
The words is out that Logan White seems to have a lot of influence on McCourt.
Seems to me Logan is already half way into the GM chair. Logan's ideas on players and Frank's ideas on what he would like to spend should be a perfect match.
and of course, having the right policy helps.
odds of an old friend becoming a new friend?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093407/
What would Rickey have had to do with the 1964 Cardinals? He left the Cardinals in 1942, to come to Brooklyn. When he left the Dodgers in 1950, he became GM of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Then he died, in 1955. (Agreed, the Pirates didn't seem to do too well, though they had recovered well enough by 1960 to win the WS.)
By 1964, how do you think that his years at the Cardinals from 1920-42 would be relevant? The Cardinals had already won the WS in 1942, Rickey's last year, 1944, and 1946. What's 1964 got to do with him at all? I'm just not following.
http://griddle.baseballtoaster.com/archives/707667.html
And Rickey died in 1965.
However, in August, the Cardinals were still trailing the Phillies and Rickey pretty much told Busch that Devine had to go. So Devine was fired and replaced by Rickey disciple Bob Howsam. Cardinals manager Johnny Keane was so ticked off by the firing of Devine that he decided to quit at the end of the season.
The Sporting News ended up naming Divine Executive of the Year for 1964 despite his firing.
Branch Rickey died in 1965, not 1955. He died one day before I was born.
Bob Timmermann - Branch Rickey reincarnate
I'm going to let my eyebrows grow out.
A lot.
Once you do that, maybe Frank will hire you to succeed Ned, for old time's sake.
I have a trade to propose:
Zell sells the Cubs to Mark Cuban and then Cuban trades the Cubs to McCourt for the Dodgers.
Boy would I like to see what Mark Cuban would do with an L.A. team ------ any L.A. team.
Would you care to expand upon that notion and hire the dead Walter Alston to replace the live Joe Torre?
Many Dodgers players of the 1970s would tell you that Alston was already dead.
For a guy who had a lot of success, his players certainly didn't respect him much. Do you ever hear many of the old Dodgers ever speaking well of Alston?
Fess up - Cut and paste?
There's no shame in that.
I don't think it'll be particularly useful, though.
Given that it was Garvey, was it a paid speaking engagement and any one of his numerous creditors was there to intercept the check?