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.

1. Be fast

Pierre is the best person for the job.

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)

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!

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.