But Jon, it's so much fun to give up after one game :-)

If Drew hits 35 homers and 110 RBI, do the 2005 Dodger bench players need to hit 13 more homers and 11 more RBI than 2004 rendition did to even things out?

Finley was a stretch drive rental. Hopefully, Kent will play more games in a Dodger uniform in 2005 than Finley did in 2004.

Valentin does replace Beltre, for the half of the game spent in the field. But fielding is irrelevant...

As always, thanks for being the voice of reason. I think most people on this board would be happy with 90 wins from the men in blue this year, which should be enough to win the division. That said, the Dodgers still have 71 losses to go before they don't meet my expectations.

I have tickets to the games tonight and tomorrow so here is hoping for a couple of wins. Go Dodgers!

solid point....it's a loooong season. I think here's a case where you tip your hat to Jason Schmidt, unfortunately a better pitcher than any starter on the Dodgers' roster -- as well as a lot of other teams. Now, if they can't get more than 5 hits off Kirk Rueter tonight -- then we get to start fidgeting.

If they can't get more than five hits off of Reuter then I may have to jump off the right field porch into McCovey's cove.

Rueter is a crafty lefty you know.

Rueter had 292 baserunners reach against him last year (not counting errors) in 190 1/3 IP.

He faced 841 batters last year, which means you've got a 1 in 3 chance of reaching base against.

The fourth best comp to him for his career is Ramon Martinez of all people.

Does this mean Ledee is Green? Hmmm, we lost on that deal.

Game 2 can't come soon enough.

Putting aside that Ledee is millions cheaper than Green ... no, it doesn't mean Ledee is Green. Again, the point is whether the TEAM will win in 2005, not whether any single player from 2005 is better than a player from 2004.

Consider the converse. Just because Derek Lowe 2005 is better than Hideo Nomo 2004 doesn't mean the Dodgers will win.

Jon I have every right to have a nervous breakdown if we lose on opening day. I think I've earned that right. That being said, I think we'll win the division, however I can't promise that I won't become hysterical if we lose at any point, especially to the Giants.

Didn't yesterday's game seem like Bill Plaschke's dream scenario? A key Valentin error and a Choi 0-fer. Oddly reminiscent of the Dreifort collapse right after the Mota trade.

Buster Olney offers this gem today:
"The conventional wisdom is that the Dodgers are a mess, and nobody was surprised that on Opening Day, Valentin made a decisive error."

What exactly is the track record on conventional wisdom?

Jose Valentin is the Dodgers'version of the date you end up taking to a wedding only because you broke up with your girlfriend the week before.
You need somebody fast and on short notice, you hope that nothing embarrassing happens, and mercifully it will be short term.

And Jon- please add Lima's opening day line to your ex-Dodger toteboard.

3ip, 6H, 5ER, 3HR, 15.00 ERA, LOSS

Though I was disappointed with Buster's writing, it must be taken with a grain of salt. He is the same guy that did his pre-season rankings with the Dodgers at #18, with the Orioles at 17 and the Tigers at 19.

This is the same guy who came up with the goofball productive outs stat that doesn't really have any relation to a teams W-L record.

I'll switch my comments over here.

So in 2003 the Dodgers lost because they couldn't hit.

In 2004, the Dodgers suddenly became the Greatest Defensive Sqaud Ever (TM) and also hit more. But the stating pitcher was pretty shaky. Does anyone remember how much we winced through all of September.

So 2005, the team has been remade again. It may or may not score more runs. However that's the plan. The starting pitching may or may not be less shaky, but it's supposed to be better. Neither of these may be true. The defense will likely be a bit worse. But isn't going to be catastrophically worse?

How many games in all of baseball are ever decided because of a late inning error? Probably not a lot. It stinks when your team does lose one because of it.

Does anyone remember the one time the Dodgers beat Schmidt last year? It was early in the season and the Dodgers scored 3 runs, all by Roberts and all on infield ground outs by Bradley. And the Dodgers won 3-2 after Gagne gave up a tremendous bomb to right field by Bonds.

If you read Buster Olney's bio on his ESPN blog, it mentions that he grew up as a big Dodgers fan. Despite being from Tennessee.

"Can it! Its 'The Fuzz'!"

C'mon, you had it coming when you titled the post Jon. :p

Plaschke strikes again. Can anyone remember Alex Cora getting this much praise from Plaschke prior to him being released? I sure as hell don't. I miss the guy, but christ, I think Plaschke has a man-crush.

How many games will the Dodger team lose
Before they regret signing Drew?
How many errors can one team commit
Before their season is through?

The answer, my friend, begins with game two
The answer begins with game two

The above is silliness, and not intended for children.

Jon -- I don't think the Rangers are a fourth place team, though it could end up that way.

Good points, Jon.

It is only one game, but it was against the Giants. I think that if yesterday's game against was against the Pirates, the tirades made by those on Dodger Talk among others would be a lot less enthusiastic.

Did anyone read Plaschke's article? I told myslef I would not read him any more, but I did. There are so many holes in his article, but I am sick of writing letters to him pointing them out.

Jon, I'll bet you one tomato that the Rangers win the Al West.

As far as Valentin goes, I'm nervous because, if my memory serves, didn't he have a couple of errors in the Freeway Series?

Don't feed the Plaschke!

At least Simers columns have some humor. I like how Kent told Simers that he wanted the expletives included in his quotes.

I liked your #18, Ducky. And I will say that in a tournament of fourth-place teams across the U.S., the Rangers would do pretty well.

I think Bob's point about the September 2004 pitching in #15 needs to be emphasized. Even with the great fielding, the Dodgers really had big problems in that area last year. As long as someone like Elmer Dessens is in the rotation, those problems remain. But I'm confident about the long haul.

It's going to be very interesting to see how Odalis does tonight. He worries me more than any other Dodger. I hope the good Perez shows up.

"The Dodgers are just not a playoff team."
Jim Rome; 11:30PST; April 6, 2005

Hey, now that's been decided, why bother with the other 161 games?

My biggest worry with Perez isn't his ability. I think his durability is a bigger concern right now.

The Times story today said that Perez is on a 75-pitch limit. However, if he's pitching well 75 pitches can get him relatively far, so we can safely get the game to ... um ... you know ... one of those ... guys who sit down in the ... um ... bullthingee.

Relievers! Yeah! I want to know what Steve Schmoll looks like!

Bob, you said in a previous thread that visiting teams have to have the names on the back of the uniforms, right? Was I just (not) seeing things, or did the Dodger grey unis have no names yesterday?

Bob, nevermind, it was Rob who said that. I wonder if the dodgers are eligible for a fine for that.

I will be damned. They are off the backs of even the away jerseys. See the third picture here:

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/photogallery/year_2005/month_04/day_05/cf1001010.html

Does anyone here remember Guerrero,Hamilton (and Hatcher at Third?) Wonder what their error count for the year was...

Let me provide you with an analogy to illustrate my concern.

Suppose you go car shopping and find a good deal for a car. You tell your friend about the deal and he says not to buy the car because it has transmission problems. You go back to the dealer to ask about these supposed problems and he pulls out charts and graphs which indicate that the transmision is not a problem.

So, you buy the car. The first day you drive it to work, it breaks down with a transmission problem. Now, this was the first time and you could get the transmission repaired for free (assuming there's a warranty) and never have a transmission problem again. But wouldn't you still be worried?

Applying the analogy to the Dodgers, we were told that Valentin was an adequate replacement for Beltre. When we asked about fielding (because, obviously hitting was poor), charts and graphs were pulled out that actually indicated that Valentin was a better fielder than Izzie.

Yet, on the first day, he commits an error which allows the winning run to score.

True, this is only the first game and Valentin could have a Gold Glove hear. But, those of us who are not enchanted by the computer questioned his defensive capabilities and on the very first game, he let us down.

That is why I am not happy. We had one of the best and DePo let him go.

Do I think not having his name on the back of his jersey may have caused Jose Valentin to commit that error?

I can't answer that question.

Do I see it as a possibility?

Sure I do.

Can you find in print the rule about names on away jerseys?

We had one of the best and DePo let him go.

That's still up for debate. The Dodgers' take is that they were never given the opportunity to respond to Seattle's offer.
And, Lowly, to cut off your expected response of "You're going to believe the Dodgers?" are you going to believe Scott Boras?

LDF,

Despite his transmission problems, you have to admit that Valentin has a hell of an upper-lip spoiler.

That has to have some blue book value.

The analogy doesn't work. Valentin is neither the Dodger transmission, nor is he a replacement for Beltre, nor does the play prove that he can't play third base.

I very much wanted the Dodgers to keep Beltre, so please understand that I'm not arguing against keeping him, and that you can be sad that Beltre is gone (not that you need my permission in any case, obviously). But I would suggest you not see one player as the transmission to the car. Valentin is not important enough to cause the car to break down by himself.

You need to disconnect the link you have between losing Beltre and signing Valentin. DePodesta did not choose one over the other in a vaccum.

But we were told things, Jon.

Don't you remember the phone call you got from Frank and Paul?

We were told things, and after one game, it is clear that we were lied to.

Sign me up for Angels tickets.

MLB Official Rule 1.11: ". . . (i) A league may provide that the uniforms of its member teams include the names of its players on their backs. Any name other than the last name of the player must be approved by the League President. If adopted, all uniforms for a team must have the names of its players. "

Not sure how to check if there's a league rule; still looking

It doesn't take a "computer" (i.e. new statistic that hasn't been generally accepted) to make that case that Valentin is roughly Beltre's equal defensively.

Looking at their basic numbers--fielding percentage, range factor and zone rating-- Valentin's a little better in all 3 cases, and significantly so by zone rating.

Valentin's numbers are comparable to the top shortstops in the league, including Cesar Izturis, Omar Vizquel and Miguel Tejada, just as Beltre's are comparable to the best third basemen, including Scott Rolen and David Bell.

One could argue that Valentin won't be able to transition effectively to third. I doubt that, but it's a fair comment. But it's not fair to say that there's any question about Valentin's defensive skills. He's played well over 11,000 innings, and been solid throughout his career.

I cannot believe the undercurrent of panic in these recent posts...

I don't even want to think about what is going to be said if the Giants sweep the opening series. I'm not talking about the mainstream folks... we all know the Dodgers will underperform by their standards; I'm talking about DT'ers... I'm really surprised that so many subjective takes are being made after 1 game!

As for me, I'll reserve judgement anywhere from 1 month to 3 months depending on the standings and player situation (e.g. if the Dodgers end April 1 - 22 and/or Penny, Perez, Gagne hurt and still on DL, then 1 month is probably long enough).

BUT, no matter what is said in the media, I believe DePo has improved the Dodgers overall and I will not let uncontrollables like injuries or, God forbid, a better NL West team sway my opinion.

Meanwhile, in the top of the ninth, Boston: 12 hits, 2 runs; NYY: 3 hits, 3 runs.

Boston does have 2 on nobody out as they try and avoid a sweep that will restore that old pre-2004 gloom we've all come to miss . . .

Good heavens, 18 men LOB for boston, including 5 by their new shortstop.

Last year the Dodgers couldn't get ESPN recognition by winning 10 consecutively. The media grilled DePo for his midseason trade which, with the pitching breakdown at the end of the season, seemed to be validated.

So now the Dodgers lose their first game, and everyone acts like their pace for 162 losses will inevitably be realized. Somehow one game and one error confirm everyone's fears about DePo's decisions. Guess what, they're the focal point of ESPN.com.

If the "not a playoff team" ends up in the playoffs, expect a bunch of analysts quietly ignoring them or acting like they expected the Dodgers to be there.

One game!

Yes, it's a long season, but one loss is huge. There are only 15 games left in the season. We need to finish 10-6 to have a good chance of making the playoffs, which means we can only lose 5 more games. Even 10-6 might miss the playoffs.

Oh wait, that's football.

I'll be at the game tonight. Yay! I'm hoping and assuming that the Dodgers will be able to put up some runs against Woody Rueter. Watching a game where the Dodgers don't score against Rueter is the most frustrating thing in the world. Every single at-bat seems to end with a guy reaching for an outside pitch, and grounding out. It's incredibly aggravating.

And I, too, am looking forward to seeing what some of these relievers look like. Wunsch, Houlton, Carlyle, Schmoll...I'm pretty sure I have never seen any of these guys.

And that questionable third baseman picked up by the Yanks last year makes a key error that blows an inning-ending DP possibility and allows the tying run to score. What were they thinking letting that hero Boone go?

OMG! OMG! The Yankees blew the game when their third baseman made an error! They made a huge mistake letting Brosius go!

Oh no! A converted shortstop to third base makes an error at a crucial point! Crucify him!

Oh wait, that's Alex Rodriguez....

As for the uniforms, I can't see how there would be a "National League" rule for uniforms. MLB is pretty much an entirely unitary organization regarding its rules with the exception of the DH.

I guess we're gonna have to come up with some new jokes at some point . . .

Jon, the analogy does work because it's a park of the car that broke and the car doesn't run (the Dodgers lost, right?). And don't read too much into the part; the transmission was the first item that came to mind. I could have used the battery, starter, exhaust, et cetra.

The point is that those of us that aren't enraptured by the Moneyball method expressed our concerns that Valentin would not be up to the job of playing third and we should get a real thirdbase man (or keep the one we had). We were pooh-pooh and told we didn't know what we were talking about. That the "numbers" proved us wrong. And, yet, our faux-thirdbase man committed an error and let the winning run score in the very first game.

Don't get me wrong. I hope Valentin can do a good job at third. But, so far, he hasn't. He didn't produce at the place and he allowed the winning run to score on an error.

And that's the bottom line.

What does the gameday LOB stat mean? It now says the Sox have left 25 men on base (having gone up from 18 over the course if this one half inning). If the bases are loaded with no outs and three batters strike out, is that counted as 9 LOB? If that's right, is that what the stat usually means, cause that's a pretty strange way to count I'd say. I guess Team LOB would be a different stat?

I was only able to catch the first two and last two innings on the radio yesterday, so I missed the dreaded 7th inning. Obviously, it's silly to get catatonic after a single error and a single loss, but you've got to admit it's a pretty ominous way to open the season. I saw the Valentin error replay, and it is was it is, but my bigger question for those who saw the game was from earlier in the inning. Should Izturis and Kent been able to turn the double play that would have ended the inning prior to Valentin's muff?

For someone who still believes in intangibles and immeasurable abilities, my hunch has been that this is where Kent's fielding ability at second base will pale in comparison to Cora's. He won't necessarily make more errors, but how many fewer plays will he make? I realize that some of these various fielding ability measurements try to take range into account, but how do you measure the ability to turn a double play? There doesn't have to be an error or mistake made to still have a person standing on first base and one less out than if someone else was playing at 2nd.

I am not saying that this is what happened yesterday because I didn't see it, but I would be willing to bet that our double play numbers go down for the season even with the additions of Lowe and Penny.

Sorry, what happened yesterday is like one of those things that happens to your car out of the blue.

You get in it one day and it doesn't start on the first turn of the key. It's a little troubling, but you crank it again and it goes.

It could be an inidicator that something is wrong, or it could a be one time thing.

One good play is hardly enough evidence to make a case that a certain fielder is gold glove caliber (GGs are kind of a joke anyways), just like one bad play doesn't make a fielder a bum.

The Gameday LOBs come in two varieties:
1) Personal
2) Team

In the case of #1, if Joe Blows come up with the bases loaded and strikes out, he is charged with 3 LOB. If he gets a hit or a sacrifice (I believe that varies by who does the counting), then there is no LOB. If he grounds into a DP, he is credited with 3 LOB.

The team totals are the ones we are used to and those are the ones you have to have to make the boxscore add up.

And that's the bottom line.

In your world, at least.

Geez, Bob. Joe Blow has one bad at-bat and you're already making fun of his name.

Didn't Bojangles already scold you for namecalling in the previous thread?

Thanks Bob. I see now -- the Sox had 27 individual LOB but 10 Team LOB (also reported by Gameday, but i'd missed that at first).

Re #48, given the text of the rule, I was wondering if the old League President offices might have issued pronouncements or directives or something back when those offices had some heft and that now survive until changed by the commish. Couldn't find anything like that on the web, however, but I guess it's still possible. Or not.

I sincerely apologize to the Blow family. However, I have made no references to any Bojangles. That could have been one of our many Robs that visit this site.

The Red Sox as a team had 10 LOB. If you add up all the individuals, it comes up to 27, but some are counted more than once. If you have three guys in a row strike out with the bases drunk, you have 9 LOB for individuals, but just 3 for the team.

It's quite possible back in the days when league presidents had authority that was such a rule about names and numbers, but now it's "One man, one vote" in MLB and that man is Bud Selig.

I don't think Bojangles is Rob, unless it's his rambling drunk side.

LDF - certainly, I don't mean for us to fixate on which part of the car we make an analogy to.

As for this that you wrote:

"The point is that those of us that aren't enraptured by the Moneyball method expressed our concerns that Valentin would not be up to the job of playing third and we should get a real thirdbase man (or keep the one we had). We were pooh-pooh and told we didn't know what we were talking about. That the "numbers" proved us wrong. And, yet, our faux-thirdbase man committed an error and let the winning run score in the very first game."

This is off-target. It assumes that there is a Moneyball crowd that thinks the same way on every issue. I didn't like the Valentin pickup. Tom Meagher of The Fourth Outfielder likes it more. Everything is to degrees.

Meanwhile, you still haven't acknlowedged that you're looking at Valentin in a vaccum. For the final time (because I don't want to preach to deaf ears), nobody thinks Valentin is a better player than Beltre. The team has weakened itself at third base, but it is stronger in other areas.

After Opening Day you see a lot of sentences like this by Jonny 6 (#52):

"Obviously, it's silly to get catatonic after a single error and a single loss, but you've got to admit it's a pretty ominous way to open the season."

There's the the beginning of the sentence with the disclaimer, followed by the conclusion to the sentence that clearly flies in the face of the disclaimer. If it's silly to get catatonic after a single error and a single loss, then why would anyone have to admit that it's a pretty ominous way to open the season.

I think LowlyDodgerfan makes a great point. We as Dodger fans have been told by management that Valentin is a very good defensive player. Then we've been showered by statistics by Depo's adoring crowd explaining how Valentin is one of the best defensive shortstops in baseball.

Those of us who have expressed skepticism have been lambasted and mocked for not understanding statistics or being overly sentimental.

Well, even though its one game, it is pretty scary to a loyal Dodger fan when Valentin makes that error confirming your fears about his ability.

I watched both LA teams play yesterday. As a lifelong intense Dodger fan, for me the worst part about yesterday is having to admit that the Angel game against lowly Texas was more interesting and exciting than, of all match-ups, the Dodger game against the Giants. Very depressing.

I think yesterday's loss was an ominous way to open the season for those who were already skeptical of the off-season moves.

If a similar game were to take place on June 17th (just throwing the date out there), most folks would take it as a tough loss and not fixate on one bad play.

I hope Valentin can do a good job at third. But, so far, he hasn't.

Braves fan: I hope Smoltz can do a good job as a starter. But, so far, he hasn't.

I'd like to add, in the wake of #62, that I read every comment on this board, and those who have expressed skepticism about Valentin's defense or not bought into a given statistic have hardly been lambasted and mocked. If it has happened at all, it has been isolated, and certainly no more than those who praise Valentin's defense or a given stat have been criticized.

It's been a point of emphasis of mine to keep the discussion friendly, with the help of all of you, and I think we've been successful. Let's not have either side of the debate make false martyrs of themselves.

If Valentin's error yesterday makes him a poor fielder, than Izturis must be a power hitter now.

Would you have preferred "disheartening"? How about "unfortunate"? When hundreds of fans and "experts" have spent most of the off-season pontificating, analyzing, and arguing over whether or not our infield defense is weaker even though we brought in more ground ball pitchers, and wondering how that will effect the Dodgers' success, and then we blow a game on the very first day of the season due to the aforementioned infield defense, I call that ominous. It may very well turn out to be just a meaningless blip in a very long season, but you have to admit it could at least potentially be a harbinger of things to come. After all, how many games did our infield defense cost us all of last season? I don't know the answer off hand, but I am guessing it was very few. Well, after one game, that defense has cost us one game. At a minimum, it's not a very satisfying way to start the new season (to me at least it's much worse to lose a game due to errors than due the other team stringing together a series of hits).

Am I allowed to express any semblance of negativity or must I put a little smiley face on everything that goes on this year in deference to DePodesta's grand plan? Since I tend to be argumentative by nature, I have now overstated my own thoughts on yesterday's game. I really don't think it's a big deal, but I do find the irony of the situation somewhat amusing.

Hey, you can just look at yesterday's game as karma..

Cody Ransom gave the Dodgers a little help in game 161 last year. Jose Valentin gave the Giants a little help in Game 1 this year.

So, Drew is the replacement for Beltre. I assume that means Scott Erickson is the replacement for David Ross? And Jason Phillips is the replacement for Kaz Ishii? Come on, Jon. Defense, and thus fielding position, is 50% of the game, don't forget that.

Jonny, it was the combination of the two thoughts in that earlier sentence that I found ... well, ironic, actually. I'm not telling you - or anyone - to put a happy face on a defeat.

All that some of us are trying to do is put Valentin's error in perspective. You don't have to go along. But again, the idea that one side is somehow trying to censor the other's viewpoint ... I really disagree with this. Both sides are engaging each other.

Re: # 67. by Eric L

Probably my favorite reaction to game one so far.

Would it make you feel better if someone were to say that Drew is the offensive replacement for Beltre?

And Scott Erickson might be able to hit as well as Ross, but I'm not sure about his catching skills. He is getting kind of old to be a catcher.

Jon,

I really respect your site and what you do here. I did not mean to insult you. It is also true that your board is much more civil than the one on dodgers.com.

But I do think that it is unfair for you to take a shot at me about being a "false martyr".

Those who have not agreed w/ many of the moves of the current GM have been mocked.

But we are all Dodger fans and need to stick together.

Some people really need to get over themselves.

"I assume that means Scott Erickson is the replacement for David Ross?"

This is complete