Colorado did a great job of pitching to Loney and it appeared that he was the guy they were going to most careful with in the four game series. More or less taking Loney out of the offense and Broxton's hurting arm was enough to sweep the Dodgers.

The Dodgers were in the playoff race until only ten days ago with a young team. Pierre wasn't the problem. Perhaps weakness at third base and Furcal playing hurt all year and no innings eaters were the culprets.

When teams win every decision looks much better and when they lose most decisions are second guessed.

Of course, simply saying it doesn't make it so, and we'll never know, obviously. There are a lot of questions. Would more playing time for Loney and Kemp have brought their production down? If LaRoche truly got a shot and struggled, would it have meant more playing time for Ramon Martinez at 3B?

Still, it's hard to imagine my imagined offense being worse than the real-life one that we saw. Saying that Pierre wasn't the problem is, at best, incomplete -- he wasn't the problem by himself, but he was a millstone around the neck of the offense for four months.

On Baseball-Reference.com, they have sOPS+, which is "OPS+ ... relative to the major league OPS for this split."

Dodger 3B: 84 sOPS+
Dodger CF: 81 sOPS+

This doesn't take into account baserunning, which would put Pierre over the top, I presume. But until his recent hot streak, Pierre was the Dodgers' biggest lineup problem.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?team=LAD&year=2007

Defense matters.

Isn't just about everyone's?

Chris Dial called Pierre the best defensive CF in the NL, last year; BP had him as average. Dial hasn't put out a list like that, this year, but MGL's UZR (last updated 7/17), which I understand (perhaps wrongly) to be a similar system, had him five runs below average; BP has him twelve runs worse than average. The Hardball Times's RZR has him in the middle of all qualified CFs.

Fortunately the right thing to do is also the cheap thing to do. Baseball seems to have realized that trading prospects for front-line talent is a mug's game; you're expected to give up two or three times the potential of what you get in return, and the only real sure thing you're getting is that your end is far more expensive. Do you think anybody would want to give up James Loney and Clayton Kershaw for Mark Teixiera now that they know he doesn't carry a pennant in his back pocket?

As positions go, here are the differences from 2006 - 2007.

C +17 (133 sOPS+)
1B -29 (90 sOPS+)
2B +4 (117 sOPS+)
3B 0 (84 sOPS+)
SS -30 (84 sOPS+)
LF -25 (96 sOPS+) (Note that 2006 is slightly skewed due to Marlon's amazing September, he had 207 sOPS+) (Gonzo is at 102 sOPS+ compared to Ethier's 2006 115 sOPS+)
CF -15 (81 sOPS+)
RF -3 (108 sOPS+)

So what does this show, certainly, of the opening day starters, only Martin and Kemp provided consistent production, the offense was dragged down by Furcal and Garciaparra, Pierre, while a drag, the team could have survived it, and if not for the boost provided by James Loney and Matt Kemp, the numbers would be a lot worst.

http://tinyurl.com/3befb8

In comment #3 Jon's defines it as "sOPS+, which is "OPS+ ... relative to the major league OPS for this split."

Pardon my slowness.

Clearly, I'm missing what you're trying to say.

OPS= on-base percentage plus slugging percentage

OPS+ = OPS relative to the league average, adjusted for park effects. Average is 100. Anything above 100 is better than average.

I would say that the drops in production by Furcal and Garciaparra had more of an negtive impact than Juan Pierre playing CF for the Dodgers in 2007.

Its not like every team is filled with great offensive talent at every position.

And anyway, if Jon is going to use sOPS+ as a reference point, why can't I compare the postions to what happened last year and conclude that while Juan Pierre may have the worst the numbers individually, when you look at the bigger picture, the fall offs at other positions hurt the team as much if not more.

i'm not completely off the nomar bandwagon yet, but where in the world are we supposed to bat him? it's a real puzzle. what's the point of playing him and then batting him 8th? it makes little sense.

Lofton had a 102 sOPS+ last year.

Is there a pun in there somewhere?

For all I know, LaRoche could be traded for Miguel Cabrera.

This doesnt make much sense. Thats like saying if you put Pierre into the Yankees lineup, the Yankees would still manage to score runs. Yeah, of course.

But Pierre was the worst problem on the Dodgers. Taking blame away from him by stating other players (whom are already better than Pierre) should have performed even better is a disservice to those players and lack of acknowledgement of the true suckiness that is and will continue to be Juan Pierre.

He will hit somewhere lower in the order though. He's not hitting 3rd anymore.

I hated the Nomar signing because of my fear that he would play first instead of Loney. Nomar could still be the guy that holds down third base until a trade is made or a young player steps up and takes the job.

Send this quote to FireJoeMorgan.

Not to pick on you BHS, but wow.

1. Hardy Richardson: 45 (Buffalo Bisons, 1881)
2. Charlie Duffee: 43 (St. Louis Browns, 1889)
3. Jim Fogarty: 42 (Philadelphia Quakers, 1889)
4. Tom Brown: 39 (Louisville Colonels, 1893)
5. Tom Brown: 37 (Louisville Colonels, 1892)
6. Jimmy Ryan: 36 (Chicago White Stockings, 1889)

45 assists! Either he had a gun for an arm, or baserunners were awful back then, or both. I'd be tickled with one from Pierre...

Record holders for fewest in a season, min. 150+ games, according to baseball almanac:
2
NL Barry Bonds 1998
Lenny Dykstra 1993
Brian McRae 1996

I wonder how up to date that is. How could Juan Pierre not be on that list?

57 Look for his inside the park bunt homer on the last game of the season.

I took a peek. Not a bad play to get a guy who had been a part of the Indians organization. If the first action is ditch Tracy, the Pirates could be on the path to success.

if we're dealing with such a limited upside, i'd much rather go with laroche and let him take his lumps [and walks].

Austin Gallagher #7 BA Prospect in Pioneer League
Jamie Ortiz #12 BA Prospect

They project that Gallagher may have to move 1B eventually, though he is listed as an OF and Ortiz is a first basemen.

Either that or the top of the lineup.

If you think not apologizing is a male phenomenon you're in serious need of a crash course in the opposite sex.

The phrase I used was "Kent's code of masculinity." His is his. It's different from mine, perhaps yours. It's not the universal code of masculinity. He just strikes me as someone who doesn't take well to being shown where he's wrong. If he says it, it's because it's right, and if it wasn't right, he wouldn't have said it. We all know guys like that.

The first one that comes to my mind if Jeff Ke..., oh, never mind.

It depends on the return, obviously, but I think Ethier has a better chance of being traded than LaRoche. Upside in terms of power skews highly in Andy's favor.

The only time I like watching Pierre is when he is on base. I have been at many games where he does get into the pitcher's head, and it is truly fun to watch. But, that is it. I have no confidence when he is at the plate, even during his 4 for 4 games. I am always amazed that his hits make it out of the infield (when they do). It just does not look like he hits it hard enough on line drives. How did he ever hit three home runs last year?

There is this huge depression in the flow of minor league talent to the major league club, accounted for by the years of bad drafts in the late 90s/early 2000s before Evans and Logan arrived. The first fruits of the better drafting are on the big club now, but they're young. When DePo and then Colletti came here, they saw 2-3 year holes in talent development at certain positions that they went about trying to patch.

Some of DePo's patches were brilliant -- Brad Penny, Jeff Kent, Derek Lowe. Most of Colletti's have been less stellar -- the good ones are Furcal and a few less significant pieces like Proctor and Lieberthal. But the players he brought here he basically tricked into thinking we were going to be a win-now team, when in fact that was not Colletti's intention. "Tricked" might be too harsh, but he wasn't entirely straight with them.

Lowe, Kent, Gonzalez and Nomar (has he said anything?) are childishly taking out their frustration on the kids themselves, but the kids are only symbols of Colletti's lack of candor. Those three belonged on a team like the Mets or the Cubs.

Colletti should trade all four of them, even if they deals aren't quite in our favor. If There will be takers. If they don't want to be traded, it needs to be made clear to them they are part of a rebuilding, take it or leave it.

Marc(Minnespolis): Am I crazy for wanting the Twins to trade Johan to the Dodgers for Kemp, LaRoche and Kershaw?

Rob Neyer: I think you're brilliant, Marc; make that deal and toss in a one-year contract for Barry Bonds, and you've got yourself a 90-win team next year.
__________________________________________________

Colin (NY): You're talking 90 wins for the Twins or the Dodgers?

Rob Neyer: Twins. The Dodgers would get only 88 under the Santana Plan.

Having Santana would be great, but please please. No more platoons of Hillenbrand and Garcia-pop-up (freaking 1st ball, rally killing swinger). If we were absolutely going to get A-rod AND be able to sign an extension to Johan, then that's another story. Kemp is going to be a superstar though and we could have Abreu at 3rd until Kent leaves.
_____________________________________________________

Would anyone make that trade?

Also is anyone hoping Hu gets a legitimate shot at shortstop once Furcal's contract is up?

And finally --

Adrian (IL): Which team as the best looking women in the stands?

SportsNation Jonah Keri: (2:13 PM ET ) Awesome question. Depends on your type really. At Angels games, everyone in the stadium is blonde. I always impressed by the talent at Safeco Field. In Atlanta you have the southern thing going on, which can be great too. Honestly? Almost impossible to answer.

It appeared today that it was going to be difficult for Kent to extricate himself from his isolated clubhouse position, and, in fact, the 24-year-old, who doesn't bother to disguise his temper or arrogance, appeared determined not to soften his stance.

"He was not well liked in his own clubhouse," a former official with the Blue Jays said of Kent's experience with Toronto's Class AA club. "He's totally oblivious to what it takes to fit in with a team. And he had problems with the umpires within the first month of the season last year."

Oh no, not again!

"For all I know, LaRoche could be traded for Miguel Cabrera."

What else do you think would have to be put into that deal to actually make it happen? I would put much higher odds on Cabrera being here next year than A-Rod, but if not........

Assuming that Kent comes back, I think I'd rather take my chances with LaRoche and/or Abreu at third next year, but I can't imagine any scenario where we could unload Nomar without paying most of his salary.

Sorry to give you nightmares.

maybe I wouldn't put it past Ned Colletti, but I can't picture him wanting two aging centerfielders on the team, so unless he has a way to unload Pierre to get Hunter (I'd be down with that), I don't see it.

Or if Kemp is deemed a problem in the clubhouse, would Ned try to land an ace by dangling Kemp, and then sign an OF to replace him? I wouldn't put it past him...

3B appears to have Nomar locked in to start, with LaRoche on the way. To jettison that plan, Ned would have to deal with Nomar.