This made me LOL.

(If I could display colors, the "O" would be highlighted.)

How about:

Dodger$

I generally dislike all "commemorative" uniforms. Hopefully they are only for one day. BTW, I don't see any mention of special uniforms on the Dodger home page. Where are you getting this (or is it just a reasonable guess given the anniversary year)?

D4P - an half-assed attempt to answer your Posada question is LAT'ed.

D4P - an half-assed attempt to answer your Posada question is LAT'ed

I just saw it and responded.

3 - It's a joke based on this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bruin/2007/09/c-stands-for-10.html

I keep hearing that the Dodgers are keeping an eye on Mike Lowell and his situation and that there is interest in him if Arod can't be signed or we don't make a trade for Miggy.
Why?
If we don't sign Arod, I don't want to sacrifice what the Marlins current asking price is for Miggy. So why not just sign our "big bat" at CF and let LaRoche have a crack as the starting 3B?
Mike Lowell had a career year mainly because he was hitting behind ManRam and Ortiz every night. Just like Kent in 2000, how can you not have a good year when you hit behind one or two of the elite hitters in the game?
I just don't see the sense in going after, or even faining interest in Lowell at all. Based on recent FA acquisitions by Bernie Lomax though, I am a little worried that there is some truth to these whisperings.

Heh. Good thing there is no "L" in "Dodgers".

Keeping up with Gigantes?

No. There is some reason for career year. It very well may be all luck. But it had nothing to do with hitting behind anyone. Protection has repeatedly been proven to be a myth.

6
Plenty of hitters have hitten behind the best in baseball and did not have good seasons.
Lowell had a great season because of Fenway Park not because of ManRam and Ortiz.

Or what he said.

Good thing there is no "L" in "Dodgers"

But it's hard to spell "The Angels" in Spanish without one...or two...

perhaps the UCLA athletic department took lawler's law to heart... first team to a hundred wins.

12 Good point. There is also the LA on our hats. Bad things could be brewing (well, in addition to all the bad things no doubt brewing in Ned's cauldron).

9
How can protection be proven to be a myth? That makes no sense at all.
You take a fair to good major league hitter, insert him behind one (or in Lowell's case) two FANTASTIC hitters and then tell me that in scenarios where a pitcher can really get burned by pitching to the elite guy(s) that he won't opt to pitch around that guy(s) to get to the lesser hitter in hopes of achieving his desired result. How does that NOT benefit someone like Lowell? How does he NOT get better pitches to hit? Lowell is exactly what I described, a decent to good major league hitter. He has been most of his career, but when you put a guy like that in a role where he can thrive and he does thrive, it creates a false sense of greatness that can lead an owner/GM to let their judgement be clouded by recent performances thus handing them a ridiculous contract that should never have been given out in the first place.

How can protection be proven to be a myth?

You could start by examining the correlation between every hitter's performance (however you define that) with the performance of players who hit behind them. If there's no significant correlation, one would be tempted to conclude that "protection effects" don't exist, on average.

9

So you're saying if a hitter was placed in front of 2001 Bonds* in a lineup that same hitter would get the same pitches hitting in front of the pitcher?

17
I'm pretty sure someone (likely Paul Scott) told me once that protection effects don't exist unless the protector is someone like Barry Bonds.

15 Yeah. Well whatever you may think of your theory, it fails to produce results. There are several excellent studies on the subject. If you pay for BP you can get a couple there. BTF has one in it's archives as does SABR. I'll get you think links if you try and can't find them.

So is protection supposed to mean hitting in front of someone great so the pitcher doesn't want to walk you (17 ) or behind someone great so you have more chances with runners on base (15 )?

17 18 Yeah, in one of the multiple studies on protection, there was a measurable "protection" effect when following Barry bonds (well, 2001-2004 Barry Bonds). So at the greatest of extremes protection provides a small, but measurable, effect.

16
You could start by examining the correlation between every hitter's performance (however you define that) with the performance of players who hit behind them.

I should clarify. It is still up to the hitter to make contact and put the ball in play. He has a better opportunity than say the #8 batter to see better pitches when you have stellar talent hitting in front of him. How is that not protection of some kind?

My guess is that "protection" will have a wide range of definitions from people so there is no point arguing my point. An interesting thought though..

15
FYI-Mike Lowell batted in the 6th hole behind JD Drew much more then he batted in the 5 hole. However when he did bat in the 5 hole his OPS was 1.215 but in only 67 at bats as compared to mid 800 from the 6 hole.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=lowelmi01&year=2007
JD also did much better in the 5 hole then the 6 hole.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=drewj.01&year=2007

22 no, it is not a matter of definition. It just does not exist (again, noting the exception of a few of Bonds' years). You are talking about it in theory. Your words do "make sense." The problem is tons of data indicates that the theory does not play out.

In the PE this morning, an article in which a "baseball economist" says A-Rod at $30 mil for 7 years would likely represent a net gain for the Dodgers, assuming he is surrounded by young talent from a productive farm system. The same applies to the Angels, but because they have already been successful recently, it's less significant. At the back end of the contract, when his skills have declined, he will still pay off assuming he is approaching a number of personal milestones, i.e. 700 homers, 3,000 hits.

http://tinyurl.com/26gmpz

He makes one assumption, however, that makes you wonder about how much homework this guy did:

"I think one of the real wild cards is Alex's Hispanic heritage, and I think that plays hugely into his value to both the Angels and Dodgers," Gennaro said. "The reality is if the Dodgers or Angels bring in A-Rod, I think it really starts to set them apart with the huge Latino community in Southern California.

Does he think A-Rod's heritage is Mexican, or does he think a lot of Dominicans live in LA and have been waiting for a Dominican player to join the Dodgers?

20
Both. It can work either way.

25 Most likely he doesn't recognize the difference.

Holy cow -- another DT reader lurking in the MSM.

http://tinyurl.com/yqol89

28
Ranit Mishori is a big D4P fan.

16 - that's the wrong analysis. You need to compare how the player hitting behind/in front of the elite hitter fairs when hitting in those situations and when he is not (moved to a different spot in the line up, elite hitter getting day off).

Personally, though, I don't really care what the statistics say. It is a matter of strategy, and as Gobias says in 22 , it is still up to the hitter to perform. There is a difference between being put in a position to succeed and actually succeeding.

24
The problem is tons of data indicates that the theory does not play out.

According to ToyCannon's post 23 , there is data to support my case.

I think that you are saying in most cases protection is a myth. I would tend to agree with that, but I won't say it doesn't exist at all. It clearly does in some cases.

I am hoping the Lowell talk is disinformation. Even Ned knows enough to talk up Lowell so as to not appear too hot for ARod/Cabrera. Doesn't he?

I think there's a potentially false assumption that a hitter who doesn't get "good pitches to hit" will make outs at a greater rate. Quite possibly, that hitter, unless he is Vlad Guerrero, is taking those pitches as balls. And/or, hitters still make outs on good pitches and still get hits on bad pitches.

It's not that having Ortiz behind you might not give you more fastballs. It's that baseball is still a mysterious game. Getting a fastball doesn't guarantee you a hit.

Beyond that, even with Ortiz behind you, it doesn't guarantee pitchers will throw fastballs one after another to you. Pitchers will still pitch.

I haven't done the studies - I only just read them. But even in theory, I just don't think it's as cut and dry as you think it is, Gobias. Even with a good hitter behind you, hitting is still hard. The difficulty of it could easily outweigh the benefits of having a good hitter behind you.

31 If you want to believe 67 ABs is data that can support any case, well I think we would end up talking past each other most of the time any way.

Like I said before, there are plenty of studies out there that pretty clearly demonstrate that protection effects do not exist (or more properly stated are so small that they make no difference). If you read some of those and have disagreements or questions, I'll be happy to do what I can.

Remembering Sam's story about shelf installation, I was very worried when I read this. But apparently (astoundingly) alcohol wasn't involved. Anybody want to claim credit for this one?

http://tinyurl.com/3cyhrt

35 - that's got to be a Darwin Award Honorable Mention

Re: "Protection."

I don't have a dog in this fight either way. Intuitively, I agree it's overrated. However, it seems curious to me to study this issue as an "effect," i.e. something that is measurable as a statistical phenomenon. It is the pitcher in each situation who decides whether Hitter X is going to see better pitches hitting behind Hitter Y. It doesn't just happen.

A statistical study would, I assume, tend to look at all games in the same way when, in fact, there would be significant variances depending on:

--Who the pitcher is, whether he has better luck with certain batters or certain types of batters, whether he has the skill to control the kinds of pitches a hitter sees
-- The game situation. Does the pitching team have a lead or is it behind? Does the game matter in the standings?

So, while Lowell might see no different pitches in some large percentage of his at-bats, perhaps in "crucial situations," i.e. late innings, close game, the pitchers pitch differently.

Just a non-professional thought.

33
Like I stated before, it is still up to the batter to make contact and succeed. He is just put in a better position to succeed when he hits in front of or behind an elite hitter rather than hitting behind an average to below average guy in the 7 or 8 hole. That's why a guy like Lowell, or even Drew for that matter, is an ideal fit for that Boston line up. Both good hitters but neither can carry the whole offense with them being the focal point. We saw that with Drew first hand.

31
I wasn't trying to support your case just showing that Lowell did have success in the 5 hole in limited at bats. Since he had an OPS difference of over 200 points based on home/road splits in over 250 at bats that is still the reason for his above average year, not because ManRam and Ortiz were in the lineup.

Is Jeff Kent going to come back? It is now Nov 13th and Free Agency has started, you would think Ned would want an answer ASAP.
Why would he retire:
1. He is still young enough that he could now enjoy bull riding, motorcycle racing, stringing barb wire and all those things that cowboys love to do but have been prohibited by their contract.
2. He doesn't enjoy playing the game of baseball
3. He doesn't like the Dodger youth movement
4. He doesn't like failure and he will have more failure going forward then he's accustomed to
5. Hates travel
6. Has run out of motorcycle magazines to read in the clubhouse
7. Doesn't like the Dodger youth movement
8. Someone keeps moving the trash can in the clubhouse
9. With respect to Jay Jaffe he already has HOF numbers given his position, since the people who vote aren't going to be detracting his defensive numbers like Jay does.
10. Hates Los Angeles

Why he wouldn't retire:
1. At least 9 million reasons
2. Wants to play for Joe Torre
3. Wants to see if he can break the record for watching ground balls go between him and the 1st baseman or between him and 2nd base in a season.
4. Wants to teach the kids how to run the bases
5. Misses TJ Simers
6. Still dreams of a World Championship

Jon, should we put our shirt orders over in the previous thread or post them here? Thanks.

I dont get the Lowell back up plan thing. I would much rather see Andy take over third. Please, enough of the Boston back scratching Frank sheesh.

Did Lowell have a career year?

OPS+:
2002: 116
2003: 128
2004: 127
2005: 77
2006: 104 (switching leagues)
2007: 124

Was 2007 the aberration or was it 2005? Didn't he have some injury in 2005?

42 His BABIP was absurdly low and his power took a huge hit. Moving from Florida to Boston probably helped that last part out a lot.

40- Great list Toycannon.

42 - There's one other piece of info that correlates with that and helps put things into better perspective, on whether Lowell had a career year in 07 or not:

2002: Marlins
2003: Marlins
2004: Marlins
2005: Marlins
2006: RED SOX
2007: RED SOX

37
You outlined that much better than I have tried to say it. But essentially that is what I've been trying to state.

I think everyone forgets how good Lowell was before 2005 playing in that pitchers park. He still has the great defense going for him. If we didn't have LaRoche I would have no problem having Mike Lowell playing on my team for the next two years.

45 - but doesn't OPS+ factor for ballpark?

And how does team affiliation detract from his 2003/2004 seasons?

40 Why he wouldn't retire:
7. Friend of Jamie McCourt

the ESPN scouting report on A. Jones is a little troubling to me:

he's settled into a pattern of trying to crush the ball every time up to the plate, leading to some long swings and a frustrating number of double plays for a guy who still has average running speed

I'm a little skeptical of guys who do nothing but swing for the fences.

50
You took a snippet from a smart guy who expects him to bounce back and have a normal A Jones year without the complete link. Based on your quote most people here would think that Law does not like A Jones and nothing could be farther from the truth.

49 Remember, he has Jaimie's ear. He could easily give it back to her and move on.

He's kind of a jerk for keeping it all these years.

42 To be fair, why start at 2002?
Lowell OPS+:
1999: 90 (97 games, age 25)
2000: 110
2001: 105

I agree with 47 . Problem is, when an old catcher (Posada) signs for 4yrs/$52.4M, Lowell is going to want four years also. He will be 34 before opening day, so in that last year you would be paying for a 37-year old 3B. (Perhaps this is the true huge payroll advantage for the Yankees; they can afford to carry that potentially bad last year of a contract and only get into trouble when there are too many like that?)

The complete breakdown of A Jones by Keith Law.
7
Andruw Jones

POSITION: Center Field
AGE: 30 | BATS: R | THROWS: R
2007 TEAM: Atlanta Braves
STATUS: Unsigned -- Type B free agent

2007 SEASON STATISTICS
GM R HR RBI AVG OBP SLG
154 83 26 94 .222 .311 .413

Once upon a time, Jones was the best defensive center fielder in the game, and one of the best who ever played, eliciting comparisons to Willie Mays at his peak. Now, he's a good defensive center fielder who hits for power and shows some patience, but he has an approach at the plate that has gone backwards over the last few years. He's hit more than .280 just once in his career, in his apparent breakout year of 2000, but he's settled into a pattern of trying to crush the ball every time up to the plate, leading to some long swings and a frustrating number of double plays for a guy who still has average running speed.

It might make some sense for Jones to sign a one-year deal somewhere and hit the market again next winter, since he's almost a lock to bounce at least partway back from his 2007 debacle at the plate. The 2008 center-field class isn't as strong as this winter's, with Torii Hunter, Mike Cameron and Aaron Rowand all out there this offseason. If Jones and agent Scott Boras want the larger payday now, look for them to emphasize Jones' relative youth as an argument that he deserves five or more years. There's an upside play here, but gambling on upside usually means signing the player to a short-term deal.

52 Never thought of Jamie McCourt as the Van Gogh type. Did Vincent wear strappy heels too?

40 - So what are the odds of this one:

Kent Retires
Pierre moves to 2B
Dodgers Sign Andruw Jones

53
Right, the RedSox or Yankee's can afford to go 4 years on Lowell and eat the final two when he declines. The Sox did that with Varitek knowing full well they will need to eat the end of his contract.

THT did an exhaustive write-up on Andruw Jones in September: http://tinyurl.com/2o72bx

He appeared to bounce back with a huge July then had some elbow soreness requiring a cortisone shot in August.

53 - I would agree on a big "no" to a 4-year deal. I omitted his early years because many players take time to develop. I believe 28 is the typical "coming of age" for baseball players.

It also need to be mentioned that he is a fine defensive player. But three years max.

56 - Isn't Slappy a lefty?

60
Juan Pierre plays with the glove on his right hand.

61 Doesn't that thing get in the way at the plate?

50 - I didn't mean to imply that Law didn't like him, only that I'm skeptical of guys who swing for the fences all the time.

61 - Yes, hard to say he actually throws with his left hand.

From the last thread: Are a couple of those James' projection numbers mistranscribed? A few OPS don't seem to total correctly, but only two seem to be off by more than .001 (I assume .001 is a roundoff error of some sort.)

Kemp /.322/.365/.521/.873 (should be .886 ?)
Loney /,321/.372/.465/.823 (should be .837 ?)

For your sports viewing tonight:
FSN is presenting tonight's Ducks-Kings games on two channels tonight. One will have the regular broadcast with the Ducks announcing team and the other will be without broadcasters and presented from an angle of a fan sitting down near the glass.

FSN did a similar thing for an Angels game this year.

66
Although I'm sure most people want to see Cal State San Bernardino's ESPN debut.

48 - Oh he was terrific for the Marlins in those great 2003 and 04 seasons, but only now that he has done it with the Sox (and, to be fair, in a walk year) is it automatically presumed that the year he wins the World Series MVP is his career year. Lowell has been a good-to-great player for a lot longer than many realize, partially because he played for so long in that ginormous ballpark in front of zero crowds. I say more power to him if he finally cashes in on it by making the Red Sox eat his last year or two!

Just like a UC man to be dissing the Cal State's.

66 FSN did a similar thing last season when Kobe scored 65 against Portland. That had the double benefit of being amazing to watch and not having to listen to Joel Myers.

69
Why is the chief administrator of all the CSUs called "Chancellor" and each campus has a "President" and with the UCs it's the reverse.

Padres owner John Moores resigned his job as a UC Regent effective today. He didn't say why.

Rupert Murdoch has announced that once his purchase of the Wall Street Journal is made official, he will drop the fee-based access for the WSJ website.

71
Your asking me an academic question? Are you crazy, I went to a Cal State, how can you expect me to know answers to questions not related to baseball or basketball?

I guess I won't be reading the WSJ anymore. Thank God for MF.

By the way it is a Marvelous day.

71 Way to subtly change the subject.

72 - as with most everything Fox - ad revenue is the business model.

BTW - anyone see the article in today's Times re: Baseball flush with Billions in revenue?

Boras couldn't have picked better timing.

76
I'm glad the LA Times is all over the increase in revenues story. It was actually on the wires on October 25.

70 - wow, that would be sweet, no Joel Myers.

Are you crazy, I went to a Cal State,

And yet, I have to still managed to develop a modicum of respect for you....

I admire the way you have overcome hardships.

And remember ToyCannon, Jon and Daniel Zappala hold my college degree in disdain.

And in turn Ivy Leaguers ridicule them.

And don't get me started on the people who went to Oxford or Cambridge.

72 I subscribe to the print edition. I called and asked for access to the on line edition and they gave it to me.

79 I actually have great respect for UC Berkeley. They have a fantastic CS program.

79
But you've won 100 National Championships!!!

Duh-er, I went to a Cal State school, too, for undergrajumate skewl. {Said in Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel voice}

But then I went to an expensive private school for graduate studies, further proving how dense I am.

81 Go Bears!

81
Don't forget that there is also a bizarre arrangement of the UC campuses with each one thinking that they are better than someone for something.

Except for UC Merced, whom everybody forgets exists.

another thought on researching if you players have a boost in performance from hitting in front of good players: Using pitched ball data from enhanced Gameday, find out if players got better pitches to hit when hitting in front of good players. Compare that to what pitches other slots in the lineup saw. Use that pitch data and combine with how well each type of pitch is typically hit by the major leagues. It seems that might give you something.

78 Dan Zappala made fun of me when I said my interest in the Lakers waned when Chick died, but he doesn't have to listen to Joel Myers out in God's country.

Who is this "Dan" of which you speak?

Ratt, Enders, musictriviologists of the world, start your engines:

http://tinyurl.com/2dupjw

89
I took that last week. I think I got a 33.

It's very hard.

65. Yes, a transcribe error. Should read.

Kemp .322/.365/.508/.873
Loney .302/.359/.465/.823

with .001 rounding errors.

vr, Xei

88
See, there's a reason why you have "oversight" in your job title.

Isn't there a CS Channel Islands? DO they get any respect? It is always just a blip on the way to Santa Barbara

87 Since I'm in God's country, I can repent for making fun of you. But I'm now feeling righteous indignation that you have improperly shortened my first name.