I think a big part is that DeWitt started out hitting .500, I've noticed people think a lot more of you if you drop to .240 rather than working your way up to it.

thank you for the perspective.

I'll take DeWitt's line over LaRoche's. While DeWitt doesn't get on base as much, he's got the higher batting average (something I value more than the rest around here, I know) and he's clearly out slugged LaRoche.

A lot can happen over the next, say 200 PAs for both players. But if I had to choose one guy to be the third baseman of the future and one guy to be on the trading block... DeWitt's the guy at third and LaRoche is the guy I'm shopping (though given the Dodgers make up, I'm not entirely sure what I shop him for).

I don't think it's inappropriate to take expectations into account. At the time of his MLB debut, LaRoche had had over 200 AB's of Triple A experience and had hit .322/.400/.550 in those AB's. DeWitt had less than 200 AB's in Double A in 2007, and hit only .281/.306/.466. Arguably, more was expected from LaRoche than he was able to deliver in his MLB debut, while DeWitt has delivered more than anybody had a right to expect from him at this point in his development.

Jon

Got Defense?

Or errors made at the same relative points in time for both?

I think the only error that DeWitt has been charged with was the bad throw to first that went wild against San Diego (?)...not sure about the game.

Far as leap frogging goes, what would bring that reptile into play? .300+ batting average?

3 - I'll take DeWitt's line over LaRoche's.

Past results are not a prediction of future performance though. And it's not like Dewitt's .256 is lighting the world on fire.

Give LaRoche two little "groundballs with eyes" and his average jumps about 40 points, making him pretty clearly the better option.

This belongs in the last thread, but they are coming too fast this morning.

The two Saito appearances referenced are the only two time Saito has yielded a home run that turned a lead into a deficit. No wonder we were shocked.

4 - I'm not sure what your point is though. As you can see, my post is talking about who is more likely to be the better player going forward. Are you saying that the fact DeWitt outperformed lower expectations changes that?

Player / LD% / GB% / FB%
2008 DeWitt / 13.5 / 45.9 / 40.5
2007 LaRoche / 18.6 / 41.4 / 40.0
2008 Loney / 23.8 / 31.0 / 45.2

DeWitt's LD% is a bit low. vr, Xei

Jon, I understand the need to point out perspective and expectations between LaRoche and DeWitt. It seems that maybe you are directing this to the "mainstream media." Few people on this blog thought that LaRoche was a failure last year - just a young player feeling his way in his first shot in the big leagues. I can't remember anyone in Spring Training advocating Nomar over LaRoche. So, maybe you're preaching to the converted as they say.

We could have a little logjam at third very soon, given LaRoche's quicker than expected recovery. Not the worst problem to have, but while I look forward to having Nomar back, too, I mostly look forward to having him back on the bench as a backup option and pinch hitter. We'll see. We'll see DeWitt again before too long, that much is clear.

Btw, I was thinking of this in the last thread before the thread ended, but for whatever people's disagreements, frustrations and occasional repetitions, I would like to thank posters here for generally showing admirable restraint compared to other boards. I know a lot of that is Jon's moderation abilities, and the community here in general, but given the team is off to a frustrating start, it's nice to be in a low exclamation point, comparatively low anger zone. ;-) Hopefully the team will reward us soon for our restraint. It's clear they still have some work to do. Happy Tuesday all.

http://tinyurl.com/3lb3su

So was Alyssa there or not? I thought people were joking when they said she was there.

10 - Not everyone who reads this site is "the converted."

>>> If there's a lesson from DeWitt, maybe it's about what can happen if you take a young player, put him in the lineup, and leave him alone instead of having him looking over his shoulder. >>>

Yes! I wish Torre would just put together a good lineup -- last night's for instance -- and let it stick for awhile. Let Ethier learn to hit second in the lineup. Give Kemp a chance to relax at the plate.

I realize that Torre has been learning what he has and that all the travels during spring training didn't help, but I am greatly disappointed that Torre didn't prepare himself before spring training even began. I get the sense that he didn't even try to learn about his players before then. What is video for? He should have been able to come into spring training knowing more than we, who watch the team regularly on t.v. (video) do. He had the video plus the coaches and scouts on the team.

It just seems that the Dodgers have been playing catchup while waiting for Torre to learn what he has. Couldn't some of this have been prevented?

5 Errors are a crude measure, but DeWitt's 1 is in 113 innings, LaRoche made 3 in 237, which doesn't seem like a meaningful difference.

10 - This isn't intended to be a call-out or anything, but "longtime poster" KG16 is advocating the trade of LaRoche in favor of Dewitt apparently based on the past 3 weeks.

I don't think DT is of one mind on everything. It just seems that way.

I think the big point you made, Jon, is about putting a young player in there and just letting him play without looking over his shoulder.

That's how Colorado and Arizona have gotten so good. With a lower payroll and lower expectations, each team let a bunch of prospects just play. Some of them are now really good.

With the Dodgers and Colleti and McCourt, there's a totally different mindset for guys like Kemp and Ethier. They're always looking over their shoulders. They know one slump could mean back to the bench. This is not conducive to their development - it makes them press.

One question I have is - how does our group of young players stack up against other teams' group of young players, such as Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa, etc.

12 From the blog reports I read, I, too, thought they were joking; in fact, I had no doubt about the joke, but, who knows, maybe I misinterpreted the whole thing.

Did Eamonn Brennan (whoever he is) report it while having two sources?

14 But still you had the injuries at 3B, Kent didn't play the until the last week of spring training, and the outfield situation. If everyone was healthy or if he had just one of his 2 thirdbaseman ready to go, then I think he might have been able to settle on a lineup.

19 But the only two parts of his lineup that have been constant are those you mention: Kent, usually in the #4 spot, and DeWitt, usually in the #8 spot. Otherwise, I'd agree with you.

18 - I'm guessing he didn't get the joke, but I wasn't completely sure.

12 As I pointed out in my recap of the blogger night, it was revealed that Alyssa is one of the Sons of Steve Garvey.

But apart from that, not so much. :)

I'm a LaRoche guy, but by the same token I hate to see DeWitt disappear. Given management's apparent problems with Abreu--I really expect Ned to ship him out when he can--I wouldn't mind seeing Solution go back to second base when he gets to Vegas. If Ned decides to put Furcal's money elsewhere, DeWitt and Hu up the middle could be intriguing. (I've suggested this before, and won't again).

19 As for the outfield situation, we had heard that was settled out of spring training, but let's not go there.

9. Is that 31% groundball number for Loney abnormally low, or are LaRoche and DeWitt's numbers in the 40's high?

21 I agree; my last question was an, apparently weak, joke.

I don't mean to bring up Pierre unduly, but this is quite something, on the face of it at least. (I'm surpised none of you are talking about it, or perhaps you have. If so, sorry.)

Today LA Times - T.J. Timers:

I thought about what you (Timers) said," Torre said with a smile Monday after inserting Kemp into the lineup, "and it's the only way to go. I just hate to break down that soon.

I hate to say he's going to play every day; that's too black and white for me," said Torre, who immediately noticed the disapproving look that he was getting. "But I have a sense he's going to play a good part of the time.

Again, Torre, [Kemp is] the only way to go.

Now either I'm misreading something, or Torre's a huge BS'er, or this is a great thing. 1 of those 3 things!

23 Wasn't there a reason why the DeWitt at second experiment ended? I'm not remembering.

"Success":

Andruw Jones in 2007:
.222 batting average
.311 on base percentage
.413 slugging percentage
.724 OPS

Worth to Ned: $18 million/year

"Failure":

Wilson Betemit in 2007:
.231 batting average
.359 on base percentage
.474 slugging percentage
.833 OPS

Worth to Ned: Not even $500k/year or whatever

27 Torre is filled with contradictory statements and actions re: Kemp and Pierre. Yes, you hit the nail on the head: Torre is a huge, er, user of sophistry? (did I say that correctly, oh you word checkers out there -- I'm trying quite hard here to avoid a rule one violation). That skill is what allowed Torre to survive in New York and working for Steinbrenner for so long.

29 Ouch!

8 -- Jon, oddly, I didn't "get" that that was what your post was about. I thought you were, primarily, making a point about it being unfair to LaRoche that his MLB debut was dubbed a "failure" while DeWitt's has been dubbed a "success," notwithstanding the similarity of their numbers through 50-odd AB's. And re-reading your post, I don't really see you saying MUCH about the relative future careers issue. You say that you disagree with the notion that DeWitt has "leap-frogged" LaRoche in the battle to be the Dodger 3B of the future, and I agree with you, but DeWitt has probably at least clouded the future 3B picture, when before we all took it for granted that LaRoche was "the man" and DeWitt was something on the order of an afterthought, at least when people here (coughToyCannonGreg Brockcough) weren't questioning his right to even be considered a good prospect.

15

Defense is also part of the game, and DeWitt plays third pretty darn well, not sure how you measure that.

It's a long season and I don't think many here believe that Normar will make it to the end of the season without some injury, so DeWitt will be back.

23

If DeWitt does go down, playing all the infield positions as much as possible would not be a bad play.

29

Andruw Jones in 2006:
.262/.363/.531/.894
156 games, 565 AB, 41 HR

Wilson Betemit in 2006:
.263/.326/.469/.795
143 games, 373 AB, 18 HR

Nice post, Jon. I can't imagine anyone feeling sorry for Dewitt when that time comes. And I totally agree with Canuck and regfairfield. Our lineup 1-8 (with LaRoche back) is the best D's lineup I've seen as an adult rooting for the Dodgers. I'll take any of the guys that have manned the 3 spot this year over Nomore Garciapopup 7 days a week.

When LaRoche comes back, look out. I have a feeling LaRoche is not going to look back, and claim what was rightfully his.

And how could you not love our staff 1-5 with Kuo warming Kershaw's power lefty spot in the rotation?

3 I tend to believe that a GM "shops" players only when he perceives he has a player they must move, i.e., a contract they'd like to jettison, an attitude problem, etc. I don't think he actively shops surplus good talent. If the team has a need, there is a player available that fills that need, and the surplus good talent is the right price, then he makes the move.

That said, I don't advocate trading either LaRoche or DeWitt. Both still have high potential, with DeWitt having an small additional plus for being a LH 3B bat. (Heck, they might end up being Torre's next platoon.)

Here's a question: if DeWitt goes down when Nomar comes off the DL, who goes down when LaRoche also comes off the DL?

Yeah, yeah, probably a mute point ... the answer is that Nomar will be back on the DL by then.

32 - That's fair.

27 I haven't read the article but, I think the I just hate to break down that soon quote is more telling than Kemp is the only way to go. in otherwords, "I've known all along that Kemp is better, but I've been playing Pierre to save face for some reason.

okay, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything, but since I know there are fans of both entities 'round these parts, here is my Fun and Interesting Fact of the Day:

the song featured in last week's The Office (stolen by Jim, beloved by Jan) was written and performed by Todd Fancey of the New Pornographers.

It will be a lot harder for Torre to sit Nomar down if he get's off to a good start for LaRoche than it will be for him to sit Pierre so Kemp and Ethier can play.

The scenario most likely to play out is that it will take an injury for LaRoche to get meaningful time. However, hand/wrist injuries are tricky things and if LaRoche hits a few homers on his rehab assignment, he may press the issue much faster than expected.

28 Twenty errors in 90 games, I imagine. It clearly would take some work back at second to get him ready to play alongside Hu, but given what we've seen, it still might be worth the effort.

37 - Unless they think Nomar or Young can back up Kent at second base, in which case Hu could go down, I imagine that they'd have to send down a pitcher or cut bait on Young.

LaRoche may get a longer "rehab" assignment than Nomar.

Until you know if all LaRoche's injuries are just a momentary fluke or a long-term problem, you have to keep DeWitt.

17 That's how Colorado and Arizona have gotten so good. With a lower payroll and lower expectations, each team let a bunch of prospects just play. Some of them are now really good.

With the Dodgers and Colleti and McCourt, there's a totally different mindset for guys like Kemp and Ethier. They're always looking over their shoulders. They know one slump could mean back to the bench. This is not conducive to their development - it makes them press.

Maybe, maybe not. Some think that competition and the risk of losing one's job is a good thing - it provides continuous motivation, and guards against complacency. Indeed, some here have suggested that Andruw Jones needs a dose of bench time to be motivated to get in shape and concentrate more at the plate. Others think that competition leads to pointless stress and hurts performance.

The truth is, there's no way to generalize. Some players are probably helped by security, while others are probably helped by insecurity.

I also do not get the obsession with lineup consistency. Or at least I think it conflates two very different issues. The first, for which I have some sympathy, is consistency in who plays. The idea that shuttling back and forth between playing and sitting can hurt a player, especially a young player, rings true.

But the idea that bouncing around the lineup, batting 2nd one day and 6th the next, should matter makes no sense to me. Maybe if we were all "small-ball" fanatics, concerned about who could bunt or something. But a player's approach shouldn't change based on batting order. Go up, and try to get a hit. Period. Lay off bad pitches, and try to hit the ball hard, whether you're leading off or batting 8th. "Situational hitting" is an outdated idea, and anyway, it could just as easily be the #7 guy as the #2 who comes up with a man on first and less than two outs, and "needs" to advance the runner. If baseball players are really so fragile as to more "comfortable" in one lineup slot than another, then it's hard to believe they've made it this far.

DeWitt has been a complete revelation to me and I expect to just about everyone here if they are honest with their opinions.

Headed into the spring what we knew from the leading prospect scouts is that DeWitt was no longer even a top 100 prospect. Had an average season in AA and did nothing to impress in the AFL.

Some who had never seen him play were calling him stone hands. Andrew saw him play a few games in the spring and concluded he was a terrible defender. He in fact repeated this mantra several times even though it was just two games in the spring and he is the Yeti of small sample size.

Yet this person who was stuck in the middle with LaRoche on top and Josh Bell below him stepped up in a way that only Bumsrap can take credit for predicting. His defense while not spectacular has been very solid. Watching him bat every night in the 8th spot, one things comes to mind. He does not give away at bats. While A Jones looks lost in every at bat, I've never seen DeWitt look lost and he's been facing major league left handed pitching for the 1st time.

All in all I've been impressed and while I don't think he's leapfrogged LaRoche he certainly has made himself part of the equation to the benefit of the Dodgers. No one was traded because DeWitt provided adequate production and going forward he has certainly inhanced his trade value much more then it was on Feb 1st.

33 I didn't mean to imply defense didn't matter, only that errors is considered a pretty rough measure with which to judge. I believe the scouting reports from the minors were generally slightly more favorable about LaRoche's 3B defense; my eyes (small sample size) see both as adequate MLB 3B. There are others here that are much more knowledgeable about such things though.

37 & 43 I mentioned this the other day - IMO Sweeney should be the odd man out when evryone gets back. Nomar and Kent can back up 1st for all the time Loney should be on the bench. I would also like to see Hu stay all year - he's so good defensively.

"We're certainly not the perfect team," Beane says, "but for as many young guys as we got, we're hanging in there. The culture and environment we wanted to create, it's been created."

--

I find this quote interesting. It's my big gripe about the Dodgers. We seem to lack a real plan.

27 When I read that article, I felt like the writer was quoting a conversation that had a joking tone to it. Something like: Yeah, yeah, writer, I'm taking your advice, "Torre said with a smile".

49 Don't forget Torre envisioning Ethier as a backup at 1B. I agree, Sweeney is expendable.

What was the scouting report on DeWitt's defense at third prior to this year? I thought it was average (which I agree with) but what did the scouts think?

46 - Right on.

49 - The plan is to turn the team over to the kids, with some vets mixed in for leadership.

Who do we have to get rid of off the 25 man roster to make room for Laroche and Nomar when they come back. Dewitt most certainly will go back to the minors, but who after that. Young is out of options. I guess HU could go, but who would back up Kent (some combo of Nomar, Laroche, Kent for 2nd/3rd?). Hopefully there is some sort of trade in the works, or we'll be getting older, slower, and worse defensively than we are now. I guess my problem with this team is that Ned has failed to realize that this whole JP/Kemp/Ethier situation is not healthy for the team. It's more of a distraction that is keeping some players from being able to relax and focus on playing some good ball. Like Jon said, it might be a little different if a young player were given the job outright and had ample opportunity to fight through slumps, etc. I have my preference of who needs to go, especially with some roster decisions needing to be made in the near future, but I wish this outfield situation would just play out already./

46--I dont think DeWitt has a great deal of trade value given his lack of power at a corner infield position.

To DeWitt's credit, he has had a good approach and slapped some singles.

If anything, he'd be a nice utility player on the Dodgers if he can learn to play the middle infield.

Someone mentioned on the last thread the Vin was sort of tearing down the Pirates over the lack of strikeouts and the mis-plays thay had. I went over and read the game thread at Where Have You Gone Andy Van Slyke and most of those guys were ecstatic that they were getting Scully on their extra innings feed. There were many compliments of Scully throughout the game. Nice to see another city appreciate what we have. It really validates how good we have it here.

From last thread: But if it means something like "coming together as a team," then I'm clueless. To me, that's meaningless in baseball.

I know its not a popular point of view here but I have to disagree. When a team "comes together" and buys into the team first philosophy, it allows for most players to relax, trust the process and deliver optimal performance. Right now it doesn't suprise me to see players pressing (Jones, Kemp, Martin etc.), they feel like they need to do it all because our offense isn't clicking. When a batter trusts the guys hitting behind him, he can relax instead of trying to hit the ball 500ft and be the hero. The same philosophy works with pitchers, if the guy on the mound trusts his defense behind him, he can relax and be extremely aggressive in the strike zone instead of nibbling corners and trying to strike everybody out. Numbers are what drive the game of baseball but their is still a very human side to team chemistry, players are people not number generating machines.

The plan is to turn the team over to the kids, with some vets mixed in for leadership

The key to the Dodgers will be evaluating which of the youngsters is All-Star quality (and worth keeping), and those other ones that are less, but could be packaged for All-Stars.

Having all 8 positions not suck does have value. But it'd be nice to be significantly above average at a few as well.

55 He's not there yet, but his isolated power went up 25 points last year to an almost acceptable .174. At only 22, he can still easily develop the power to be a third baseman.

The Dodgers front office, from their public pronouncements, seem to imply that they feel there is less pressure on the younger players when they are sharing time with a vet. I suppose there could be some truth to that, but its not a workable arrangement when the kid is consistently out-producing the vet. Then there was the SacBee article yesterday, where Ned opined that the Dodgers actually have been willing to give youngsters a long leash, and apparently that's why we tanked at the end of last year.

Never mind. I think they're just feeling their way through.

43 Just as a reminder, players on a Disabled List can be assigned to a minor league club for the purpose of injury rehabilitation for a maximum of 20 days in the case of non-pitchers and 30 days in the case of pitchers.

54 I'm not sure if Nomar is the guy, should LaRoche just sit on the bench and wait, or would he be better off at Vegas.

29 From a philosophy standpoint, Ned has been all over the place.

Power guys or speed guys? Character guys or Gary Bennett?

52 -- As long as I can recall, BA has always called DeWitt an adequate 3B with a solid-average arm. Never any question about him having to move to a less demanding position, or being any kind of defensive liability at 3B. This past off-season, I do remember Kevin Goldstein at BP making a crack in passing about DeWitt being a bad defensive third baseman. I wish I could remember in which of Goldstein's articles I saw that.

I think Ned is a "name" guy.

25. Loney's 31% GB rate is low, his career norm is 42.5%. It's just the small sample size, as well as the other numbers I posted. I was just adding more small sample size numbers to the data Jon provided.
vr, Xei

49 , 53 - if that is the plan, signing Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones is a funny way to show it.

Colletti loves to have options. Options are sometimes the barrier to making plans - someone has to be gutsy enough to choose.

66 Who would we play instead? Repko? Xavier Paul?

63 -- here it is:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7094

"The Bad: As much as scouts love DeWitt's batting tools, the results have hardly been eye-popping, and he's yet to show enough in the way of secondary skills to project as a classic third baseman. A move to second base last year was a failure, as DeWitt lacks the athleticism to play up the middle."

Werth/Ross had they not been jettisoned for Pierre.

Cost savings going toward A-Rod.

55 -- JoeyP, as Regfairfield hints in #59, there is no reason to think DeWitt's power now is all he will ever have. People have told you for YEARS now that power needs to develop over time in some very young players, like Loney, and you have never believed it. Believe it.

66 - Hardly. Pierre's character skills are the least disputed part of his resume. Jones was often cited as a positive member of the Atlanta clubhouse and a vet who relate to younger players. The fact remains that the Dodgers typically start young players at anywhere from four to six positions a night - and that's counting Furcal as old.

The Pierre signing was a mistake, perhaps the Jones signing was a mistake too, but it doesn't mean the plan isn't the plan.

46
No one was traded because DeWitt provided adequate production

We might not ever know whom might have been traded if DeWitt hadn't played as well as he did and the Dodgers being curious about what he could do and therefore might not ever know just how big DeWitt's contribution really was. Good defense and a line of .256/.373/.349/.722 might pale compared to "the rest of the story".

70 A-Rod was never going anywhere.

66 Ned's big into "bridges." Hire an old guy to do the job until the young player is ready. Jones is a bridge. Pierre is a very long bridge. The young player who was supposed to replace him was just born a few weeks ago. Actually, Jones is sort of a repair to the Pierre bridge.

Ned's engineering idol is Rube Goldberg.

71 But you agree that going on past performance, LaRoche is the better offensive prospect in every way.