Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
I still think that Depo is going to get in on at least one trade, albeit a minor one. There are enough teams looking to "buy" that I wouldn't be surprised if one of the numerous AAAA players we've been using gets traded for a decent prospect or two.
Is this guy MLB's version of Ricky Williams or what.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4274
Sweeney's contract goes through 2007 and averages $11 million per year, but that number rises to $12.5 million if traded. He's been having a nice year at the plate, with an OPS of .911, but he has a history of back problems, and his defense is bad enough that JT might keep Phillips in the lineup instead of Sweeney.
To me, this deal looks both bad and very unlikely for us, unless McCourt would be willing to significantly raise the payroll - but only for the purpose of pulling off a splashy trade and not for offseason improvements.
I just don't see it happening unless KC agrees to take some second-tier prospects in exchange for around half of his salary.
Oh, and someone asked yesterday whether anything was a moot point on DT. The answer is that everything is, since, contrary to popular belief and usage, "moot" does not mean "irrelevant." It means "debatable." So everything is moot around here. Well, except that Jim Tracy should be fired. That's no longer up for debate.
Again, this has zero validity, just wanted something to talk about.
I agree that Depo does nothing and I can't say that I disagree. There just isn't anything out there worht their asking price.
This is a huge game of chicken, and there will be a flurry of deals at 12:55pm PDT.
I also like the Lawton deal, but short of Dunn I would love to rip-off Bowden for Wilkerson.
You should just become a Yankees fan if you consider spending money being competitive. We have the highest payroll in the NL West, just not 'active payroll.'
There is nothing disgusting about being smart with your payroll. Disgusting is spending a quarter of a billion dollars.
SS Izzy
3B Robles
CF Bradley
2B Kent
1B Saenz
LF Valentin
C Navarro
RF Repko
P Perez
And the Cards are being nice to Odalis, no Edmonds (or scrappy)
SS Nunez
CF Taguchi
1B Pujols
LF Gall
2B Grudzielanek
RF Rodriguez
3B Luna
C Diaz
P Mulder
The situation does not to me warrant taking on salaries.
Besides, if we can't win this division with this team, then we don't deserve to be in the postseason.
Who does that remind you of? Why, Fred Claire, of course!
But DePo gets a pass from me if he doesn't do any deals, even though the Dodgers need help. We might be overly enamored of our prospects, but there is nothing but mediocrity for sale out there. Like so much else in this crazy world, excessive hype has made the July 31 trading deadline too important, and no GM wants to look like he got ripped off. No team is going to alter its fortunes very much. The most active team, the Padres, look weaker than when they started, plus desperate. DePo will be glad to have his scouts back to help the team win games rather than scout trade possibilities.
Ken Griffey late scratch, Lawton still playing.
So you think we should have had a higher payroll this season. Fine. What moves would you have done or not done which would have increased the payroll while improving the opening day roster?
With the exception of Ledee, the other guys coming off the DL (Bradley, Werth, Perez, etc) are still not playing that well. To expect Valentin, who was 0-40 shortly before he got hurt to have an immediate impact is too hopeful for me. Who knows when Drew will be able to play?
This team has been playing poorly since the end of April, and IMO it's too much to expect it to right itself without a little help from the outside. It's not too much to ask to at least find someone better than Carrara for your roster.
Are you saying that DePodesta is a good GM on the basis of my inability to pick better players than him? You're kidding right?
Just because I say DePodesta isn't a good GM doesn't mean I think Dan Evans is a good GM. It's the old argument that DePodologists love to use, that the only alternative to DePodesta is Dan Evans. There is a third choice believe it or not.
...
"Why are we apologizing for a GM making mistakes that none of us would make on our own fantasy teams? "
...
Good point. Umm, I choose the latter.
The authority on everything has entered the building.
just like
moneyball=OBP
that train of thought=ignorance
I'm not from Dodgers.com, and have been on this site for over two years now posting on another name. I don't hate sabermetrics, in fact I think it's the way to go. All the smart GMs know who the good players are, it's the good GMs who have the ability to make the deals that get those players and don't overpay for crap like Derek Lowe and J.D. Drew.
I don't think Depo thinks the guys we have coming off the DL are enough to win the division either. But that explanation sounds a lot better to fans than "any trade we make in this market will result in an overall loss value."
Actually big payroll does equal success as every team except two with higher payrolls than us has a better record.
You might want to consider focusing your considerable intellect on cricket now. You're being completely inconsistent. On the one hand, the Dodgers should be ashamed because we don't have one of the highest payrolls in the league. On the other hand, DePo shouldn't have made two deals that only a high payroll team can and should make. The price of the Lowe deal strikes everyone as absurd, but let's not forget, this was a result of the Kris Benson-inflated market for starters. If we wanted a proven major league starter, that was the going price. Are you suggesting we should have kept the money, or spent it elsewhere? Who else was available? Think hard.
As for your comments on Drew, you might want to do a little more homework on this. Drew is on the DL because a pitcher threw a ball that hit him on the wrist! His knee wasn't involved! His knee has recovered! Are you suggesting that any player who has recovered from an injury should be avoided? How are you going to keep your payroll high if you set a dumb rule like that? By your logic, we were right to pass on Vlad Guerrero, because he had a bad back.
Anyone who believes we should've kept Beltre cannot complain about getting Drew, a better player with a longer history of being a good player, for $2 million/year less than Seattle payed Beltre. Current stats completely back up DePo's choice here. All the evidence so far points to Beltre being a one-season wonder. Time will tell, but if it was your $11-$13 million that DePo was spending, I think you'd agree that Drew was a more prudent choice, and the results this year have born that out. You can't control for HBP-related injuries, unless you're talking about Don Baylor.
OK, let me apologize for making assumptions. I'm glad you think that sabermetrics is the "way to go".
Now...can you give me a persuasive sabermetric argument for why another outfielder available last offseason would have been a better aquisition than JD Drew?
No offense, but this isn't a site that you are going to win over many people with your anti-depo/mccourt opinions. You would fit in well on the dodgers mlb.com forum, but this isn't the best place for it.
Everyone here is open to all opinions, but for the most part, the owner of this site and it's faithful are believers in Depo and his philosophy. I am not saying that we are right and you are wrong, but you should probably show a little respect coming to a new website.
Or an AVAILABLE pitcher better than Lowe?
Mark what you're asking is impossible. I'm not on the phone with rival GMs. With enough money or ability to deal almost any outfielder is available. Our GM has neither.
Again, any pitcher is available to a savvy enough GM with either the money or the talent to make deals.
The one thing Tracy does do decently is prevent his pitchers from overpitching to the point of injuring themselves (only to the point of hurting our chances of winning).
This season was over before it started--nice 14 game start and all.
I was at a card show yesterday, saw images of Dodger Stadium in the days when it was a wide open pitchers park and just wanted to cry, thinking of all of that Hollywood fun zone that has been built down below. Even the field is a wreck now!
It's funny no one is really talking about the affects of the park and the play.....I'm sure there is a syber stat that will prove me wrong.
The McCourts--all of them, De Stupida all the way to the office staff that sits and worries about their jos everyday should be tar & feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Gotta run, I want to see Peter Gammons (The Rona Barrett of baseball, get his inductance. (For what reason, I don't know)
What part of .286/.412/.520 disagrees with you? And please explain how the wrist bone is connected to the... knee bone.
We need another outfielder no question, maybe two. Depo needs to make a move.
We'll see shorty...
I'm glad you speak for everyone else on this site but me. I'm sure they would agree to have you as their mouthpiece on each and every issue. So I guess the point of posting on this site is for all of us to agree with each other no matter how ludicrous we sound. I'm just injecting a little thinking debate into the equation. If that annoys you I'm sorry, there are other websites for you to peruse.
Drew had a long history of knee problems. Try a google search of his name and "knee".
Raise your hand if you don't think this team is a dead horse.
Finally someone who agrees with me! Landon I guess there are two of us now.
Drew is the best hitter on our team, his .932 OPS is be top 20 in the league. His best months have been july and august, he missed most of july. If that's what you call crap, I would love this team to be full of crap.
Somewhere in your rant I became crosseyed and stopped reading. Drew's knee is not an issue? I guess that fight with Bradley over positions was nothing. Talk about a short term memory problem. Does desert air cause senility?
However, Arizona has a nice 5-1 lead over the Cubs in the 5th
I've been a Dodger Thoughts contributor for the last two years, and I can tell you that I welcome his comments anytime.
68 - As Jon is proud to point out, the thinking on this site is not monolithic, however, many people here do agree. That said, most here try to keep things a bit more respectful (though you have been here for two years, commenting that whole time?) than today. I hope that in a week everyone's blood will settle a bit. The point isn't that Drew has had knee problems, it is that he didn't suffer a knee injury so past knee problems are inconsequential. What I don't understand is why you are pissed that the Dodgers haven't spent more money, but also pissed that they spent so much on Lowe and Drew.
I believe the local ESPN radio host refers to him as "Stu-podesta" not DeStupida.
I'm just injecting a little thinking debate into the equation.
Lord knows, we can always use that. So, Rick, why don't you see if anyone else in the loo where you're sitting could do that for us. Thanks.
Please provide a list of all players for DePo to avoid because of weak ulnar styloid bones. Is there a stat for historical calcium intake?
Not this year, it isn't. If your "thinking debate" position is that players with past history of injury shouldn't be acquired, say that. But be prepared for more ridicule.
Also, the DBacks had a slam, 9-1 lead
Lively debate is one thing (a good thing). But the points you're making are ill-conceived and unreasonable and have been discussed a thousand times already.
This team IS a dead horse. We just happen to be playing in a division full of other dead horses. There's not much of a point to overpay for a bat or arm right now because that's not going to suddenly make us a thoroughbred.
Drew may be out right now but it's a freak injury. All players run about the same risk of getting hit by pitch in the wrist (which according to your logic, is somehow connected to the knee bone), regardless of how "injury-prone" they are.
Theorize all you want about a great GM with charm and money, but we give some examples of players DePo could have gotten this off-season that are better than the players he did get. The list of 2004 free agents is available somewhere. Who could we have gotten?
If you're gonna illogically rant, I'm all for that. There was a rant last night that didn't make complete sense, but everybody loved it. But this isn't "thinking debate."
I can't believe you are this blind. If I gave you that many millions and you didn't do a comprehensive health analysis on this player I think any CEO would fire you. That is why deals are contingent on players passing physicals. So from your standpoint the contract extension to Dreifort and Griffey were good?
I'm guessing Kuo is next. I don't know who else can contribute this year. Maybe Billingsley can get a September call-up or something.
Second hand gossip alert: I remember a friend of mine telling me a story about how he was working at Wrigley Field and Scottie Pippen was in a private box or suite or something. Jim Gray wanted to talk to him and my guy wouldn't let him in; it was the house rule. Gray became belligerent; my guy held firm. After Gray stormed off, Gammons came by and talked to my guy for five minutes. He wasn't there to talk about what just happened but he came by to introduce himself and chat. My guy swears to this day that Gammons was in some way offering solace without talking crap behind Jim Gray's back.
I like that story.
Where are the debates on this site that DePodesta is anything but a genius? Yes we can have a "lively debate" as long as at the end of it I agree with you completely. I'm sorry that I don't believe that this team's current ownership is a good one. And when we lose the division to the lowly Padres and our budget for next year drops to 80 million, I'm sure you'll find another way to cleverly prop up DePodesta.
Fine be objective. Use analysis and statistics. You have not and that is why everyone is so cranky. Your claims are based on this magical fantasy world where Depo gets anybody he wants with his creativity and money. Then you argue that you can't suggest what he should have done cause you weren't on the phone with other GM's etc. Exactly. You weren't, he was, and he made decisions accordingly. I don't think Depo has neccesarily done a great job but I understand what his intentions are and where he's going. Knee-jerk impatience because there is a timer ticking down on ESPN's Deadline Special is what loads teams up with mediocre over paid players.
84--
I can't believe you are this blind. If I gave you that many millions and you didn't do a comprehensive health analysis on this player I think any CEO would fire you. That is why deals are contingent on players passing physicals. So from your standpoint the contract extension to Dreifort and Griffey were good?*
What are you talking about, it isn't like Drew is out with a knee injury right now. In case you were too busy watching cricket or rugby, the man got hit by a pitch in the arm. No injury repot can predict the future ("I see a break in your wrist in 5-6 months, I am going have to reccomend the team doesn't sign you.")
Jon did a nice toteboard of the 2002-2005 Dodger roster moves here:
https://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/198773.html
Decent company on Rick's Crap List with Lowe:
Radke 3.88
Mulder 3.94
Johnson 3.99
Lowe 3.99
Vazquez 4.29
Maddux 4.32
Clement 4.43
Schmidt 4.56
Our Gm spent 105 million on Lowe, Drew and Odalis Perez, what gives? and get lambasted.
Fact is that our team is horrible this year. Our starting pitching staff, to whom we've given out contracts worth a combined 100 million is average. Imagine how bad we would be if Penny hadn't returned from the bicep tear. The silly arguments about Choi,trading Izturis and Perez's defense etc just fill up the time and mask the fact that our team is below average. The fact we stood pat today is just an omission by our GM that he put together a team that incapable of of winning, so why make a move?
Our Gm spent 105 million on Lowe, Drew and Odalis Perez, what gives? and get lambasted. Fact is that our team is horrible this year. Our startig pitching staff, to whom we've given out contracts worth a combined 100 million is average. Imagine how bad we would be if Penny hadn't returned from the bicep tear. The silly arguments about Choi,trading Izturis and Perez's defense etc just fill up the time and mask the fact that our team is below average. The fact we stood pat today is just an omission by our GM that he put together a team that incapable of of winning, so why make a move?
Where are the statistics you have used? The burden of proof is not only on the person you disagree with, but on yourself as well. I guess my linking to the hardball times and referring to Kent's superior VORP to Drew are not enough for you. Truly we have reached the nexus of insanity when the DePodologists refuse to use statistics to defend their master and accuse their opponents of not using them enough.
Much agreed. People have their opinions and are entitled to them, but it's all in the delivery. Let's keep this site on the positive side.
BC
This is ripped off from Tom Meagherk, posted on Fourth Outfielder, 4/1/2005:
Los Angeles Dodgers traded catchers Paul Lo Duca and Dave Ross, RF-1B Shawn Green, OF Juan Encarnacion, RHP Guillermo Mota, and LHP Kazuhisa Ishii to the Pimarletbacks for catchers Jason Phillips and Dioner Navarro, 1B Hee Seop Choi, and RHP Brad Penny, William Juarez, Danny Muegge, and Beltran Perez.
We can start there, right? Feel free to add names (particularly Drew). But we have to go back that far, I think, before we can assess the job Depo has done.
Thanks for giving some people on this board a dose of reality.
You said perfectly what I wanted to say.
I was simply responding to your post which said "Folks let's have an objective analysis of DePodesta moves." What does comparing Drew to Kent do? They're on the same dang team.
I'm going to go enjoy the game in peace. Enjoy spinning your wheels, everybody.
Because someone said that Drew was the best hitter on the team. Yes he is in limited playing time. Using your logic, if I have one at bat all season and it is a homerun, I am a better hitter than Drew. That is why VORP is a superior stat to OPS, because it measures the true value to a team. The more you play the more valuable you are. The more you sit on the DL, the less.
So I haven't been around the site for a few months, and I am very confused and disappointed with the state of the commenting.
It might be worth mentioning to the folks that are caught up in being miserable that no team could be better than .500 with the injuries the Dodgers have suffered.
Our starting lineup today is Saenz at 1B, Robles at 3B, Valentin in LF, and Crapko in RF. Someone please tell me that we couldn't have done any better at those positions.
Tell that to the Angels who are in first place with more players on the DL.
Huh?
Rob Malone never seems to post, or at least doesn't post nearly as much here anymore, and that's also a loss.
R-E-B-U-I-L-D-I-N-G Y-E-A-R
We might as well get used to those two words.
Maybe because the trade market was terrible this year?
How often (outside of maybe Finley last year) do deadline deals really help a team? Injuries, odd decisions by Tracy, and a below average bullpen have left the Dodgers and DePo with several holes to fill.
I have a feeling that if one hole was plugged, one of the other holes would have become harder to fill.
Or to simplify: The Dodgers are a seriously flawed team at the moment. One or two moves may have let them overtake a crappy division, but they would have still been flawed. No need to sacrifice the future for a bleak chance in the present day.
What do you mean it was unforseeable? You mean Drew had never been on the DL before for freak injuries. Why I guess we should give Dreifort a contract extension because it is totally unknown whether he will injure himself in the future. I mean we really have no idea. It's very rare for players to get hit by pitches when batting as well. It's totally bizarre. DePo ROCKS!!
"We gotta push a leash on that guy so he doesnt get of his cage. Jason Phillips isn't pitching. "
Drew has as good a chance of being hit by pitch in the wrist as any other player.
Now we just have to trade (if we're gonna) before we pass the Padres. I am comforted that no one else in the NL West improved, and no one else got Dunn.
DePo=God comment: I'm little jealous the Twins got The Greek God of Walks (but they paid for it).
Right that was my point.
That's the spirit!
Your on fire! Nice work!
Demonstrably untrue, Rick. Kind of pathetic actually. This is a smart bunch, diverse in their opinions, and clever in expressing them. Not your cup of tea, unfortunately.
Well have an ale on me. I gotta go.
Enjoy living in filth and squalor and don't let the door hit your rump on the way out.
Oh Ratt so funny. Is there a piece of cheese you missed in your fecal matter search of the local alley?
I think that we could stomach your "objective" analysis if it weren't so...um...subjective all the time.
What do you think, Tommy? Impressed by that one, too? He's on a roll now. Hypocrite.
Have any of the injuries suffered by the Dodgers this year been re-occuring?
I guess you can expect Gagne's elbow problem. Odalis has had a tight shoulder before.
Valentin - freak knee injury
Bradley - freak injury
Drew - freak injury
Izturis - hasn't had hammy problems before
Werth - again, hit by pitch, freak injury. He may have had knee problems before (I'm not sure).
I smell a troll.. that is all.
So I guess getting injured at all is a freak injury. Which injuries are "non-freak"? The ones DePo didn't predict?
Don't be ridiculous.
First berate any commenter who dares to point out the obvious failings in the master.
Second, deem said commenter as a member of Dodgers.com, Joe Morgan in disguise, Bill Plashke in disguise, or troll.
Commence making inane witticisms and having conversations that have nothing to do with statistics lest it be revealed that the master's grand strategy may in some way be flawed.
No it really happened. Scroll up if you don't believe me.
Rick in the UK isn't it past your bedtime?
"Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
I love this site as well. My shrill tone is only a reflection of those who shrilly defend DePodesta at every turn. I ONLY respond, I never initiate, except for my first post which was completely benign and criticized no one on this board. I must be an interesting troll who seeks to use statistics to show flaws, and logic in my arguments. How dare I inject a common sense debate into this board.
Where did that originate from?
Both Molinas hit home runs for Anaheim today, and then Macier Izturis just stopped a ninth inning Yankee rally with an amazing play at third.
1) DePodesta was not willing to be a seller only 4 games back. Thus, the majority of our major league roster was off the table.
2) DePodesta wanted to be a buyer as he has said many times, but there wasn't anything worth buying. When Matt Lawton and Kyle Farnsworth are the prizes of the trade deadline, it's not like we missed out on much. All we have to do is look two hours to the south to see an example of trading for the sake of trading. The prices that were being asked for impact players such as Dunn and Huff were obviously too high since Epstein, Minaya, etc. were also unwilling to pay them.
As far as an overall evaluation of DePodesta, I think it's very difficult to argue that DePodesta is a below-average GM. There are likely a few better GMs (Beane?, Epstein?, ???). But, the majority of GMs are much worse (Towers, Sabean, Minaya, LaMar, etc.). DePodesta's strengths are his abilities to evaluate players and trades. Overall, his pickups have had much more success than failure, and he's made smart decisions about who to let go. DePodesta's weaknesses are slightly overpaying for free agent talent (Derek Lowe) and sticking with replacement players for too long (Scott Erickson and Jason Grabowski). As far as overpaying for free agents, J.D. Drew, Odalis Perez, and Jeff Kent were not overpaid relative to their market values, including age, injury history, and all. Derek Lowe was overpaid, but DePodesta got caught in a case of musical chairs with just one seat left when the music stopped. In those situations, sometimes you have to just bite the bullet and pay an extra $1 - $2 million / year.
Ah yes the strawman defense. Clearly there is no one on this board who defends DePodesta's moves. I must be arguing at the wind.
Goodbye.
If you look back up I would say the nastiness started when Steve called my statement that DePodesta was somehow less than perfect "crap". If that is what qualifies for rational debate here, then you should expect nothing less from anyone else.
So I'm not allowed to voice my opinion because it doesn't agree with yours?
If you go back in the archives, you'll see that I'm a Dodger fan/Long time Dodger Thoughts contributor that tried to give the benefit of the doubt to the new ownership at the very beginning. They were new and deserved the chance.
I set up opposite to most on this board who didn't like the new owners.
Before the beginning of this season, I predicted this team to be one FILLED with injuries and I also predicted the team would finish in 4th place. Well, they're only one spot away from that. They've lost what? 5 out of the last eight games with the division title still in reach. (or so some think)
And we have no action at the trade deadline.
But if you do read some of the interesting blogs out there, this all starts back to last year when we dealt some solid players for the crap we now have. And come to think of it, you didn't like the word Team Chemistry either!
This team is fast on to its way to becoming the KC Royals.
I tend not to think of the team as "only 4 games back". I tend to think of the team as "47-57". In the NL East, that's dead last, and "only 13 games back". In the NL Central, that's fifth place and "only 18 games back".
The point of the season is not to get to the playoffs. The point of the season is to field a quality team that can win in the playoffs. Even if by some extraordinary occurrence, the Dodgers beat out the Dbacks and the Padres for first place in the NL West, we're going to be crushed by either the Braves, the Cardinals, or the (Nats/Phillies/Marlins/Astros/Cubs). This team can't win 3 out of 5 against hardly anybody.
Also: "As far as an overall evaluation of DePodesta, I think it's very difficult to argue that DePodesta is a below-average GM."
I think it's very difficult to argue that he's above average, either. We have had two seasons with him-- well, one and a half, let's say. His first season, the Dodgers got crushed in the playoffs. This season it's very likely that we won't even make the playoffs. Now, granted, this is a very small sample size, but there are plenty of other teams out there who have significantly improved over the past couple of seasons, and we aren't one of them.
Point taken. But you have to consider as well the level of vociferousness displayed by the defenders of DePodesta no matter what he does. I will be happy to tone it down and engage anyone in statistical debate concerning DePodesta's moves. The problem with doing an analysis using only the free agents on the market is that is not the full market in an off-season. There are trade possibilities as well, and we will never know the full extent to what is out there because many GMs do not comment to the media concerning who they are willing to keep and trade. All I know is that DePodesta has made it a habit to overpay for bad talent. And I also will be happy to debate anyone using statistics on the fact that J.D. Drew is not as good a player as people think he is.
I agree with that. When James Carville says something like that, it's called "spin."
I prematurely commented on a Youkilis to Minn deal, because if Depo=God than BP=bible ;) It didn't happen.
Nice, going the other way Izzy...but stop at 2nd, please.
Even if you think that DePodesta is only average, that's really not a bad position considering the group of people he's being compared to. My personal opinion is that he's in the top third of GMs, somewhat objectively and somewhat subjectively. I've analyzed all of his trades and all of his 2005 free agent pickups and so far he has done better than average in both categories.
Yeah, but I think the point we were trying to make earlier is that Drew's time missed due to injury this year wasn't anything reoccuring.
Among right fielders, JD Drews VORP this year is 30.5 which is good enough for 6th best among ML right fielders.
What did he say?
Et tu, Nomo?
STL lineup is mostly subs today, maybe that's why Perez is doing well.
If it were Drew's KNEE that had been hurt, this might be a passable argument.
Of course, the problem is that none of us can evaluate deals left undone. You want to argue that he's worse because of deals he did not do. I can just as easily argue that DePodesta is better because of deals he did not do. Since there's no data on either side, perhaps we should just call it a wash?
"Everyone would be happier if we made the playoffs, even if we made it as a 78 - 84 team."
We would be "happier" for about five days, or roughly the time it would take to lose the first three games in a five-game series. Honestly, I think I would be happier if DePodesta was a seller at the deadline, admits that the team he's fielding is mediocre, and tries to seriously beef up the team in 2006. I don't get that vibe from his transactions (or lack thereof) at all.
"I've analyzed all of his trades and all of his 2005 free agent pickups and so far he has done better than average in both categories."
You're commenting from a position that can't be argued, because most of the players that DePodesta has picked up have gone on the DL for extended periods. If I say you're wrong, you merely point to the injuries as a cop out. "Well, if Drew hadn't been hurt, and if Bradley hadn't been hurt, we'd be in first place easy!" You just don't know that for certain.
The reality is that the Dodgers are a sub-.500 team. An above-average GM would be able to compensate for injuries to his squad, instead of keeping Jason Grabowski on the payroll. An above-average GM wouldn't have signed Scott Erickson in the first place. An above-average GM would have gotten rid of the impending contractual disaster that is Jeff Weaver.
"Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est."
Not an above-average GM in his second year. In two or three more years, if he doesn't have a farm system with some balance, it will be his fault. But you can't blame him for all the Dodger prospects' being in AA.
That said, I would have liked to have seen HIM in Washington for Brad Wilkerson.
Injuries are not a copout if they are based on unforeseeable injuries.
If Drew had missed significant periods of time because of a knee injury, those saying "I told you so" would have a valid point.
Valentin and Drew have missed significant time because of broken bones after being hit by pitches. Unless someone can point to a reputable source that shoes that medical science has advanced to the point where MRIs or some other diagnostic equipment can predict the likelihood that a player will suffer a broken wrist, and the likelihood that he will hit on the wrist with sufficient force to break a bone, this is not a valid argument.
Why is he an impending contractual disaster? Are you assuming that we'll give him a bad extension, or is there some other reason? If he walks, then we should get an extra draft pick, so it's not like we would be getting nothing because we didn't trade him at the deadline.
Now, considering that it's a seller's market we probably could have gotten something of higher value at the deadline that via a draft pick, but keeping him is essential for staying in the race this year.
So it's a calculated risk: do you not move Weaver, take your draft pick at the end of the season, and at worst keep the race interesting for fans into September and at best get lucky and take this silly division?
Or do you say that the value in prospects we would get for dumping Weaver now is greater enough and closer to the major leagues enough than a draft pick would be that it's worth it to throw up the white flag on 2005?
I have been married 23 years and have found domestic harmony is maintained by knowing how to have a good fight without digging the shiv in.
The ESPN Dodger board degenerated into so much sarcasm,mockery and general nastiness that I fled here for the general tone of civility.This is a pleasant place to muse on things blue.I don't like some of the tone today.
Rick there was a guy on the ESPN board named JMG.If you aren't him you're his rhetorical twin.Lighten up son.Pull up a bleacher seat and lets talk baseball.
IMHO, with no moves whatsoever (either at the trade deadline or in the offseason) and the team already is better -- because our pile of AA players will be that much closer to playing, and (presumably) injuries won't be as dramatic or widespread.
I'm all for getting Dunn now, but not overpaying for him. It's gonna be a crapshoot in the West, and we'll have a chance to pick him (and/or others up in the off-season). Ironically, I think Broxton and Navarro essentially are our "trades" -- and I have an inkling they might be just as productive as anything we might have picked up (the M's getting Foppert and Torrealba come to mind).
We'll see how much help Randy Winn will be for the Giants; if they had Bonds already playing the move would make more sense. And I remain totally unconvinced about the Padres and Chan Ho -- frankly, Nevin worried me a lot more than their team now. I have no idea about the D-Backs.
Basically, though, if any of the NL West four teams has a little winning streak, they'll probably grab the division. And lose in the first round. I don't see the other 3 challengers for the West crown being significantly better -- what remains to be see is whether getting Valentin and our 2 young hot prospects up is enough to give us a boost equivalent to the far-more hyped trades.
Why don't we wait another week or two to see how things shape up?
(And the bitter, angry sarcasm I've read today is annoying. I come here for incisive and interesting discussions, not for "screaming at each other" threads like on mlb.com.)
like last year.
If the Dodgers were sellers at the deadline while only 4 games back, it would be a public relations disaster. Depo would be accused of "giving up" with the division lead still in reach. I think Depo knows we have a mediocre team and that 2006-2008 is when we will really blossom. I wonder if deep down, over the past several weeks, Depo hope the Dodgers would fall far enough back to justify selling in the eyes of the public.
"Or do you say that the value in prospects we would get for dumping Weaver now is greater enough and closer to the major leagues enough than a draft pick would be that it's worth it to throw up the white flag on 2005?"
Yes. Weaver is not entirely without value-- some team would have given up at least a AAA guy on the rise for him.
But, as always, I agree with your fundamental premise. Our entire pitching staff, save the three or four bullpen kids, is a scourge that should be eradicated.
Who are they? If you had to try to compare them with dodger prospects, what level of prospect are they?
The man made major moves last year, with the team in first place! I don't think he cares about PR all that much.
7-0 Cinn :)
Dunn just hit a slam, ouch
Let's see what Scrappy can do.
Today I've been thinking about last year. And the first thing that pops into my head is The Trade(TM) then graduation. The trade deadline is better than Christmas for me, so today has been like getting a three pack of boxers. I didn't get the shiny red tricycle (Dunn), but I also didn't get the BB gun that could shoot my eye out later (losing top end prospects). So I'm choosing to believe I got what I needed in not getting/losing anything. That's the thing about boxers, not the prettiest gift under a bow but they come in handy down the road.
I don't know. I think the humidity here is getting to my brain.
"Yes. Weaver is not entirely without value-- some team would have given up at least a AAA guy on the rise for him."
Right, but my point is that trading Weaver is not the only way to get value for him. Considering the job Logan White has done, keeping him has a pretty decent chance of also yielding a solid young player, albeit one that would arrive several years later. Weaver also helps to keep the race exciting, helps to widen our small chance at the division, and keeps attendence up. There are a lot of different factors. Depending on who exactly we could have gotten I might agree with you, but we'll never know.
And welcome back, Jose Valentin.
Right now we are 47-57 (.452), but only 4 games back (by rights, we should be ten games back).
Basically, we are underplaying our expected level of performance by 10%. This is without the following players for at least several games:
Gagne, Perez, Drew, Valentin, Werth, Izturis, Alvarez, Dessens.
In short, as poorly as the team has played, I think it's difficult to blame the Dodgers missing more games this year before the All Star Break than all of last year entirely on injuries, and if all the injured players had just played up to their expected level, the team would likely be in first.
And despite all that, this team could still win the division. Which says a lot about the NL West
You cannot possibly call him an above average GM, for the exact same reason! You just can't. If you choose to go the injury route in your arguments, then you can't assume the positive.
thats just off the top of my head.
So far, due to injuries, it's really an incomplete... and will be until next year.
That's simply incorrect. Take Drew, for example, projecting 125 games (nearly 40 games missed) would be a pretty reasonable, slightly conservative projection. If he had a 931 OPS for that period, the team would certainly be better.
You could do that for all the players on the team. In fact, that's exactly what the original projections of around 90 wins were based on.
Those projections would take into account how many games players would play in.
I don't see how that's having it both ways.
No one was predicting 162 games of 1000+ OPS for Drew.
The Erickson stuff was overwhelming, and I wanted DePo gone so bad at that point. But now the Erickson/Grabowski axis of evil is gone, and he needs to be more proactive about the dead weight on the roster for sure.
Just went through all the comments. One of those days, huh?
There is a case for DePodesta and a case against DePodesta. How about everyone participating in the sniping - on all sides - agrees to disagree and moves on for now. Let's take a breather, let's turn the other cheek, and let's get things back to the way they should be.
Thanks.
Because of the injuries, I think the most accurate thing you could say about DePodesta is it is too soon to tell whether he's above average or not.
All I know for sure about DePo is that his moves spark interest, because he seems to be thinking in unpredictable ways. Whenever Fred Claire surprised me, it was a disappointment. Whenever Malone surprised me, it was nauseating. Whenever DePo surprises me, it's a challenge to prior thinking.
"You could do that for all the players on the team."
WHY?!?
Why do you insist on proclaiming many more wins for the Dodgers when there is absolutely no way that you can be certain of it? You don't know that Drew would have had a great season. You just don't know. As I recall, we were all complaining about Drew's lack of performance before he finally picked it up, right before he got hurt.
Say, if Robert E. Lee hadn't ordered Pickett to charge Union lines, we'd all be residents of the Confederate States of America today! The Confederacy had a statistically better-prepared army, and had won more battles up until the third day at Gettysburg. They certainly would have won the war.
See how that argument goes? You simply can't make assumptions based upon past performance. As we have seen with this season, things tend to go South.
Yeah. That is the most annoying thing.
I approve of the first move, but are Perez's splits enough to warrant burning him? Anyone have Perez's splits.
In the meantime, let's go Ledee!
If your argument is that you can't possibly make predictions based upon past statistical performance, I don't know what the point is to having this debate.
Because if that's the case, then we're left with nothing except gut feelings and pure luck.
Based upon the arguments and data I have seen, a player's past statistics are the best predicter of future performance.
No one is claiming it is a guarantee, just that it's better than anything else. To accuse me of "proclaiming many more wins for the Dodgers" is simply an untrue characterization of my argument.
I think that based on statistics, if the team was in average health, the team would be about 10% better. That's not really that outlandish of a claim.
Oh no, Ricky...ball four :(
Left .327 .389 .490 AB-49
Right .338 .401 .429 AB-133
against rhp
AP .338/.401/.429
RL .291/.346/.439
The "You P.O.S." list (TM) is calculated by taking the number of times I yell "You P.O.S." at a certain player divided my the amount of AB's said player has.
There's really no reason to pull him back in that situation. Not that it mattered all that much, because even if he had hit, and made an out, he would have been subbed in next inning for defensive reasons.
Statistically, on April 5th, every GM was a great GM, because every team was tied for first place. We cannot call DePodesta a great GM until we see two things: one, how his original plan plays out, and two, how he handles adversity. We won't be able to see point one this year, clearly due to the injuries. You can't say his plan was a great one just because of numbers.
You can, however, talk about point two, which is how he has handled setbacks to the plan. His response was Jason Grabowski. You tell me what that says.
(Managers P.O.S. ratios are calculated a little differently than a players)
So especially if you measure pitching with ERA, you can make a case for putting in the left-handed batter. But I still would have kept Perez in given his overall better offensive performance, even against rhp.
And if you really wanted to be sneaky and play this swapping game, I got the impression that given all those walks LaRussa was going to pull Mulder regardless, and Reyes was the only guy ready in the pen, so you could have at least started out with Ledee and saved Perez for another at-bat. If LaRussa decides to leave in Mulder to maintain they lefty/righty matchup I'd say that's even better, given how he was pitching.
Edmonds...groan
According to what I've seen people have actually offered data to show that the trasactions were favorable.
With regards to the "Jason Grabowski response," I don't think anyone seriously contends that Jason Grabowski was DePo's idea of a solution to the injuries problem.
Who is a great GM? Beene? Schurholtz? How long was it until they were considered great? And more importantly, how long were they in charge of their organization? Is Epstien considered great already?
I don't think we'll know how good/bad DePo is for at least another year or two...but I feel pretty good about his history, approach & track record to know where my money is.
Higher OPS than Scrappy Repko and Heart and Soul Phillips
Your two criteria for judging a GM are inadequate. In a vacuum, maybe they would do, but the MLB isn't one.
On that note, I'm finished. I've tried to discuss this rationally, but you just nitpick and offer no rational counter-argument. Have a wonderful Sunday afternoon in your world.
Prediction: Choi gets on base
Look at the team on the other side of the diamond today. The SL Cardinals have pulled up a remarkable amount of talent from their system to plug in for injuries. This kind of a systemic and organizational strength takes time and care to develop. If Depo had gone chasing after the will-o-wisps that were out there in the trade market, he would have scuttled a good amount of the progress that has been made.
I don't believe that my view on this issue is that unique as there were very few trades this deadline. It seems that the sellers were just asking way too high a price for their players. The other GM's decided not to harvest the fruits of their farms for a short -term flings.
With any luck, this decision will seem wise in a few years when the Dodgers have a ton of young talented players. This will allow them to sign the expensive free-agents to fill the gaps and build a good team.
Ledee's VORP: 7.5 in 178 PAs.
Enjoy your afternoon while having a grand old time cheering on a sub-.500 team. This team needs a Stalin-esque purge, starting at the top.
Because that would mean that the team would be in first place, yet still below .500.
That's a serious question.
I for one am disappointed in this season, but I don't think that it's a fireable offense for DePo (which is different from saying we can't judge him, in case you're curious)
I think you've got to take a look at a GM's process to gauge their effectiveness. The guy in Arizona signed Russ Ortiz to a 4-year deal richer than Lowe's, then added $40M worth of "injury-prone" Troy Glaus and extended Shawn Green at $8M per year until his 35th or 36th birthday. His goal, seemingly, was to add whatever players were available at whatever price it took to get them.
Look at Brian Sabian in Frisco. His process is to add as many old players as he can at the expense of draft picks and young, cheap players. He traded Joe Nathan and someone else (Francisco Liriano?) for AJ Pierzynski, then let Pierzynski walk the following season. He sent Jerome William and another guy to the Cubs for an expensive setup man, LaTroy Hawkins. Before the deadline, he sent his last remaining young potential contributors to the Mariners for an old, average outfielder in Randy Winn (Foppert and Torrealba, who should have been starting every day except for the fact that Sabian signed Matheny to a 3-year deal).
DePodesta is looking to leverage his team's strengths against what players are available. He has proven this past month that he sees 3 years down the road, when we'll be running away with the division. His process seems to be solid and well-thought out. I'm not terribly discouraged that he didn't badly overpay to add a marginal player, like the Padres did with Randa.
Ever play blackjack? If the dealer is showing a four, and you have eleven, and you double down, but the dealer ends up winning, was it stupid to double down? Or was it an unlucky (and unlikely) bad outcome?
No, I'd be anticipating getting killed in the playoffs. There's a bit of Chicago or Boston in me, I guess.
I'd be happy if this team were 15 games better. That would make us 62-42, which is worthy of respect. I don't want to be the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. I want to be better than that.
So, unless I'm mistaken, your objection to DePo is that this team, even with all its injuries, is not playing better than the statistical projections?
I for one, would think that being in first place, considering, would be an accomplishment.
Granted, I wish the team would win every game, but I don't think that's realistic, and I don't think .600 ball is a realistic expectation, in light of all the circumstances.
I guess my objection is that what you seem to be saying is that in order to be a good GM, DePo has to win the World Series. While I think we'd all agree that we'd rather win, and not worry about too much how it gets done, I have no problem saying that Billy Beane is a great GM, despite the fact that he has never won the world series. And I'm not so sure that winning the World Series proves that a GM is good.
Padres were shut out for 7 innings by...Eric Milton. They can make all the trades they want, they're not going anywhere. 2 way tie for first I believe
Sanchez to pitch, counter with Edmonds, squeeze after a pitchout.
Another below average managerial job today.
I really enjoy the approach Depo takes with the team. I don't always agree with every move, but I support the direction the team has taken and DT has been a great place to find the analysis that is missing from the mlb board and other media outlets.
Now that the trolls from the mlb board have found DT, I'm done with it. I'm sure I'll end up checking back in a couple weeks and hope to be pleasantly surprised, but it's been my experience that people just can't help it, even when the sign clearly says "Don't Feed The Trolls".
Lowe hasn't been good, certainly. But he's nowhere NEAR the bust that Ortiz has been.
No, my objection to him is that he didn't put together a better team in the first place and that his response to the unbridled mediocrity of this year is to do... nothing. Look, I know the team could have been better without all the injuries. I know they'd likely be in first place, because our division is sucking more than any other in history. But the team was in good -- not great, but good -- shape at this time last year. Even with no injuries this year, we'd be in mediocre shape at best.
"I don't think .600 ball is a realistic expectation, in light of all the circumstances."
Geeky time once again: Master Yoda says, "That is why you fail."
He's managed this game into a cul-de-sac. DePo is nowhere near it. I don't know whether in the end DePo will be any good, but we won't really find out until we get a better manager, hopefully in '06.
Navarro seems to have a good eye for the zone.
;)
Ricky must have looked at the latest "P.O.S." rankings after his last K and had to redeem himself!
all i can say is wow, the deadline sure brings out the best in people!
375/636/375. He has an absurd 636 OBP, I have a feeling that it will go down with time, but he seems to be a good bet to top Phillips's .291 OBP.
this is based only on anecdotal observations, but, I think that JT fits in with the conventional wisdom, and the old school mentality, and that the typical media member or casual fan, or Joe Morgan type feels comfortable with JT, and he is a former player.
I'm sure there are pro-DePo, pro-JT, and anti-DePo, anti-JT; BUT, I would guess, that there are many more pro-DePo anti-JT, and pro-JT anti-DePo
Over the last decade we often lost to a S.F. team with a lower payroll. Now----we have a lot of talent coming in the next few years, and a base Payroll well below S.F.
Maybe things aren't so bad eh!
Hey! maybe it was good to by-pass the Triple A outfielders for Ricky after all.
If Perez had been allowed to hit and made an inning-ending out, then JT would have had to bring in Ledee anyway to play in the field. If Perez had gotten a hit, the game would have been (at that momement) tied with Ledee hitting for the on-deck pitcher.
But this is all water under the bridge at this point.
337 - You're missing my point. Here it is: people cannot say "DePodesta is a great GM! His transactions have been first class!"*
If I told you not one person here has ever said anyhting close to that will you stop saying that they have?
I don't think so. While there are clearly more anti-JT and pro-Depo people here, and the fans here are more knowledgable in the La Times, go to 3 games aseason, real world JT is well regarded and many don't know anything about Depo other than the fact that he dismanteled a play-off team.
That's actually pretty much what I meant: that, yes, I think people are generally favorably disposed to JT or DePo, but not both.
this is a position where i would advocate bradley bunting.
Cards are rattled.
JT, remove the bunt sign now!
Ledee 335/416
Lawton 380/433
Winn 342/391
Cruz 347/436
Come on Olmedo!
Old Maid shows why.
Mabry, Grudz, J-Rod coming up.
Ledee can't have very many PA's compared to the others.
Should that be:
don't**buntOrFireJimTracy.com
or
bunt**and**FireJimTracy.com
Probably sleeping it off after the trade deadline.
Should that be:
don't**buntOrFireJimTracy.com
or
bunt**and**FireJimTracy.com
Grudz is killing us today. Why couldn't he play like this when he played in DS everyday?
As far as Brazoban, I think Tracy's fault ends at the bunt. Who is he going to bring in? Carrara? Hideo Alvarez?
Those are, if anything, similar options to Brazoban, if not a whole lot worse.
LOL
It's possible that you're right about DePo, but why would come to this conclusion based on today's events?
It's not like any of the other GMs made big favorable deals today
I'm talking about who is going to tell Jim Tracy that Milton Bradley should not be bunting in front of Jeff Kent. Somebody has got to do it. There has to be a confrontation here, and there's nobody else to do it.
Offensive, indeed.
I would guess that Tracy does not go to Broxton for a third straight day. I would vote for Dessens.
I have stayed away from taking a position on Tracy because I'm frankly not qualified and I don't know enough. I have no idea what it takes to be a big-league manager and I recognize that there are things a manager does that seem contrary to common sense but in reality the manager is doing such a thing because something is going on that we don't know about. It's a tough job.
But I sure as hell wouldn't have had Bradley bunt. That's inexcusable.
Izzy-Weaver-Bradley
Seriously, putting Alvarez in the 2 hole? Shouldn't Tracy just have put Phillips in at C and put the pitcher in Navarro's spot?
Phillips at first (batting 9th), Saenz (batting 5th) at third for Robles, Alvarez pitching and batting second.
All this withe Izturis and the top of the lineup coming up in the bottom of the inning
Paging Jeff Weaver. Get your bat.
Can that be right?
This is where we lose it.
(In that first line, I misspelled "man" as "moan." Fitting.)
No.
Not that it's likely to matter at this point
Sure, I don't agree with everything he's done, but you can at least see a thought process there. Who was the last Dodger GM you could say that about?
And is it really such a sin for him to use some objective tools for evaluating players? That would be insisted upon in any other industry on the planet. Why should baseball execs have to rely entirely upon gut instinct?
For the first time in ages, it feels like we're in good hands. If all DePo's detractors lead to him getting replaced, it will be a sad day, in my eyes. I truly fear that it's a possibility, though.
At least I came into this weekend not expecting to take two of three of the cardinals, and not expecting the Padres to be swept. We remain just close enough to keep people interested, but no closer.
nice game, jim.
This is what I don't understand. DePo not only signed Alvarez, he gave him two years. And yet people still whine about the guy with the .931 OPS. It's not the conclusion; it's the argument.
By the way, Mark, has that picture of DePo always been up on BJT? Or do you have plans for it? I don't remember it being there before.
Did Dessens' arm fall off? His lack of innings in the face of terrible bullpen options is either confusing or appalling.
Yeah, maybe you have to give Alvarez a shot in that situation. But maybe not. It's worth noting that Edmonds left-handedness should not have been a factor, given Wilson's propensity to get totally mashed by LHB, as opposed to being merely crushed by RHB.
Which makes him Nomo. DL him if he's hurt.
Dessens could have blown the game almost as easily as the others. Would have been nice to give it our best shot though.
This has been a game of improbabilities. Maybe there is one more with our name on it.
This is the Wayne Franklin argument. :)
Well, the joke bombed the first time...
#1) The Antonio Perez fiasco.
#2) The ill-advised Bradley bunt.
#3) Jeff Weaver pinch-hitting in the 11th due to other nonsense.
I agree with you about the bunt. What did Tracy think the Cards would do after the sacrafice, pitch to Kent.
I ALWAYS think positive about the Dodgers. I have my moments, but I try to always think in a positive way about them. However, I had to laugh when Weaver came up. I only watched parts of the game today, so I don't know who they had left on the bench. But to see Weaver come in in the bottom of the 11th, when we know the Padres lost and D Backs won, and we needed the win, it made me wonder about our team.
I am a Depo supporter and have been since he became the GM, but he needs to do something in August.
With that, let's hope they do better this next road trip than they have in the past.
Go Blue!
BC
(That's my foot steeping repeatedly between the ACCEPTANCE and DENIAL line. It's also the pacifist and I'm GOING TO KILL TRACY LINE!!!!
(That's it. I've blown a gasket. I'm scheduled to attend a Dodger game in two weeks and I will have to do it in a strait-jacket. I apologize. I will retire to my corner and drool incoherently.)
Unfortunately these breaks might have ended as the Padres have fallen as far as they can, and now we'll have to step it up a notch in order to catch the D'Backs, who for the past two weeks have been moving at a blistering .500 clip.
Even with Valverde and Aquino coming around, and the health of Lyons, the DBacks also have Groom and Worrell.
And they've been a little too healthy this year
Considering the circumstances I think bringing in Phillips and Weaver to PH were fine, but the real disaster was needlessly burning Antonio Perez to make a pinch hit non-appearance. Of course, it's possible that this would have lead to Perez staying in that spot and Ledee not hitting his 8th inning homer, but still you can't judge these moves without hindsight, and without hindsight wasting Perez was as big a crime as making Bradley bunt.
Bradley gets a hit or walks: Game over or bases loaded with Kent up.
Bradley grounds into a single out: Second and third or first and second, one out. Kent up. LaRussa still probably walks Kent, because only the lead runner matters. Saenz up bases loaded.
Bradley flies w/o advancing lead runner: Runners hold. Kent up with a positive history vs pitcher (SS concerns aside) and one out.
Bradley flies out deep, advances lead runner:
Runners on first, Kent up, 1 out. LaRussa walks Kent to pitch to Olmedo and set up the force.
Bradley grounds into DP: Runner on third, two out. Kent walked because of history with the pitcher (4-9). Runners on first and third one out.
The point of all this is to say that it wasn't so much a choice between Kent and Saenz, as it was a choice between Bradley and Saenz. Kent was likely going to get a free pass if he came up with either first or second open.
That should read:
Bradley grounds into a single out: Second and third or first and third, one out. Kent up. LaRussa still probably walks Kent, because only the lead runner matters. Saenz up bases loaded.
Kent wouldn't have been walked unless there were a runner on third, though. Too much could happen for the Cardinals to lose for LaRussa to willingly put himself in that position.
LaRussa would never have walked a runner to third. No way. A wild pitch, hit batter, walk, or any non-double-play except a force at home ends the game.
What bothers me is we are not putting ourselves in the best position to win.
Before Depo became the GM, I was not a sabermetrics kind of fan. I am still not actually. However, I read Moneyball when Depo came on board out of sheer curiosity, and I was intrigued -- not sold, but intrigued. I was excited to see if this unothordox system could turn the Dodgers into a larger market version of Beane's A's. I was so sick of Malone and Fox and even Lasorda and Claire that I was willing to give it a shot. It sounded reasonable. Whether it worked out for better or ill, it was a great story that I wanted to see unfold.
But I feel ripped off.
We have an old school manager who loves the bunt. That same manager bases his line-ups on defense and undefinable grit. He uses small sample sizes to determine match-ups. He keeps his high OPS guys on the bench for later in the game. We draft high school players who are long-shots and won't be up for half a decade. We give out huge long-term contracts to average pitchers. This is all the stuff that Depo and Beane were against in Moneyball.
If we were losing using a sabermetric approach I could just chalk it up to this team being inferior. But it's frustrating wondering if it's the way the team is built or the way the team is fielded that is the main culprit.
Depo deserves some blame for not bringing in his guys and running the Dodgers according to his philosophy. Lose on your own terms, Depodesta -- not on Tracy's.
Whatever... Time to watch Family Guy.
Bradley Strikes out: 1st and 2nd. One out. Kent up. I think thats still better than one out having Saenz up.
DePodesta said from the first day he took the Dodgers' GM job that he would NOT be running the Dodgers like the A's have been run, and that was to be expected. One thing that I think Moneyball did capture well is the extraordinary differences in Beane's and DePodesta's personalities. The way Beane runs the A's and the way DoPodesta runs the Dodgers reflect those differences.
Beane's background is all-jock. He did not go to college, but like most high school star athletes, he has a high opinion of himself, is naturally charismatic, and needs to be the center of attention at all times. Beane, in short, is a megalomaniac. How do megalomaniacal bosses run their organizations? They micromanage. Everything has to be done their way, and they are used to getting their way. By contrast, DePodesta is a classic nerd or bookworm. Uncharismatic. Not a natural leader at all, but intellectually curious and sufficiently secure to not need to be surrounded by a cadre of yes men. Quiet, intellectual, and sensitive men like DePodesta always make for the kind of bosses that would not dream of telling underlings how to do their jobs, because they would not want somebody looking over their shoulder either. The management style is fundamenatlly passive, not aggressive. Think Mr. Carlson running WKRP, but with a smart sort of detachment, rather than the dull-witted, oblivious kind. Thus while so many people around here keep pulling their hair out wondering why DePodesta does not fire Tracy or at least confront him, I have not been surprised at all by what has been going on. It would be completely against DePodesta's nature to do a lot of the things people here want him to do.
I take that as a jab at my post, sir. Of course reality is much more complicated. But why the condescending tone? And hypocritical considering your over simplified, unrealistic caricatures of Beane as a "megalomaniac" and Depo as a "bookworm" -- a "classic" bookworm at that, complete with the standard bookworm traits of "uncharismatic" and "sensitive."
Don't you think Depo and Beane are "oh-so-much-more-complicated" than you present. And how do you base your characterizations -- from the pages of a highly entertaining book that you deride as taking liberty with facts?
I did not say that DePo should be tolerant of incompetence, but I think that he is bright -- and yes, open-minded -- enough to see that Tracy's moves are not "incompetent," as in lacking any internal logic to them, as much as they are intellectually consistent with a pre-sabermetrics orthodoxy that he does not personally believe in but acknowleges is NORMAL in major league baseball. But I can see how many people would think that kind of tolerance for a different "paradigm" translates into being a wuss. Anybody who makes a point of being tolerant gets labelled a wuss by somebody.
If this is the case(His name is Mark and he recently found out about this board)this guy's act will get old in a hurry to regular posters on this site.He never has anything to say except negative statements,he nitpicks as Fearingblue pointed out and he is too clever by half,kind of like the smart guy in high school that everybody thinks is a joker.
Just build it and they will come works in movies,but can be a drag here if all the flotsam and jetsom off other boards floats in here.
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/Bioreng/schmoll.gif
Incompetence doesn't require insanity. It requires being wrong. "Intellectually consistent with a pre-sabermetrics orthodoxy," is a very nice way of saying superstitious.
And while it may not be up to your standards, Harvard football is a legitimate Division 1AA program. What are you, a Yalie?
Actually, Canuck, nerds can be pretty egotistical. Academic departments are notorious for their pissing matches over issues of less than serious important--a prestigious university is usually populated by very smart but also very touchy faculty who try to run independent fiefdoms. This isn't true of all professors, but it is true of many.
I do in general agree with your characterization of DePo, though. I do think he's a generally nice guy, but underneath that, I think there's more than a little ruthlessness to him--and I don't mean that in a pejorative way. But DePo is certainly open minded, which on balance I think is a good thing. I can live with a few more years of Jim Tracy idiocies in exchange for DePo being able to keep Logan White on board.
WWSH
But this is precisely what I don't think is true, and what I find doubly objectionable about Tracy. It has never been pre-sabermetrics orthodoxy to have your best hitters bunt with the game on the line. Never. If one takes Joe Morgan as one's pre-sabermetrics orthodoxy guru, all the time during games, and in situations similar to the one where Bradley bunted today, Miller will ask him if some #3 hole hitter should bunt and Morgan will say "No, #3 hole hitters are paid to drive in runs." Now, the emphasis on the RBI will drive some saber people crazy too (I know nothing original about sabermetrics, I only know what I read derivatively), but the point is that those of us who are mystified by JD Drew or Hee Seop Choi or Milton Bradley bunting is that we can't tie that sort of decision-making to any rational strategy, pre- or post-Moneyball, and therefore assume that it is some sort of bizarre ideological mission to prove that the bunt "works."
Anyway, I think other "Mark" has been around for a while. Although I could have just missed them, I didn't notice any posts by him before I registered (otherwise I would have made an alias) but not too long after I started posting I noticed his name. So he's been around for a decent amount of time, at least several months.
I dunno about Canuck, but I'm a Yalie, and I think Canuck's point about Ivy League sports stand. The Yale Harvard game is really about the rivalry between the schools, not about the football being played on the field. This is true of all school rivalries of course, but the amount of football knowledge among the audience at the Yale-Harvard game is far less than what you'd see at a USC/UCLA game.
The Ivies do have stereotypical jocks--the Yale hockey time is well known for being its own little tribe of tough guys (and tough gals)--but it's clear that DePo is not one of them. This is a dude who read Ayn Rand for grins after all.
And college sports at the Ivies do have a far lower profile than other schools. Those instititions would never tolerate the sort of scandals you see in marquee programs in the big money sports. Not to say that they don't have their own vices, but the vices are nerdy, academic sort of vices--the peculiar overweening arrogance of the well educated and privileged, indifference toward practical questions of administration, etc.--as opposed to the egotism of Beane, which is based more on a general air of "Look at how cool I am," as opposed to "You're too dumb to even comprehend just how much smarter I am."
This, of course, wasn't always true. Ivy League football used to be first-rank, but that was the day when Ivy League college students were admitted based on their social class. Football was akin to a modern American version of knightly combat among young aristocratic men ready to prove their manly worth, but now Ivy League college students are supposed to have excelled academically while feeding homeless Siberian refugees in their spare time.
WWSH
Dodgers vs. Nationals. Interesting. Someone will have to win those games won't they?
I'll be watching some CFL action tomorrow. Everybody can take a deep breath and come out fighting on Tuesday.
But DePo hasn't all of a sudden decided that OBP isn't the most important offensive component statistic. It still is. Sac bunts are still usually a bad idea.
Moneyball wasn't a dummies guide to general management, it was an overview of the changing understanding of baseball coupled to the story of the guy who most efficiantly made use of it, first. The second part was transitory, but the first isn't.
The Dodgers and Indians tried to acquire Royals 1B/OF Matt Stairs. Rather than accept a marginal prospect, Royals G.M. Allard Baird preferred to keep Stairs as protection for DH Mike Sweeney. Stairs, 37, wants to stay with the Royals past this season.
i cant believe depo went after matt stairs lol
I don't think that Bradley was trying to bunt for a base hit though.
If he was trying to do that, I think he would have "put the bat away" after the first time he didn't get the bunt down.
He was sacrificing, no doubt about it. Maybe it was his call, but I'll blame Tracy until I hear otherwise.
That's exactly what's so frustrating about JT's management. If he was following the pre-sabre-old school approach, at least we could understand it, even if we didn't necessarily agree. Contrast the Phillips double switch, which I think was pretty stupid, but at least can be explained, even if not in an entirely satisfory way.
fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill.
Albeit they possess the might,
Nonetheless we have the will.
How we shall celebrate our victory,
We shall invite the whole team up for tea
(How jolly!)
Hurl that spheroid down the field, and
Fight, fight, fight!
funnier, every time I see it!"
Bradley's a smart guy. How cool would it have been if he foresaw the Kent IBB and purposely fouled out trying to bunt?
"The Cardinals scored a 7-5 win in the rubber game of the series with a two-run homer from Jim Edmonds against veteran Wilson Alvarez, who is so frustrated with a bad shoulder that he's considering retirement. A club official would not comment when asked if Alvarez would make the team's Sunday night flight to Washington."
And then there's Tracy's manlove, Venafro. As for the 40 man, Odalis, Alvarez, and 3 injured guys
It is nice to see Alvarez admit there's a problem and realize he's not helping this team. I would love to have the '04 Alvarez, but he just is no longer that player. Now time for Carrara to realize something...
"Look at the situation that developed there," Tracy said. "You know Jeff Kent is going to be walked (regardless) ... what if (Bradley) hits a ground-ball double play? It's the same thing.
"With Olmedo Saenz and Jose Valentin coming up, with those two professional guys coming to the plate, you take your chances."
1) Jack McKeon inexplicably walked Cristian Guzman with runners on second and third to get to Livan Hernandez. Bases Loaded single.
2) Rob Drake is at it again. Morgan Ensberg tried to take first on ball 3, and the Mets hung Lance Berkman then on first, out to dry. Again, inexplicably, despite being tagged out, Berkman was allowed to go back to first for no reason at all. Understandably, the Mets bench was a little upset by the fact that Ensberg gave them an out and the umpires took it back, and Drake threw out Sandy Alomar sitting on the bench. That guy is a loon.
Baker Denies Interest in Dodgers
By Paul Gutierrez
Chicago Cub Manager Dusty Baker refuted a Los Angeles Times report Sunday that quoted a source as saying Baker would like to return to Los Angeles to manage the Dodgers should Jim Tracy depart. [emphasis mine]
Now up:
Baker Disputes Report
By Paul Gutierrez, Times Staff Writer
Chicago Cub Manager Dusty Baker disputed a Los Angeles Times report Sunday that quoted a source as saying Baker would like to return to Los Angeles to manage the Dodgers should Jim Tracy depart. [emphasis mine, again]
696 - Nice Tom Lehrer quote. The Masochism Tango is probably my favorite of his songs:
"I ache for the touch of your lips, dear,
But much more for the touch of your whips, dear.
You can raise welts
Like nobody else,
As we dance to the masochism tango."
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.