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
Steve Treder, Giants fan and baseball analyst extraordinaire, writes about Manny Mota:
Manny Mota was another pinch-hitting legend, deployed by the Dodgers as an extreme pinch-hitting specialist through much of the decade of the 1970s. Unlike the vast majority of these guys, Mota was a right-handed batter, but it didn't make any difference to Mota who was pitching; he was going to hit a line drive anyway. As a Giants fan, I can attest that in the late innings of a tight game against the Dodgers, the presence of Mota looming in the L.A. dugout was frightening indeed. Mota was constitutionally incapable of doing anything other than smacking a solid line drive in any at-bat against any pitcher in any circumstance. Mota turns 68 years old this month, but I suspect if you go to Mota's house tonight at 3 AM, yank him out of bed, jam a bat in his hands and have a fully-warmed up Mariano Rivera in the front yard flinging his nastiest cutter, the groggy, barefoot pajama-clad Mota will stumble out there and drill the first wicked offering for a solid line drive. In the dark. (Smash! There goes the neighbor's living room window.)
I believe it was Jim Murray who wrote that Mota could get a line drive off a bullet - it might have even been at 2 a.m. This captures the same feeling.
Treder also resurfaces other Dodger pinch-hitters of the past in his Hardball Times article, "Pinch-Hitting Specialists: A History." The only gaping omission I spotted was the 2000 season of Dave Hansen, who hit seven home runs, slugged .673, and OPSed 1.058 in 70 pinch-hitting appearances. Correction: As a reader in the comments below points out, because of the number of games he played in the infield, Hansen did not qualify as a pinch-hitting specialist in 2000 by Treder's definition.
* * *
Kevin Modesti of the Daily News compares the broken traditions of the Dodgers to the relative continuity held by the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers today. He's correct that these are not the Dodgers of our youths, but it's a little odd to use the Steelers, who went 25 years without a championship, as a role model. The Dodgers have another eight years before they tie that drought.
Modesti preaches stability in his column, but the argument is really nostalgia for a time of relative simplicity. Back before the O'Malleys sold the Dodgers, they made some changes from year to year, but the philosophy and fundamental building blocks of the franchise were canon. We debated the little things, not the big ones.
Here in 2006, we all still want to win. We all still want to build a tradition we can be proud of, one we can love. And just as it was in the last century, all it takes to achieve that is to hire good people and then let them do their jobs. Theoretically, it's still that simple.
The problem is that we no longer agree about who the good people are. Many of us form conflicting opinions from the start. Some become entrenched. Some, like current Dodger owner Frank McCourt, become riddled with second thoughts.
While McCourt might be among the most impatient, impulsive, panic-addled people to have ever owned a franchise, the patience of many fans and the sport media isn't always much greater. Who wasn't impatient with the 2005 Dodgers, whether they were complaining about the McCourts, Paul DePodesta, Jim Tracy or whomever? We have all demanded immediate results, haven't we? If not an instant title, than at least instant relief for our frustrations.
It's hard - almost oxymoronic - to shout for patience. And it's almost pointless to preach patience when the congregation is questioning its faith.
The Dodgers have made more nonsensical and unnecessarily disruptive moves in recent years than I can name. They have damaged the psyche of the organization, and the result is that everything is examined more harshly now, the way you might snap at someone you love after they've been misbehaving.
Few will be happy until the Dodgers are winning again. Furthermore, we'll never agree about what it takes to win until the Dodgers are winning again. So until the Dodgers are winning again, there are going to continue to be changes - unless patience scores a most unlikely victory.
Monday, the Dodgers had a mini-reunion of the long-running Steve Garvey-Davey Lopes-Bill Russell-Ron Cey infield at Dodger Stadium on Monday (Lopes was a late cancellation), 25 years after their final season together, a season that ended in a World Series title. Yeah, those were the good old days. But those good old days began with people giving that young infield a chance to form, eight years earlier. Those infielders played on a team that contended, then didn't, then contended, then didn't, then contended, then won a World Series - in their final season.
It took time. It also all seemed to make sense.
The Dodgers have won two World Series in the past 40 years. No one, past or present, can be called an unqualified expert. We can dream all we want about tradition and bonds and glory days, but dreams are all they'll be until the team proves itself worthy of our faith.
Stability for stability's sake, change for change's sake - those are dead ends. The Dodgers have been a dead dog out on Highway 31 for what seems like a long, long time. We just all need our reasons to believe.
I can't name a stable WINNING franchise. The Braves have won one WS in recent memory. Who else that has consistently won the WS? Yankees won a bunch a few years back, but that is as unstable as it gets in the front office.
Everyone needs to come to grips that the O'Malleys would not be competitive in this day and age. The game has changed on the field and in its business model. Look at the offseason changes the White Sox have made. The Dodgers and McCourt are tinkering until they figure what works. And I'll be on their side until that happens.
It is a sad state-of-affairs when the Mass Media potentially has so much leverage.
That is the understatement of the year.
That being said, the McCourts' problem isn't so much whom they bring in as whom and how often they let go.
My only hope is that McCourt realizes he can't keep making wholesale changes if the Dodgers have another poor season... he's gonna have to give Colletti/Little at least 2 years to prove that the ship has been righted or is sinking faster than the Titanic. If the latter occurs expect another wholesale change at the ownership level.
9 brings up something that I think will actually happen. No matter how the team performs, I believe Colletti will be seen as a stabilizer. If the Dodgers repeat their 2005 performance, I believe the word "injuries" will be mentioned often. If they play .500 ball inj 2006, I think the CW will be that the team is stabilizing. If they play better than .500 ball, he'll get a parade.
Shorter version: I think Colletti is in a no-lose situation because the guy previously was in a lose-lose situation; he was hated no matter what he did.
And why do I write "I think" so much? Because I cannot dismiss the possibility that the McCourts might be crazier than sewer rats. I hope they're not but some of the things they do are scary.
A) McCourts let Colletti fire Little.
B) McCourts let Colletti fire Little and then they fire Colletti.
C) Plaschke writes a soliloquy on why he knew Colletti was bad for the Dodgers from the moment he was hired.
D) Plaschke fires the McCourts.
Fans who visit this lyrics also like:
Christina Aguilera - Infatuation Lyrics
98 Degrees - I Do Cherish You Lyrics
Various - Its Raining Men Lyrics
Ciara - Goodies Lyrics
Weezer - Buddy Holly Lyrics
112 - Peaches 'N Cream Lyrics
P.O.D. - Boom Lyrics
Extreme - More Then Words Lyrics
Sarah McLachlan - Answer Lyrics
Backstreet Boys - I Need You Tonight Lyrics
Bryan Adams - Everything I Do (I Do It For You) Lyrics
Sarah McLachlan - Perfect Girl Lyrics
Sean Paul - Baby Boy, feat. Beyonce Lyrics
Pink - Trouble Lyrics
Frank Sinatra - You'll Never Walk Alone Lyrics
Matchbox 20 - I'm Not Crazy Lyrics
Seether - Fine Again Lyrics
Mago De Oz - Molinos De Viento Lyrics
Good Charlotte - Day That I Die Lyrics
Craig David - Seven Days Lyrics
Boyz II Men - One Sweet Day Lyrics
The All-American Rejects - Paper Heart Lyrics
Mya - Fallen Lyrics
Immortal Technique - The 4th Branch Lyrics
Simple Plan - So Happy Together Lyrics
Destiny's Child - Independent Women Pt. II Lyrics
The Calling - Our Lives Lyrics
Ginuwine - In Those Jeans Lyrics
Blondie - Call Me Lyrics
Stevie Wonder - Because I Love you Lyrics
Um, eclectic, I guess.
And only after that did the Dodgers win a World Series.
According to the Rumors section of ESPN
The Dodgers are interested in acquiring Barry Zito. Beane is asking for Broxton,Either Navaroo or Martin, JtD and Ledee. The Dodgers would recieve Zito, Kotsay and PTBNL.
Does winning bring stability or does stability bring winning?
1955 - Last gap of "Boys of Summer"
1959 - Fluke
1963 - Koufax
1965 - Koufax
1981 - Last gap of The Infield
1988 - Hershiser/Gibson
15 - Isn't the conventional wisdom more like the McCourts have itchy trigger-fingers, but they finally got one right in firing DePodesta?
Hmmmmmm . . .
(you too can watch at http://www.octt.dc.gov/services/video/DC_Ch-13.asx)
Winning brings chemistry.
Do you mean
1. If there is winning, chemistry will be an inevitable result
or
2. If there is chemistry, winning must have preceded it
A lot of folks seem to care about the Dodgers...
or
Rorschach Test+ Diet Pepsi= Stability x Chemistry= Winning x stabibility =Legendary?
Not 1.
Not 2.
But it's true that what I wrote is imprecise. All I really mean is, chemistry does not cause winning. Chemistry can precede or follow winning, but it does not cause winning.
chemistry does not cause winning
Do you mean
1. Chemistry makes a positive contribution to winning, but the presence of chemistry does not guarantee winning
or
2. The presence of chemistry makes no positive contribution to winning
Sorry, not trying to be annoying (but might be succeeding anyway...)
By "might make" do you mean
1. Sometimes makes, sometimes doesn't make
or
2. It is not possible to measure whether chemistry makes or doesn't make
Plaschkean Geometry
Yes on 1, Yes on 2.
Just because we can't measure the impact of chemistry doesn't mean that it has none. However, I don't believe that it is necessary to have chemistry in place for a team to start to win. I don't believe that chemistry is as important as talent or smart decisions.
Agreed on all counts.
At the risk of being smited, the other issue with chemistry (and the more intersting one, IMO) has to do with whether "bad" chemistry can have a negative impact on team performance. Is it always worth signing "jerks" with good stats, or might their jerkiness outweigh their stats?
Careful, he's one of them UFC fans. He knows methods of killing men that normal people can't even spell.
I'm a lover, not a fighter.
Hansen appeared in 70 games as a PH, out of 102 games total. Treder defined a PH-specialist as one who had at least 80% of their appearances as a PH. Hansen played 1B and 3B too much.
Alex Cora, baseball's smartest man, isn't playing.
"Old friend" Trenidad Hubbard homered for the Mexican team.
I dunno know. Let's ask the Eagles.
I am far less ardent about the Dodgers than are many others who post on this forum. For many of them, I can see why it's been a brutal stretch, why patience has dwindled. They've invested emotional energy in an underachieving, bumbling franchise that has squandered many of its advantages.
Still, I've been a bit surprised that so many here delight in ridiculing even the Dodgers personnel that helped the franchise finally win the NL West two years ago.
I wrongly figured there'd be a little gratitude shown the likes of Cesar Izturis, Alex Cora, Adrian Beltre and Jim Tracy. OK, if not gratitude, at least benign indifference.
Instead I've seen an eagerness to annihilate them whenever any conceivable chance arises.
It has surprised me how unpopular they are here on a Dodgers board, almost like people gain energy and esteem out of demeaning them. At times, it's like even the 2004 title brought no enjoyment to even Dodgers fans.
I would be surprised if that is all the A's would want for Zito and it is probably wrong as there is no reason whatsoever the A's would need Ledee even if they trade Kotsay. They have enough left handeders in the outfield. I would rather just try to sign Zito next year instead of giving up players for him.
Lee/Zito for 07 LZ in 07
I believe you can have chemistry in a clubhouose, which consists of a few "individuals," and not have teamwork on the field.
I am not an NBA fan, but look at Kobe and the Lakers. The "individual" is putting up huge numbers, but the team is losing.
The Dodgers need a visit from coach Wooden in Spring Training to teach/remind them of this.
The Dodgers also need an owner that will give them time to become a team. For some teams, it may take more than one year.
First post related to the topic in awhile, so be easy..lol.
BC
I do believe that chemistry is overrated when it comes to winning. What makes a team win is teamwork. Players who are in it for the team and not in it for themselves.
I think some folks would consider "teamwork" and being "in it for the team" to be part of "chemistry."
Longtime Dodger announcer Vin Scully once said that Mota could wake up on Christmas morning and hit a line drive to center.
Jim Murray, Los Angeles sportswriter, once wrote that you could wake Manny up at 2 AM, hand him a toothpick, throw an asprin tablet toward him, and he would hit it for a line drive single to right.
I think many are grateful for the 2004 performances of the people you mention - and have expressed that gratitude - but resent that so many others made them unassailable.
I can't speak for everyone, of course.
It's bad to look at your wife and wonder if you might be able to trade up. But if you look at your thirdbaseman with that sort of loyalty, you just might be a sucker. Especially since he definitely doesn't look at you, that way.
58--I think your second paragraph is wonderful, not only for baseball teams but also for marriage relationships.
60--I agree with Jon. I have never heard of this much anger toward Beltre either.
Thanks for the explanation.
I must say, I've seen little evidence here of any gratitude toward Cora, Izturis, Tracy or even Beltre on this forum, but I wasn't reading this site in 2004 or most of 2005.
I wasn't expecting a lot of gratitude at this date, either, but as I wrote, nor did I expect so much disdain. Your explanation makes sense -- it's not just those men who inspire these reactions but those who overstated their merits and brooked no objections.
(On the other hand this may be the jibberish ramblings of someone who is looking for any excuse not to work).
you bring up a good point but I think using Bradley/Kent as an example is the most extreme form of bad chemistry.
The way I look at it, some sports need chemistry more than others. For example, in basketball you're working with the whole team the ENTIRE time..chemistry is needed. Just look at the Pistons. In baseball though, your teammates can't help you get a base hit. That's what I love about baseball, it's a team sport that is also extremely individualistic. Fielding a grounder or a fly ball takes one guy, hitting takes one guy etc etc. This is why I think in baseball chemistry is less important...but I agree, while good chemistry might not ADD wins, it's a heck of a lot better than bad chemistry for the reasons you mentioned.
As for the hatred towards Beltre, lemme chime in on that. I think most people are so mad that he left over a relatively insignificant contract difference. The guy said he wanted to be a Dodger and I believe the reports were that we offered VERY close to the same money Seattle offered yet he took the extra and bolted. That's pure greed. There are those who will say "you would do the same thing" but I honestly wouldn't. If you put a contract in front of me right now from the Dodgers at say 2 yrs 10 mill and another from a different team of 3 years 15 mill I'd sign the Dodger deal. Why? Because I'm not greedy, I love the Dodgers, LA is my home, and playing for the team I love in my hometown is worth more than the extra 5 million bucks that I'd never spend anyways.
Interesting take on Beltre. I was unaware that it was such a close call. If that's a realistic account, I could see why there'd be resentment.
There's no way of knowing, of course, but I believe it's also possible that Boras nudged Beltre toward Seattle so that he could then place Drew in Los Angeles for $55 million guaranteed (which sane clubs were not willing to do).
Of course, Beltre could've told Boras no. After all, Boras works for Beltre.
Which brings up another point about Boras: It seems wise to have as few of his clients as possible, without getting overly rigid about it. A small bonus to how Colletti handled the Weaver machinations -- beyond big savings in dollars and the addition of two draft pick -- Ned rid the club of a frontline Boras client. Not that it should be a guiding rule, but it's worth considering. Boras has made a lot of money off rookie GMs of the Dodger, often to the franchise's regret.
You cannot overstate the impact the Lo Duca/Mota trade had on the discourse surrounding this team. It was the Dodger equivalent to the Dreyfus Affair. After the trade, you were either busy defending DePodesta or criticizing him. Both camps had serious beliefs that they just knew were true and they couldnt' believe the other side was so blind.
It's not that we're ungrateful for '04; the discussion at the time, IIRC, was who to be grateful to. That discussion turned into a fiery debate.
I do know this: after his horrific performance in 2005, I know I find it difficult to be grateful to Jim Tracy for anything.
Dodgers get:
P- Barry Zito
CF- Mark Kotsay
Athletics get:
P- Jonothan Broxton
OF- Ricky Ledee
OF- Joel Guzman
OF- Andre Ethier
C- Dionner Navarro
That would push the Dodgers payroll to like 112 mils....
If the Blue could long-term Zito, I'd probably pull the trigger. Ethier/Ledee arent really losses. Guzman wont play SS here anyways, so he's not of that much value anymore. Broxton/Navarro I'd hate to give up, but you gotta give something to get something.
I believe that was either Navarro or Martin, not Ethier, Navarro or Martin.
Since we just got Ethier from the A's, it's unlikely we would send him right back.
Beat me by 11 seconds reg. Poor Ethier must suffer a lot because of his name.
Ned had better be careful in trade talks. He might offer someone "either.....or" and they might take Ethier.
Interesting context. As someone outside of the anti- and pro-Depo camps, I've always thought too much was made of the LoDuca/Penny deal. I gave Depo good marks on that trade and still do, but still wonder if he failed to do his homework on Penny's health and also believe the trade's pillover caused him to needlessly give away Roberts, who, as Theo Epstein would show, had double value on the field and the trade market.
My big point is that it's too bad that trade become synonymous with Depo's tenure and legacy, when in reality, it was just one of his several major moves and not the most impactful on the team. Also too bad that the "fiery debate" overshadowed some remarkable work that season.
For what it's worth, I rated Tracy's work highly in 2004 but also found him lacking in 2005. I guess I'm more appreciative of his overall tenure with a club that lacked leadership and coherence from above on many occasions. Weak that his ego got the best of him in 2005, an awful year on many counts -- but it should never get so bad that you're making moves to spite your boss. It's obvious that he and Depo were not only on different pages, they weren't in the same book or library for that matter.
When will you be back?
I can't tell you that. It's classified.
From Rotoworld:
Dodgers signed RHP Takashi Saito to a minor league contract.
Saito, who turns 35 later this month, went 3-4 with a 3.82 ERA, 111 H and 93/29 K/BB in 106 innings for the Yokohama Bay Stars last season. He has considerable experience as both a starter and a reliever -- he saved 47 games between 2000 and 2001 -- so the Dodgers will have the option of moving him around. He'll have to make the team as a middle reliever first.
Krush Groove starring the Fat Boys.
"Body Heat" is quite sweaty.
Any movie with Fritz Weaver in it involved sweat. He was cinema's greatest perspiring actor.
http://tinyurl.com/85ocm
Could Bengie Molina understand our prospects better than Ned?
Ned had better be careful in trade talks. He might offer someone "either.....or" and they might take Ethier.
A line like this deserves to be repeated and admired.
Yahoo is reporting that "Paris Hilton Ordered to Stay Away From Man." Dare to dream that the headline means "Mankind."
Jim Tracy thinks so little of his term with the Dodgers, he's had to invent an alternate history of it.
- Jack Handy
See Dennis Miller without the F-bomb. And I was only 30 seconds behind that one.
As for sweaty movie. Albert Brooks in Broadcast News. (I assume Jon's question was not intended to include those less mainstream kind of sweaty movies).
"How ya gonna keep down on the farm after they've seen Karl Hungus"
The Dodgers have had other Asian players like Park, Ishii, Choi and now Seo and perhaps this pitcher Saito, but none of them will ever be the impact Hideo was, he was the first and thus far the best import to drive into Dodger Stadium since the Datsun 240Z.
At least Paris Hilton won't have to worry about it.
he got rid of two, weaver and edwin jackson.
2 down, 3 left! can anyone guess the remaining 3 who have given a little piece of their soul to the devil on earth?
I like it.
Next steps unclear. The cap could be revised -- there seems to be support for a truly and unambiguously capped construction deal -- but there are business challenges with whether a construction company would really accept a truly and unmovably capped deal. Maybe.
Virginia gov Kaine said today that if DC doesn't want the Nationals anymore he'll take 'em out near Dulles airport.
MLB says they will take the whole mess to arbitration, though there are serious issues with what sort of remedies an arbitrator could order in this setting. Financial penalties against the city, sure, but it's not at all clear the arbitrator can order the council to enter into a lease or construction contract they don't.
More of an answer then you were looking for, I realize.
1. Contract year
2. Roids
3. Luck
4. Other
5. All the above
This is crazy.
And of course regardless of the stadium construction agreement, the city is going to end up paying for all sorts of extra stuff that is not strictly part of the stadium.
I'm starting to think that the Wash Post will have a stale article on page A1. Hope they left themselves some wiggle room.
"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."
or
"First, it was not a strip bar, it was an erotic club. And second, what can I say? I'm a night owl."
or
"The law of gravity is racist."
In fact, pretty clear that nothing is certain yet.
They have already opened a five guys burger joint across the street from the site of the stadium district. That, I guess, is certain.
i dont fault him. boras has scared the beejesus out of him. remember, he did fire boras once, then boras put an alien bug into his brain (yes just like the movie the faculty) and now boras controls hochevar.
if we get rid of boras, his "slaves" will be free! quick, where is josh harnett when you need him.
NL West Standings
Standings
Team W L GB Streak
DBacks 19 11 _ Lost 2
PD Dodgers 19 11 _ Won 2
NC Dodgers 15 15 4 Lost 1
Giants 15 15 4 Won 2
Padres 11 19 8 Won 1
Rockies 11 19 8 Lost
PD Dodgers vs DBacks
Pitching Matchup Results
J.Weaver vs R.Ortiz DBacks win 7-3
Game summary: Leadoff man C.Counsell reached base four times, and S.Green's grand slam in the 5th inning iced the game.
.
O.Perez vs B.Halsey PD Dodgers win 6-1
Game summary: J.Drew went 3 for 4 and O.Perez pitched a solid 8+ innings.
.
D.Houlton vs M.Batista PD Dodgers win 6-1
Game summary: H.Choi had 2 walks, 2 doubles and 2 RBIs, D.Houlton limited the DBacks to only 5 hits, as the PD Dodgers caught up to the DBacks in the standings.
http://tinyurl.com/7rkrm
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.