Tony was noble, and perhaps inerested in his credability.

That brings to mind a quote I read on here a few weeks ago from some sportswriter on the Dodger's 2008 season. I think it should be this season's motto.

It is time to get serious.

Sober. Non-hyperbolic. Factual.

Also, I think DodgerThoughts creator Jon, and all commenters in the pro-Ethier camp had a say in this crusade. Great job everybody!

This statement seems to ignore a lot of other factors that might contribute to pitchers performing poorly for Torre, particularly those acquired as free agents or in blockbuster trades.

1. They have their pick of FA pitchers the first year of eligibility. Many of them have "career years" in that final year before free agency -- Jeff Weaver is the perfect example. He got a lot of hype with the Tigers, so the Yanks went for him, expecting he could continue to be a good pitcher. He's not, as the rest of his career has proved. Weaver just one example, Vazquez another, and anyone remember Ed Whitson?

2. For whatever reason, the Yankees were never scared off by age. They must hold the record for big contracts given to 42 year old pitchers. Those are always high-risk plays. Kevin Brown was obviously frail when the Dodgers shipped him off, but the Yankees didn't seem to care. That's on Cashman or Steinbrenner, not Torre.

3. There is an intimidation factor playing for the Yankees that a pitcher accustomed to tiny crowds in Florida or Kansas City sometimes can't deal with. That's been true since long before Torre's era.

His approach didn't seem to hurt Andy Pettite, Mariano Rivera, Mike Mussina, David Cone or El Duque.

I'm not a raving Joe Torre fan, but this is a case of stretching numbers to make a point.

Ethier is obviously the better player. The players know it too. I would think it would be very demoralizing to Ethier if he has to ride the bench.

Damn Colletti. Signing Pierre for five years and $44 million has to be one of the worst moves a Dodger GM has ever made.

Xavier/UCLA 3:40pm PST
Louisville/UNC 6:05pm PST

El Lay Dave
as
Dave

http://tinyurl.com/ypgc9w

Also we are in Section 1 Row 45 down the right field line for Saturday's game.

Any DT posters in the vicinity?

Penny
Lowe
Billingsley
Kuroda
Loaiza

Bullpen (6):

Saito
Broxton
Beimel
Proctor
Kuo
Troncoso

Infielders (6):

Loney
Hu
Furcal
DeWitt (not on 40-man roster)
Martinez (not on 40-man roster)
Sweeney

Outfielders (6):

Jones
Kemp
Ethier
Pierre
Young
Repko

Catchers (2):

Martin
Bennett

15-Day DL: Nomar, LaRoche, Abreu, Kent
60-Day DL: Schmidt

After the game, Joe Torre still wouldn't shed any light on the OF situation.
"I'll let you know when I know," he said.

http://tiny.cc/Reqch

Dave!!!! [David]

Torre said that the need to carry extra infielders could force him to carry 11 pitchers instead of 12, making a situational pitcher like Myers a luxury the team couldn't afford.

Torre said he felt comfortable playing Chin-lung Hu at second base if Kent isn't ready for opening day.

If Kent is ready, is Hu headed for Vegas or is Lucille II released?

One thing however. You cannot say that Dodger Thoughts is the "elephant in the room" and in the next sentence say it's the site that gets all the publicity.

Good comparison of Jon to Sam on Cheers. He is sort of like that.

One thing however. You cannot say that Dodger Thoughts is the "elephant in the room" and in the next sentence say it's the site that gets all the publicity.

Good comparison of Jon to Sam on Cheers. He is sort of like that.

I'm no Ken Levine (in many ways).

Outfielder Andre Ethier, locked in a battle with Juan Pierre for a starting job, had an outstanding night defensively, making a leaping catch at the wall and throwing out two runners, including the potential winning run at the plate in the eighth.

Pierre, meanwhile, went 0 for 5, leaving six runners on base and dropping his average to .179.

Chad Billingsley gets the ball on Friday night at Dodger Stadium against the Red Sox, who send ex-Angel Bartolo Colon out in the 7:40 p.m. PT game

Kuroda would seem to be in line for Saturday.

"We're actually going to open up the outfield wall in straight-away center field," said McCourt. "That way kids and families can come to the field early and get right out into the center-field area -- right out onto the warning track and be able to watch batting practice right from the field surface, so they can interact with the players who are shagging balls -- maybe even catch a few balls that are hit in that direction and maybe get some autographs as well.

Am I too cynical if I think this is a bad idea? Lede: Prior to today's game, Dodger left-fielder Andre Ethier suffered a concussion after being stuck in the head by a batting practice fly ball while he was signing an autograph for a young fan in center field.

"General Manager Ned Colletti maintained that he would continue to look within the organization for a replacement, saying he preferred that to overpaying for what probably will be a short-term solution."

Learning from one's mistakes?

The Solomonic (sp?) approach would be: Start Ethier in recognition of his torrid spring. See how the team plays. If lack of speed is costing the Dodgers games, that will become apparent, and he can always put Pierre back in the lineup.

If Torre really thinks Pierre-the-catalyst is his guy for the next three years, starting Ethier now is still the smart move for the team, because that lets Colletti showcase him for a trade. I'd have to think a #2 or #3 starting pitcher could be had for Ethier right now.

The point is not to let Ethier's value go to waste. For Torre, who probably didn't know Andre Ethier from Andre the Giant until this winter, his emergence as a potential star is like found money. You don't throw it back under the sofa.

A leadoff hitter that is hitting .189....Should I say more?

But you got Rule 9 wrong. We're not to utter the dreaded phrase "no hitter" whether it's an LA pitcher or not. Even if it's a game not involving the Dodgers. I assume it encompasses the minors, college baseball, the Arizona Fall League, Spring Training, and simulated games during rehab assignments.

Just (don't) say "no."

1) of course, Pierre went 0-5, and left 6 men on base. either went 1-4 leaving 1 on base.
pierre had 0 stolen bases, his only real value for the team.
therefore it was another offensive favor for either.
2) Pierre, i heard, almost lost a fly ball in the sun. Ethier didnt do so bad either, having 2 assists...
Therefore, Either's defense unanimously trumped over Pierre's.
3)Furcal was on base 4 out of 5 plate appearances, continue to show that he is healthy and returning to his 2006 form (or better?)
4) Dewitt was great defensively.
5) Loney had his sweet swing in action with an RBI double.

http://tinyurl.com/356dco

I had everything in my car besides my laptop and wallet. Backpack, paychecks, books, clothes, shoes, cds, ipods, golf clubs...they were all in my car.

Fortunately, only the one ipod that was currently connected to my stereo was stolen along with the adapter.

So far everything else is still there.

Awesome night!

"It's exactly as bad as he had to play for there to be any reasonable chance of him being benched in favor of Ethier. Perhaps it will happen."

I do think there was a flaw in the method though, since several highly successful managers like Terry Francona were also on the list. Also, and this is mentioned in the study, is it Torre's fault the Yankees pitchers stunk, or Mel Stottlemeyer's. I think Bobby Cox lead the study, but you have to give most of the credit to Leo Mazonne.

Once Steve comes back, the whole band will be back together.

My comments about Dewitt have been based totally on intuition and that intuitition has led me to say several times that one way or another I thought Dewitt had a better chance to be the third baseman than did LaRoche.

Sometimes I believe intuition is better than statistics in determining who will succeed, especially if one learns to tune into it. No doubt that is a brave thing to say here where stat thinking is so strong.

Are you suggesting that those who thought LaRoche had a better chance were wrong, when the only reason he didn't make it was because of a freak injury?

Sometimes I get stronger feelings about some players than I do others. LaRoche's injury was freak and not chronic, but just the same, it is going to allow Dewitt to get a chance to get closer to him on that ladder.

One way or another I think Dewitt will wind up higher on the ladder than LaRoche. I also feel that eventually the Dodgers will trade for a third baseman and neither Dewitt nor LaRoche will be there after this year.

How did you condlude I was trying to take credit for Dewitt's success or LaRoche's injury?

I note this headline with a Jim Halpert-esque raised eyebrow and sideways glance.

They were in the original article but then I thought why should I put something in that I don't bother reading myself.

I know they were the originals but when I have visited, nothing compelling makes me want to go back.

I hope this paragraph structure meets your approval.

Whenever I visit a new ballpark, I always walk all the way around it to get a feel for the place. It has always bothered me a little bit that Dodger Stadium is so compartmentalized. No way to circle the stands from inside, no downward deck-to-deck access, no grand single entryway (though this has it's advantages).

I like these improvements. Hence, my calling them improvements.

76 - When I heard about Escobar, I immediately figured that that was the Angels reason for the Garland trade. I'm sure they had an idea about Escobar.

I had my car broken into for ~10 CDs and a pack of gum. The 200 books in the backseat were untouched.

* note: by "favorite" I mean not-so-favorite

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725979,00.html

--

The Giants have the poor man's version of Ethier vs. Pierre: Fred Lewis vs. Dave Roberts.
http://tinyurl.com/27778w

Apart from becoming a baseball player, what did you dream of doing as a child? Soyeun Yang, SUPERIOR, COLO.

Baseball is the only thing I ever wanted to do. When I was 16 years old, my brother Frank said, "You'd better become a catcher, because you're too big and fat to do anything else." Well, I took his advice. It was a quick way to get to the big leagues, and I've never regretted it.

Things you learn from people's email addresses.

Penny, Lowe, Billingsley, Kuroda, Loaiza
Saito, Broxton, Proctor, Beimel, Kuo, Park

And OF and catcher are taken care of:

Martin, Bennett
Jones, Kemp, Ethier, Pierre, Young

But the infield...?

Loney, Furcal, Hu, and Sweeney appear to be locks. But if Kent, Abreu, and Nomar are all on the DL, that leaves 3 IF slots open.

Marcus Giles is a possibility as are in-house options DeWitt and Ramon Martinez, but none of those 3 are on the 40-man.

LA only opens one slot by moving Schmidt to the 60-day DL. I assumed Seanez's spot goes to Park. There may be some tough decisions coming on the roster.

wouldn't futile be the wrong word there?

Jason Repko's leaps are futile, I think A Jones only does what is necessary.

Boy those are slim pickin's but given the choice I'd go with Overbay.

Are there any other choices?

In March your team traveled to Beijing for exhibition games. Do you think the pollution there is going to affect the Olympics? Ian Kachemov, HIGHLAND, MD.

The pollution is pretty bad over there. I think it could really have an effect unless they clean it up. You could cut it with a knife.

http://tinyurl.com/3xcwtj

Sure, Ethier is the better outfielder, but also Pierre is a serviceable player in the big leagues. He can play center field and hit better than anybody on here can ever hope to hit or play. Him being a mediocre or even below average outfielder in the big leagues still makes him a really good baseball player.

So sure, I would rather have Ethier playing in the outfield, but I don't think Juan Pierre had much of an impact on the success/failure of the team last year. I would say that watching the entire starting pitching staff fall apart by the end of the year, except for Billingsley, is what really hurt the Dodgers. Not bad chemistry (club house fighting) or Juan Pierre's bad arm.

I guess i get irritated because for people who do look at stats, which I do, there is way too much focus on one part of the team that is a minor problem compared to mediocre pitching staff with a bad manager as was the case last year.

Plus, if all everybody did was agree with each other, things would be boring. So why can't a guy like Tony Jackson or I have a differing view of things? It is invigorating.

Chances are, the worst everyday player in the league can hit better than anyone here. Relative to the general population, I was a pretty good baseball player. Pierre is a phenomenal baseball player if you look at it that way. It still doesn't make him a good major league player. You have to compare him to his peers, not the people writing about him on a blog.

More mediocre middle infielders hitting the market. Gotay is only 25 though, but he seems to be walking salty.

Also, Blalock or Encarnacion to back up Chipper?

Hurry before Kevin Lewis gets any ideas! : )

The Juan Pierre thing isnt even a debate, bc a debate would have two viewpoints.

The Juan Pierre thing is a question that has a correct answer and an incorrect answer.

If Tony Jackson gives the incorrect answer to the Juan Pierre question, he needs to be corrected. Going through life thinking incorrect thoughts is well stupidity.

As far as last year, the people that emphasize the Juan Pierre thing do so because that is one of the aspects of the team that can be controlled--playing time. There is no control over a starting pitching staff getting hurt.

Why complain about something that cant be fixed (injuries), when there are things that can be (allocating playing time, playing the right players, acquiring the right players, etc).

LaRoche and Garko will give you more power, but your %'s will suffer.

119 Thinking the opposite of the general consensus just to do so is not invigorating, it's foolish. I genuinely believe Tony actually thought Pierre had a chance to start in LF. Juan's poor play this spring has made the decision much easier for management even though it was clear to most of us last year. Tony's reporting the news. At least he's not another Plaschke.

Is it really boring for everyone to believe the earth is round, or for a few to believe the earth is flat?

121 He led the league in outs for one year, in 2006, but he also led the league in at bats that year. Statistically, that would happen to anyone who has that many at bats.

122 I am only saying that he is average major leaguer.

Meanwhile, the Dodgers were 10th in runs scored, and while Pierre wasn't the entire cause of that, I'd say it was a fairly big factor.

*cargill06 does believe ethier should start and both pierre and ethier are handling the situation poorly.

My only real disagreement with you is that you say Juan Pierre is an average baseball player, I'd call him modestly below average.

My fault with the JP situation last year was that he never was considered as being part of the rotation of outfielders once Kemp came up in June. Even a day off here or there might have helped to calm down the situation with the other 3 outfielders.

I believe that there are 2 issues with Pierre, one was the length of his contract, which Pierre cannot be blamed for, heck who wouldn't sign a 5-year 44 million dollar deal. The second is that his game relies on one thing only, that is getting singles and then stealing bases. And to his credit, he does that part well, probably the best in baseball.

But he doesn't do anything else offensively, defensively, once he got adjusted to Dodger Stadium, he covered enough area but his arm was severly tested and probably he was run on more than the average CF.

But once the Dodgers signed Andruw Jones, you knew he was going to play CF and then whatever defensive strength Pierre had with his speed became less important in a corner position and his offensive flaws became even bigger since you expect some power from that spot.

Finally, certainly, if you frequent DT enough, open debate is welcomed and by now, I certainly know where a lot of regulars stand on these issues. What Tony Jackson said at the beginning of Spring Training was his opinion and he is welcome to it, and he can change his mind and that's fine too. And there are times when I think message boards get real sensitive about what the media says about their team so I think there was some of that too.

134 I didn't say my opinion wasn't allowed. I expect an argument.

If you dont believe the Juan Pierre thing is a right/wrong clear cut decision, then you'll obviously not understand the viewpoint from which those that do are coming from.

I have two tickets to the Coliseum game tomorrow, but I can't make it.

I am asking $20 total for the two tickets ($10 each). That's 50% off face value -- and it's what I paid for the tickets.

Email me at toddhatesspam@yahoo.com if you are interested.

If you want the tickets you will have to pick them up from me. I work in Culver City and I live near Aviation and Rosecrans in Hawthorne.

Trust me, I'm bummed that I can't go.

The Dodgers have 3 better outfielders right now who should play ahead of him. There were years when that might not have been true but it is true now.

1. Torre is leaning toward 11 pitchers.
2. Nomar is headed for the DL
3. DeWitt has a good chance to be the opening day 3B
4. Park has an excellent chance to win the last bullpen spot
5. Ethier has "won" the LF job
6. Hu has secured a spot on the roster
7. R. Martinez is a fall-back option for the bench [and there's been plenty of falling]

Things that are possible:

1. Kent is healthy enough for opening day
2. Troncoso wins the last bullpen spot
3. Repko heads to AAA

All those things considered, here's my prediction for our opening day 25 man roster:

[Starting 8] Martin/Loney/Kent/Furcal/DeWitt/Ethier/Jones/Kemp

[Bench 6] Bennett/Pierre/Young/Sweeney/Hu/Martinez

[Rotation 5] Penny/Lowe/Bills/Kuroda/Loaiza

[Bullpen 6] Saito/Broxton/Beimel/Proctor/Kuo/Park

It's nothing personal. It's as simple as that. Pierre would be a good bench player or perhaps a starter on a team with worse outfielders. For the Dodgers, he should not start. It's really that simple.

I agree his value is tied up in this skill, which is a young player's skill, and he is no longer young. I also agree with the majoritarian view that Pierre has little value to the Dodgers, certainly not enough to keep him employed at his current salary, and not enough to displace either Andre Ethier or Matt Kemp from their respective outfield corner spots.

But I thought I'd throw that out there.

Back to hiding, now.

140 I said it was a bad analogy because it is kind of like comparing apples with oranges which is another bad analogy. argh. He says that the Pierre situation is an open and shut case and there is no second viewpoint. I say it isn't and that there are other facets of the ball club to explore. I am open to reasoning and facts. My wife is a lawyer, I have to be.

Having Kent healthy means that they'd only need a 3B and a utility infielder.

That's just plain wrong. A better hitter, given the same number of plate appearances, would make fewer outs. That's how we know he's a better hitter. But to point out that Pierre led the league in outs is not to criticize Juan Pierre for some kind of failure of judgment. The failure of judgment goes to the guy who allowed him to have so many plate appearances (by playing him every day and batting him so high in the lineup) and the guy who paid him a gazillion dollars to fill that role.

Pierre is what he is. It's not his fault he's not as good as Andre Ethier (who is good, but not great himself). The complaining might seem like it's directed at the player, but it's not. It's directed at the guys who keep running the player out there.

We are not talking physics here but human beings. Marlon Anderson is the best example of that.

156 I don't know because you guys are comparing baseball stats that are interpreted in different ways with physical facts like the earth being round. I mean, I can see that Juan Pierre is the height he is and that Andre Ethier is a certain height as well. And if I go into outer space I can see that the earth is round. But I can only interpret stats that are used to evaluate a game that isn't exact. I can base a theory on what will likely happen in baseball by using stats but itis still open to chance.

I can't keep up with all the reply's right now. So I am sorry and I should be writing a paper.

The problem is not that Juan Pierre lead the league in outs, in a nutshell that means nothing. The problem is he lead the league in outs and didn't provide enough offense for the times he did get on base to negate the number of outs he made.

I really really dislike the "he lead the leauge in outs" as a reason for why Juan Pierre is not a good baseball player. Anyone can lead the league in outs if given enough at bats, even HOF players.

Except Cliff Claven isn't funny.

Most painfully unfunny guys who people think are funny:

1. Keith Olberman

2. Norm McDonald (Saturday Night Live news anchor mid '90s.) Wry delivery does not equal funny. It equals wry delivery. Which comforts people who feel they're in on the in-side joke. Only there's no joke.

3. Dennis Miller - Similar wry-phenomenon as McDonald. Willfully obscure to obscure lack of real wit.

4. Doonesbury

5. Harry Anderson (Night Court judge)

6. Cheers (pleasant, likeable characters...just not all that funny...at all).

7. MASH - I couldn't so much as muster a smirk in over 30,000 episodes. (OK maybe a few times for Larry Linville as Frank Burns.) Hawkeye's et al. compulsive wisecracking is not funny, it's annoying, and in real life people roll their eyes at such guys and try and sneak past their cubicles.

8. Things that Charlie Steiner thinks are hackingly funny.

9. Boondocks cartoon (Aaron McGruder)

10. Richard Lewis. Richard Lewis especially in Curb Your Enthusiasm. What WOULD be funny is if they let the camera roll after "cut" so we could hear what Larry David probably always says to him after each take, "You know Richard, it's weird, you're actually not that funny. Not funny at all in fact." And to hear Richard simply agree with him and collect his check.

11. Eddie Griffin - Should be funny but isn't.

12 Richard Pryor - Funny in some movies. But his famed stand-up performances are funny only in spurts. The rest of the time everyone sits in silence waiting for the "genius" stuff to arrive. (Could have been a fine dramatic actor).

13. David Letterman - Paul Schaffer banter.

14. Sportswriters and sportcasters...basically, jocks and everyone connected with jocks. (Some exceptions)

15. And the All Time Most Unfunny Funny Guy...David Brenner. I'm SO glad he was 2 generations before me. Sorry you 60's and 70's dudes had to endure him for 20 years.

And a special award for The Guy You'd Think is Unfunny but is Actually Super Funny:

Michael Kinsley

The evidence points to the offense as weakness of the team, especially given their 2006 output (4th in the NL in runs). Pierre & Furcal led the team in PA's which is not surprising given their 1/2 lineup positions. Furcal had an obvious explanation for his brutal 76 OPS+ season. Pierre's 75+ was right in line with his prior 2 seasons. So long story short, Pierre really was disproportionally responsible for the offense underperforming vs. 2006. If the alternative was Repko then it's just a waste of $9M/yr. But when we all know Ethier/Kemp/Gonzalez could have played everyday- you're talking 30+ runs left on the table.

The first is: Does a player with Pierre's perceived attributes -- speed, base-stealing ability, making contact -- actually help a team as much as has been traditionally assumed? These attributes supposedly define the "classic leadoff hitter," but it's open to question whether the "classic leadoff hitter" is such a big help.

The second is: Does Pierre even fulfill the role assigned to him? As a base-stealer, probably yes. But he isn't really a "classic leadoff hitter" because he isn't enough of an offensive threat. Pitchers clearly aren't afraid of him. He shortens innings for them, especially the first inning.

Then there's his defense. A team will carry an offensive underperformer at SS, 2B, C and CF if there is a compensating defensive gain. In Pierre's case, however, he was a liability. He was the kind of CF you carry only if he's a major offensive threat.

Clearly, Pierre is the type of player beloved by baseball traditionalists. That's why his name is so often associated with phrases like "he plays the game the right way," "intangibles" and "doesn't show up in the stats." His defenders are really defending that type of baseball, which they see as threatened by the "stat geeks" who are said to revere walks, home runs and to discount speed and defense. Which is a caricature anyway, but the real point is, Juan Pierre doesn't even measure up to the criteria his advocates claim for him. He's no Ty Cobb. He's not even Brett Butler, or Dave Roberts.

On top of all that, with Furcal healthy, Pierre's redundant. Having two speedy leadoff hitters isn't "old-school," it's making a virtue out of an avoidable roster situation. Furcal is the more typical contemporary leadoff hitter anyway -- a guy who can hit doubles and home runs as well as get singles and walks, in the mold of Rickey Henderson.

What's happening to Pierre is sad for those who call him a friend or who admire his work ethic, but I'll be shocked if his presence in the lineup is missed. Sometimes I think he insists on playing every day and maintaining his "streak" because, subconsciously, he knows how minuscule his contribution really is, and figures that if the team wins without him, he'll be exposed at last.

Really, I'm just kidding :)

Should I tell him? Nah, I need to reduce my snark content.

Frip, I agree with about half the list, and I respect your opinion.