Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness

Have you ever noticed this particular fetish around baseball?

It seems to me that most people throughout Major League Baseball, and even a lot of its fans, suffer from this fetish. Let me define it:

The Speed Fetish seems to be a condition in which a person puts an overemphasis on the need of speed, to the point where it clouds their judgment on the actual value of the player.

It ties in to the very situation of the Dodgers’ outfield and with, yes, you know who. Here at MSTI, our feelings about Juan Pierre have been pretty obvious: as a person, it’s very difficult not to like him. You’ve heard the common pleasantries associated with him: he’s a hard worker, shows up to work early, leaves late, and takes pride in his job. That’s great and we admire him for it. However, we don’t really care much for him as a baseball player. Not because we necessarily dislike the type of game he plays, but simply because, generally, he’s not really that good at it. Having said that, the main reason for starting him amongst his supporters usually rests on his best asset: speed. Because it’s valuable and he can wreck havoc, this will help the team win.

Essentially, it breaks down to this:

1. Speed is a valuable asset to have in baseball.
2. Juan Pierre has tremendous speed

3. Therefore, Juan Pierre is a good baseball player.

The problem with this logic, of course, is that it doesn’t follow. While speed is definitely a valuable asset to have in baseball, it’s not ALL the tools that make a great baseball player. To make an analogy, if I could hit a great forehand in tennis, does that mean I can now take on Roger Federer or play in the ATP? Or, in golf, if my putting game is good, does that mean I can now compete on Sunday with Tiger Woods? Or if I can make free throws, can I now go one on one with Kobe Bryant? No, because these tools in isolation do not make me a great or even good tennis player, basketball player, or golfer. Saying that it would be wouldn’t be charitable, as there are a lot more skills that it takes to be good in these sports. So, I argue, in baseball, having the ability to run shouldn’t be enough to make someone a good baseball player, a term which I’ll define in more detail later. This also applies to other isolated talents. For instance:

1. Power is a valuable asset to have in baseball.
2. Billy Ashley had tremendous power

3. Therefore, Billy Ashley was a good baseball player.

The goal of any hitter, whether you’re hitting leadoff or 8th, is to get on base and prolong the inning as long as possible. In other words, don’t make an out. By accomplishing these objectives, you will score a lot of runs. So, based on this, it should be pertinent that the hitter get on base by any means possible, be it through a hit, walk, or HBP. All of these statistics, of course, are measured through various statistics, most notably OBP.

Now, all of this is common sense and some of you might be saying: “Yeah, no shit!” Yet, these common principles get lost by most baseball analysts and, sadly, even amongst the game’s managers and executives. On practically a daily basis, you hear people at ESPN or your local newspaper say that player X is good because “he hit .300,” or “so and so needs to play because he had X amount of RBI’s, last year.” Of course, it’s usually the same people who claim not to like statistics, but what do those things mean? “He hit .300?” O.K., did he hit for power? Did he get on base much? Or he won 20 games. How was their ERA, their K/9 ratio? Did they allow many runners on? The point is, these things in isolation only provide a small piece of the puzzle and these numbers in isolation should not justify reasonable evidence one way or the other; and it’s not just statistics, it also applies to the same tired, meaningless, and dumb cliches that’s part of baseball vocabulary. Saying that Juan Pierre should play because he works hard is just as ridiculous as when Joe Torre said before the season that Blake DeWitt would get the 3rd base nod “because of the way he conducts himself.” Now when the latter case hits the crap out of the ball, those things are easier to get on board with, but they still don’t tell the story.

To illustrate my point, when you choose a doctor, do you select one based on JUST whether he shows up to work a couple of hours early or leaves an hour later after work? Or solely because his rates are good? Or just because he serves good coffee in the waiting room with cable TV? I’d venture to guess no. The point is: while both qualities are favorable, and qualities you’d like to have in a doctor, they don’t tell the whole story, and don’t really tell much on their abilities, one way to another. And, once again, it’s not being charitable, for there’s more to being a doctor, just as there is more to being a baseball player.

So, where am I going with this and how does it relate to speed?

Because this fallacy really tends to expose itself with the speedsters of the game. The common thought process tends to be that, if you can run, then you’re best served hitting leadoff, regardless of your actual ability to get on base and hitting abilities. You’re fast, therefore, that’s enough.

Of course, this is illogical and, once again, only takes one ability into account. If the name of the game for an offense is to get on base and score runs, then getting on base is of the utmost importance. Because your leadoff hitter will likely end up getting the most at-bats throughout the season, would it not make the most sense to put the guy who gets on base the most at the top, regardless of how fast he is? One of the few people who seemed to understand this concept was Theo Epstein, who had speedster Coco Crisp hitting 9th last year, while hitting OBP machine Kevin Youkillis at the top of the order. I would hardly say their offense, or season, suffered.

Yet, in L.A., our management doesn’t get this. Yes, even the staunchest of critics should acknowledge that Juan Pierre has justified some of his playing time this year and, shockingly, he has been the best center fielder above the horrific play of Andruw Jones. Yet, whether we like it or not, salary plays into the equation and, despite how horrible Jones truly has been (and that’s understating it…), and despite how he deserves to ride the bench, he’s still going to start. Joe Torre has said as much.

The problem is that it has a horrific side effect, especially compounded by the injury to Rafael Furcal: because of the one outfield spot remaining, they instead have felt it’s a good idea to bench one of your best outfielders in place of Pierre, because, somehow, we need speed at the top, regardless of anything else. The simple fact of the matter is, even despite Pierre’s improved play thus far, Andre Ethier is STILL a better player with a lot more value. Because of this, it is inexcusable that he has started 4 out of the last 10 games. It’s a joke.

Not that I need to, but:

Ethier: .306 BA, .299 EqA, 3 HR, 15 RBI’s, .385 OBP, .463 SLG, .848 OPS, 119 OPS+, 2 SB, 0 CS, 8.3 VORP

Pierre: .281 BA, .268 EqA, 0 HR, 12 RBI’s, .360 OBP, .326 SLG, .686 OPS, 80 OPS+, 13 SB, 1 CS, 3.7 VORP

Ethier, despite sitting on the bench for most of the past 10 games, is still outperforming Pierre, and it’s not by a slim margin. Which raises the question: why does this whole debate continue to be one that’s almost become political? This is not a matter of opinion or something relative to what one thinks. It’s an objective fact that Andre Ethier is a better baseball player than Juan Pierre and, therefore, has more value, based on the very definition of a good hitter and what they are supposed to do. The fact that he shows up to work early and leaves late and works hard is irrelevant. I’m sure Ethier works quite hard, as well.

Some of the common defenses from managers and others to this is due to the fact that it “brings a different dynamic,” or “shakes things up.” But is that necessarily good? Does a “different dynamic” or “shaking things up” equate to help winning baseball games? If I had my 5 year old nephew hitting leadoff instead, that would also bring a “different dynamic” to the game that would certainly shake things up. Of course, I doubt anyone in their right mind would argue that it would be a good idea.

Yet, I think this lays as the fundamental problem with Dodgers’ management between Andre Ethier and Juan Pierre. At the very least, they seem to think that Pierre’s game is of equal value to Ethier’s, yet it’s not. A person who hits for power, gets on base at a higher clip and has the ability to get to second base on one swing will always be more valuable than someone without power, where they have to bunt, and claw their way to first base and then steal their way to second. The latter, of course, looks more exciting, yes, but exciting doesn’t necessarily mean better.

The problem with the way the organization has handled things is that they have now easily fallen prey to the Little League mentality, where no one necessarily gets playing time based on whether they deserve it, but, rather, whether they have played or not. Yet that’s how the Dodgers have handled this situation the past two years: like a Little League team. “Come out of the game, Andre, you’re going to sit on the bench for a little bit, because little Juan needs to get his playing time, now!” Some people think this is good, as it keeps people on their toes, yet the other side of it is that, at least in Ethier’s case, it can add unnecessary stress regarding job security and the inconsistent playing time can also lead to becoming rusty. Especially when Ethier hasn’t even been used in pinch hitting duties during his time on the bench.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say having a speed game is worthless; it’s not. Yet it is absurd to bench arguably your best outfielder with a superior value, simply because the other can run, and therefore, you must have speed at the top. You don’t. What I propose is that more people, when evaluating a baseball player, look at the player’s overall game as a whole, rather than isolating one or two of his abilities. Because, by isolating just a couple of their abilities, you completely misuse statistics and, thus, whatever conclusion you get is distorted. And it goes both ways. Juan Pierre shouldn’t be deemed a good baseball player JUST because he can steal bases, the same way someone like, say, Adam Dunn shouldn’t be deemed a bad baseball player JUST because he strikes out a lot. By cherry picking a few stats, I could easily argue that Albert Pujols is a bad baseball player, because he only stole 2 bases last year, while getting caught 6 times. Those numbers alone don’t prove that he was a bad player anymore than deeming a person great because he had 90 RBI’s. To quote Rod Stewart: “Every Picture Tells A Story,” yet you need the complete picture first before you can tell the story.

Over at the Big Blue Wrecking Crew, my preferred Dodgers discussion board, a discussion began recently which really pointed out the amazing progression of the third base situation over the last six weeks or so. We’ve gone from having the main two competitors getting hurt in the same game; to scanning the trade winds for anyone resembling a third baseman; to having an untested rookie forced into a situation which he had no business being in; to now having a surplus in the coming days.

So let’s take a look at what’s going to happen here in the near future. With Blake DeWitt having the 2nd-best OPS on the team and a sterling glove, how can we really send him down? Now that Andy LaRoche is healthy and hitting well in Vegas, how long can we keep him down there? What to do about Nomar Garciaparra, who is likely to begin a short rehab assignment this week? Finally, Terry Tiffee is still hitting .430/.471/.630 in Vegas, and just how long does he have to keep that up before we consider this more than a fluke?

Let’s go with the process of elimination. 

I like Terry Tiffee as much as anyone, but while I’m more than willing to dump Mark Sweeney and bring him up to be a bat off the bench, what he’s doing is so far off his career history that I can’t really see him as a real option to be the everyday starter. That said, I don’t particularly like the idea of letting this guy waste the hottest streak of his life in the minors, so I’d like to either bring him up or try to trade him - but I’m not exactly ready to install him as “the guy”. So he’s out.

Then there’s Nomar. He’s cooked. There’s no way around it. He’s probably the 4th best hitter right now of the 4, and while I guess I really have no idea how good of a defensive 3B Tiffee is, I think I can safely say Nomar’s 3rd at best of the 4, behind DeWitt and LaRoche. Look, I know we all like the guy. Angelenos love him because he’s a local boy, and I personally enjoyed his dominance for years, as his peak coincided with my college years spent in Boston. But he had a 78 OPS+ in 2007, and in between two DL stints already, he’s at 66 this year. (Remember, 100 is the league average for that year. This means he’s 34% worse than your average NL hitter this year.) It’s tough for everyone to admit it, but he can’t hit, field, or stay healthy.  But he does have the biggest name, and makes by far the most money - so of course I have no doubt he’ll get the most playing time when he’s healthy.

Really, to me, it’s between Andy LaRoche and Blake DeWitt. I think we all agree that LaRoche has the higher ceiling, but how do you move DeWitt when he’s got the 2nd highest OPS on the team? Think about that for a second: other than Rafael Furcal, who is probably one of the top 5 players in baseball thus far in 2008, Blake DeWitt has the highest OPS on the Dodgers. Plus, I know I’ve been through these stats before but they continue to amaze me every single time:

Blake Dewitt, 2008, as compared to all MLB 3B with at least 75 at-bats
BA: .323 (3rd)
OBP: .398 (5th)
SLG: .479 (8th)
OPS: .877 (5th)
Range Factor: 3.42 (1st)
Zone Rating: .835 (5th)
VORP: 9.2 (6th)

Remember, that’s in all of Major League Baseball. Do you remember at the beginning of the season when we seriously wondered if he’d be able to manage .200, whether the crushing disappointment he was sure to receive at the MLB level would torpedo the entire rest of his career, and whether we could possibly live with such a player until Nomar/LaRoche were healthy? Now he’s practically an All-Star. Right now, I just cannot see moving DeWitt. Will he keep it up? Who knows? But at this point, anything is possible.

However, we also can’t just let LaRoche sit in AAA; he obviously has nothing left to prove there. He’s also proving that he’s healthy; in 12 games in Las Vegas, he’s got a .324/.500/.676 line with 4 homers and a fantastic 2/12 K/BB ratio. Leaving him there is letting a good talent stagnate, and he deserves his shot in the majors too.

So what to do? You can’t move DeWitt, yet you can’t deny LaRoche his chance any longer. Here’s what I do: absolutely nothing until Rafael Furcal proves he is healthy. In the meantime, get LaRoche some playing time at 2B in Vegas. No, I’m not so sold on DeWitt that I’m willing to tell LaRoche he’s completely off of third base, but as a college SS it’d be worth it to see if he can handle it - I’ll explain this more in a second. Once Furcal is back and shows he can play every day, send down Chin-Lung Hu and activate Nomar; DFA Mark Sweeney and bring up LaRoche. This benefits Hu by letting him play SS every day in preparation for an everyday gig in 2009, either in LA if Furcal isn’t signed or elsewhere if he is. This also benefits the Dodgers by no longer having Mark Sweeney taking up a roster spot - he’s hitting .154 (4-26) and provides no defensive value whatsoever. On a team with a roster crunch like this squad is about to have, there’s just no place for a dedicated pinch-hitter who can’t even do that.

If LaRoche shows he’s not a total butcher at 2B in AAA (I don’t believe he would be, as he was a college SS, and besides, Delwyn Young did start at 2B on Sunday and there’s no way he’s worse than that) we get him time at both 2B and 3B. I agree with those who say that a week or two at 2B in the minors isn’t enough for a full fledged position switch, but he just has to be Kent’s caddy there, not an everyday thing. Figure DeWitt starts 4-5 days a week at 3B, LaRoche gets 2-3 starts a week at 3B, 1 at 2B, and more time subbing for Kent in the late innings.

Here’s the tricky part: it makes Nomar our backup SS (and 1B, without Sweeney, which is fine by me). When Furcal is healthy, he plays every single day. I’m sure Nomar’s not great at SS these days, but I think I could live with a former All-Star at the position having to play there, in a very limited capacity, every once in a while. If anything happens to Furcal where we need more than a one-day replacement at SS, Hu is only a short trip away in Vegas. Where Terry Tiffee remains in this scenario, I suppose, as even more depth if (okay, when) Nomar hurts himself again.

And hey, after writing this but before posting it, I see Ken Gurnick agrees with me!

What would you do when Garciaparra returns?
– Glen W., Hollywood, Calif.

Assuming DeWitt continues to handle the position well, I would turn Garciaparra into the versatile utility infielder that the Dodgers desperately need. During the offseason, when it was assumed that LaRoche would make a strong bid for the starting third-base job, Garciaparra was being readied for moving all around the infield. Clearly, second baseman Jeff Kent at age 40 needs more rest than in earlier years. Rafael Furcal just missed a week with a bad back and the offense really sputtered without him. Garciaparra’s ability to play all four infield positions would make it easier for the Dodgers to keep 12 pitchers. Plus, Garciaparra has been injured repeatedly since coming to the Dodgers and spot duty might help him avoid injuries. And regardless of DeWitt’s relative inexperience, he’s done nothing to show that he doesn’t deserve to keep playing.

The benefits of this plan include:
* Seeing if Blake DeWitt keep this performance up; if not, simply stop playing LaRoche at 2B and recall Hu
* Finding out if Andy LaRoche can prove he can hit in the majors
* Discovering if LaRoche can prove to be adequate at 2B; if so, we might have our post-Kent plan right there
* Letting Chin-Lung Hu play every day in AAA rather than man the bench in the bigs
* Relegating Nomar to backup 1B/3B/SS/vet bat off the bench, which is really where he ought to be anyway
* Upgrading the offense from the bench (Hu/Sweeney to Nomar/LaRoche is just no comparison)
* Improving defensive flexibility, as we’d have three 3B candidates instead of our current one, and Sweeney is almost a non-factor in the field anyway.

Really, the only downsides here are a defensive downgrade off the bench, as obviously Hu is far superior to anyone else, and the possibility of Nomar being unhappy with his bench position. I suppose you could also point out that losing Sweeney’s left-handed bat and replacing him with two right-handed bats hurts the pinch-hitting strategies, but I find that to be a non-issue as Young is a switch-hitter and either Either or Pierre are usually on the bench anyway.

As for me, I love this plan so much that I know it will NEVER EVER HAPPEN.

- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness