2009 August 01 « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness

Somewhere In New York, MSTI’s Head Has Exploded

August 1, 2009 at 7:50 am | Posted in Andre Ethier, George Sherrill, Jason Schmidt, Miss Cleo | 5 Comments

So, I know what some of you are thinking.

“Oh, MSTI, you have some ‘splaining to do! Schmidt picked up another win. HA!”

But, see, guys, he doesn’t have to admit any wrongdoing. In fact, I argue, we should be thanking the man. Let’s go back through the history, this year:

On May 13th, 2009, MSTI writes about James Loney’s inability to hit a HR.

The next two games? Two HR’s!

On June 18th, 2009, MSTI then posts about Russell Martin’s issues and lack of power.

Two days later, he hits his first HR.

On July 20th, 2009, Jason Schmidt returns to the mound. He has a horrific first inning. During the first inning, MSTI says it’s all over for Schmidt.

Three hours later? His first win in two years.

MSTI doesn’t post about Schmidt before his second start and he gets shelled against Florida.

Right afterwards, MSTI again calls Schmidt done.

His next start? Somehow, Christopher Lloyd comes out of the woodwork, turns the clock back to 2006, and Schmidt turns in his best performance as a Dodger and picks up another win!

I’m not sure what to call it, though. See, I don’t want to call it: “The MSTI Curse” because the word “curse” seems to imply something bad and obviously these effects have been anything but bad, so I’ll leave it to you guys to find the name. But either way, the effects have been quite nice and, by the way, do note the power that we here have at MSTI. When MSTI also took off for the weekend last June, I took over, only for the Dodgers to win their no-hit game against the Angels. He leaves again from mid-July through early August, and we get Manny.

The point? Don’t mess with us, my friends. And, dammit, if you see this man, buy him a beer!
Eat your heart out, Miss Cleo!

But on to the game and I’ll be brief with it
because there’s not much to say and it’s past 7 A.M. and I’ve yet to sleep. Anyways, Schmidt was pretty much unbelievable, today. He wasn’t necessarily dominating, but he was better than I ever thought we’d see, going 6 innings of 1 hit, scoreless baseball. The downside is he did walk 5 and struck out 3, but he seemed to have good control on his pitches, and his curveball was working. Even the fastball seemed to have, for the most part, a touch more velocity, occasionally hitting 87 MPH and, in the final inning, touching 89 MPH, which shocked me.

Now the big question: was it skill or more luck? To be honest, it seemed to be a bit of both. On one hand, Schmidt did look better than his previous starts, both in terms of stuff and velocity, but on the other hand, he also had the great fortunate of having a lot of the fly balls he gave up go to someone. In other words, even if the Braves hit a ball hard, it was going right at someone so, in that sense, he lucked out. Either way, it’s been a long road back, and while he can very likely implode from here on out, it was definitely impressive to see at least for one game and it was a game that was nice to win, after the mess in St. Louis. Other notes from the game: props to your reigning NL Player Of The Week, Andre Ethier, for his performance, hitting the 3 run HR and then picking up a key RBI double late in the game and also big props to George Sherrill, making his debut in the 7th inning in a two on, 0 out jam. Sherrill came on and proved why he’s death on lefties, striking out the side and allowing one walk. He looked lethal and if he can keep it up, our bullpen will just continue to be sick.

Overall, a nice win and, hey, whatdoyaknow, a two game winning streak. After this past week, a two game winning streak seemed long way away. Nonetheless, today’s game is at 1 P.M. on FOX and we see Lowe. Let’s win this ya, alright?

- Vin

Bigmouth Strikes Again, Part II

August 1, 2009 at 7:45 am | Posted in Bill Plaschke, Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw | 3 Comments

Yes, folks, he’s back,. Actually, he was back yesterday, with some crap article on Manny which I’m not even going to link, but, for my own sanity, I skipped it. But today, I just can’t resist. I try to resist, I really do, but it’s just so hard. It’s therapy for me, despite the fact that with the amount of columns he’s putting out lately, we might have to rename ourselves: “Fire Bill Plaschke.com.”

Anyways, he’s back today, whining about the ace the Dodgers failed to get. Because pissing off Dodger fans wasn’t enough, he decides to also devote his article to pissing off Angels fans too, but, for the sake of brevity, I’ll just post most of the pertinent Dodger quotes. Ironically, his article is entitled: “Dodgers, Angels make risky bets,” but it’s not half as risky as if you actually read the whole thing. I assure you.

Take it away, WPS!

Both teams have done this before, refusing to imitate the big-market
swagger of the New York Yankees, shunning the win-it-now attitude of
the Boston Red Sox, preferring to trust stopwatches instead of wallets.

Refuse to imitate the “big market swagger?” Not opening up their wallets? Hey Kevin Malone, is that you? If not, then, here’s a bit of a history lesson, WPS… but… hey… do the names Kevin Brown, Darren Dreifort, Shawn Green, Jason Schmidt, J.D. Drew, Juan Pierre, and Andruw Jones ring a bell? And, hey, I can’t even stand the Angels, but Vladimir Guerrero, Bartolo Colon, Kelvim Escobar, Gary Matthews, Jr., and Torii Hunter are all on line one. Does it also ring a bell when the Dodgers have been, sans 2005, in the top 10 in payroll every year with payrolls very near, but mostly above $100 million? Same with the Angels since Arte took over. Not bad for a bunch of cheapasses!

Oh yeah, I forgot another thing: for all of your grumbling about these two teams constantly holding back, wasn’t it these two teams who, this time last year, made the two biggest blockbusters when the Angels got Teixiera and the Dodgers got… oh, what was his name again… ah, that’s right… Manny fucking Ramirez?! I figured YOU, out of all people, would know that, given your fetish with smearing him every chance you get since May.

It
suits local fans who feel as if they are growing up with the kids. It
suits local bankers by keeping their payrolls manageable.

Problem is, it doesn’t do much for the local ring industry.

So a team with young kids is detrimental to the “local ring industry?” And therefore, as WPS will imply later, that’s a reason why the Dodgers haven’t won in so long? Yeah, because you know what I’m really pissed off at over the past 21 years? That the Dodgers didn’t spend the 1990′s trading away MORE young talent and spending MORE money on older players and kissing away the future. Yeah, that’s right. In fact, Bill, there was a time when YOU were sick of it, too. Remember in 1999, which was, of course, a year after you advocated the Piazza trade (only to go 360 on it six months later, by the way), that you got sick of the Dodgers play to the point where you yourself advocated a youth movement to get back to “winning ways?” And that was all despite the fact that those Dodgers were in the midst of doing everything you’re advocating these Dodgers do now: establish themselves as that big market, “go for it now,” checkbook opening team. They even had the 7th highest payroll in all of baseball that year.

Didn’t quite help out that ring industry, did it?

In the last 21 years, the Dodgers and Angels have combined to win only one championship.

Really? Only one? So given that 21 years ago was 1988, did the A’s really win in 1988 or did the Giants really win in 2002 and that guy who used to be the Iraqi Information Minister is just lying to us? Dammit!

During that same time, the Yankees and Red Sox have combined to win six championships.

Hey, he might be able to count after all! Nonetheless, very deceptive, William. Did you also remember to mention that, while those Yankee teams did have their share of veterans, they also won their championships in the 1990′s on the backbone of players like Jeter, Williams, Pettitte, and Rivera? You know, all the guys who came out of their farm system. Thank God you weren’t in charge, though, because since Andy Pettitte’s first two postseason series (1995 and 1996 ALDS) weren’t anything to write home about (4 ER’s in each start), you would have shipped him out. And, remember, the Yankees of 1996-2000 weren’t the “hey, let’s spend more money than every team combined” Yankees of 2001-present. Yes, their payroll was always near or at the top, but it was at least very close. Ironically, this defeats your point: what have those big spending Yankees won in 9 years?

As for the Red Sox? I’ll concede that 2004 was largely a group of veterans, but 2007 is a bit different: what about the performances of Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Elsbury, Jon Lester, Daisuke Matzusaka, and even Kevin Youkillis, who was, for the most part, playing in his real first postseason (only 2 AB’s in 2004 playoffs)? Does that sound like the reckless “win it now” attitude you claim they have?

Yeah, I guess I can see your point; really didn’t do anything for the ring industry either, did it?

Billingsley has given up 22 runs in his last 26 1/3 innings and was rocked in two NL Championship Series starts last October.

And, in fact, totally rocked the Cubs in the NLDS that same postseason. Again, why is that forgotten?

Kershaw, still only 21, has given up only three earned runs in his last
38 innings, but his next playoff start will be his first.

Yo, Cliff Lee, here. I’m the guy that Plaschke advocated the Dodgers should get. But do you wanna know a secret? Do you promise not to tell? Cool. Well… the truth is, I haven’t ever started a postseason game either! Shhhhh… (whispers) seeeeeeecret…

Billingsley was one player the Dodgers could have traded without much uproar but didn’t.

Hey, wait… something doesn’t seem right here… didn’t you just say a few days ago…

No, you don’t trade Kershaw and, even though it’s tempting, you don’t trade a 24-year-old Billingsley.

Ah, he DID say that! You liar! I feel SO violated.

The Dodgers will fight through with a starting pitching tandem of Chad
Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw, both of whom have postseason talent
but lack postseason pedigree.

Two things, here. First off, which pitchers don’t “fight through?” Why is it just the Dodgers? Secondly, ignoring all the vaguery of the terms “postseason talent” and “postseason pedigree,” if WPS means “postseason pedigree” in the terms of them lacking postseason history and experience, then way to contradict the whole argument, for both Billingsley and Kershaw on their own have more postseason history and experience than either Halladay or Lee combined. So given that we’ve settled the “postseason pedigree” part of this, then that leaves us with the “postseason talent” aspect, which you say both Dodgers have. Now, surely, you think Halladay and Lee have them too. However, given your articles and the quote above, you seem to place a much greater emphasis on pedigree. So, given your stronger emphasis on “postseason pedigree,” then shouldn’t it logically follow that you advocate Billingsley and Kershaw above Halladay and Lee?

Colletti stuck with them. He will now have to win with them.

Correction: not only can he win with them, but they have won with them. In fact, if it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

If Philadelphia shows up again, the young Dodgers have to keep down those pitches.

And, what, if we get to face Philadelphia, Lee gets to keep them up? What the hell does this mean? Only young pitchers get to keep their pitches down?