2010 February « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness

A Final Word on The Offseason Infield Acquisitions

February 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm | Posted in Felipe Lopez, Jamey Carroll | 8 Comments

It’s no secret around here that I think the Dodgers made a mistake by giving Jamey Carroll two guaranteed years; my post titled “So Everyone Agrees the Dodgers Moved Too Quickly on Jamey Carroll, Right?” saw one of the largest comment totals I’ve seen all season. It’s not that I have any particular problem with Carroll, it’s just that he seems like a poor fit for this club; if you wanted insurance for Blake DeWitt at second base, you could have signed a lefty hitter who can play shortstop as well.

I won’t continue harping on it, since what’s done is done and either way, this decision (hopefully) won’t be what makes or breaks the season. So to put a bow on this topic, let’s quickly discuss the two bits of news regarding this we’ve seen in the last two days…

Felipe Lopez signs with the Cardinals for 1 year, $1m. As I detailed extensively in the post about Carroll linked above, Lopez was a much better choice for this team. He’s a switch hitter; Carroll is righty. He can play shortstop; Carroll really can’t. He’s a far better hitter, and as far as fielding, well, just catch this tidbit from Buster Olney’s blog:

While Lopez likely will be an offensive upgrade over the Cardinals’ second basemen from 2009 — he had an .810 OPS last season versus a .747 OPS for Cardinals second basemen — he also should improve the infield defense. According to fangraphs.com, Lopez had the fifth-highest UZR among MLB second basemen, and he really excelled in his range, where he ranked second among second basemen.

In my earlier article, I said the only reason to not sign Lopez was if you weren’t sure that he’d be okay with possibly accepting a backup or utility role. Judging by his comments in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it doesn’t sound like that’ll be an issue…

“I can play anywhere. That’s the right answer, right?” Lopez offered after completing a team physical. “I’ll play anywhere. I know this team … is a really good team, so wherever they need me.”

At the time of the Carroll article, we didn’t know how much Lopez would eventually sign for, but it seemed certain that the longer he was out there, the less he would get. In addition to his $1m guaranteed, he’s eligible for $1.2m in incentives, which he can’t fully max out unless he gets 600 plate appearances (which not even Albert Pujols did in St. Louis last year). Yet the Dodgers guaranteed Carroll nearly four times as much what Lopez is guaranteed, over an extra year, for a player who’s older, not as versatile, and a lesser player. Fantastic.

Was the Carroll deal the worst move of the offseason? I don’t think I would go quite that far – I’m still dying over the Brandon Lyon deal – but the fact is, MLBtraderumors asked the question, and he’s in the conversation. This is a deal that seemed okay at best at the time, and just keeps looking worse considering how the market (and the Dodger roster composition) has played out.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece on this more than once, so we’ll consider this case file closed and move on tomorrow.

I’d Rather Have a Good Team With No Ace Than the Inverse (Updated)

February 26, 2010 at 6:46 pm | Posted in Pablo Sandoval | 9 Comments

Over at the Big Blue Wrecking Crew, there was a good discussion today about Jerry Crasnick’s ESPN.com piece on Pablo Sandoval and the Giants. Sandoval’s trying to keep off the weight (keep chasing that cake, Pablo!), while new batting coach Hensley Meulens is trying to help the horrific group of batters he’s been saddled with take a new, more patient approach. Which makes perfect sense, since we all remember “Bam Bam” as an entirely discriminating hitter, don’t we?

What really caught my eye on the Crasnick article is the sidebar graphic showing the projected Giant lineup and their OBPs. Now, I’m hardly the first to note that the Giant offense is terrible and that their moves this winter didn’t do much to help. But I don’t think I ever realized just how bad they are until I saw that chart. Aaron Rowand as the leadoff man? Aubrey Huff hitting cleanup? Bengie Molina being employed? Yikes. So is this a team we need to take seriously?

Let’s reproduce it here – the projected 2010 Giant lineup with 2009 OBP – but put the 2010 Dodgers alongside it.

SFG	OBP	LAD	OBP
Rowand	.319	Furcal	.335
Sanchez	.326	Martin	.352
Sandoval	.387	Manny	.418
Huff	.310	Ethier	.361
DeRosa	.319	Kemp	.352
Molina	.285	Blake	.363
Schierholtz	.302	Loney	.357
Renteria	.307	DeWitt	.245*

DeWitt, of course, got just 53 PA appearances last season, so ignore him for a second. If he doesn’t win the 2B job, then you have Belliard (.398 as a Dodger last year) or Carroll (.355 each of the last two years). So do you see what I see? Other than Sandoval, who I have a lot of respect for despite his unconventional body type, every single Dodger has a higher OBP than even the second-best Giant, Mark DeRosa. Their projected cleanup hitter, Huff, had an OBP 25 points lower than the Dodger leadoff man Rafael Furcal, who had a mediocre year last year – and that’s before considering that Huff is now a year older, has to come to a tougher hitter’s park, and no longer can sit and wait for his turn as DH since he now has to play the field.

It’s that last line which brings us to another issue – if you can’t hit, you sure as hell better be saving a ton of runs in the field. Yet the Giants actively made their team worse on defense. Huff’s a butcher no matter where he plays, clocking in at -25.4 on the UZR scale across all positions for his career. Renteria hasn’t even been average on that scale since 2004, and he’ll be 35 this year. He’s not getting better. Sandoval was at -6.4 runs UZR/150 last year alone; Sanchez may be decent but he’s also coming off knee surgery and may not be ready for Opening Day. In the outfield, DeRosa won’t kill you, but nor is he anywhere near as good as the stellar Randy Winn was with the glove. Meanwhile, the Dodgers were one of the top fielding teams in baseball last year.

So this is a team we’re supposed to be worried about? Yes, I know that Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain make for a fantastic top two (Lincecum’s diminishing velocity aside). But with that offense, that lousy defense, and a bullpen that doesn’t compare to the outstanding crew the Dodgers have, it seems that any prediction which has the Giants near to or above the Dodgers is focusing a bit too hard on the offseason drama we’ve all had to live through. The Giants are the clear leaders in the rotation, but that just can’t make up for the atrocious bats, deficient leather, or a bullpen that features Brian Wilson as the stopper.

Update. Joe Morgan was asked who he thought was the most improved team this offseason in a chat at ESPN yesterday:

I guess you would have to say the Giants in the National League because they have made the most moves. If their moves work out or not, we’ll have to wait and see.

So apparently, making moves = improvement. Regardless of whether those moves actually, you know, improve your team. Apparently it wouldn’t have mattered if the Giants had traded for Albert Pujols, Albert Einstein, or Fat Albert; simply making the move would have made them better. Brilliant.

Casey Blake, Backup Shortstop?

February 25, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Posted in Casey Blake, Jamey Carroll | 21 Comments

Earlier today, Tony Jackson of ESPN LA participated in a live chat (count how many times Eric Stephen’s name shows up!), and about halfway through he dropped an interesting nugget regarding his thoughts on the backup shortstop competition:

I think barring an injury, Green, Berroa and Hu are probably all headed to Triple-A to start the season (assuming Green and Berroa are willing to go). The backup SS will be Jamey Carroll is the backup SS, with Casey Blake able to fill in there on occasion. Joe says if DeWitt is the regular 2B, he’ll play ONLY 2B because Joe doesn’t want him moving around. If somebody gets hurt, they can always bring one of those guys up from the minors when the need arises.

Backup shortstop has been a surprisingly common topic of conversation around here this offseason, no doubt due to the fact that 7 of the 8 lineup spots are sewn up and we have to talk about something. Whether it’s been bemoaning the signing of the old and busted Nick Green or Angel Berroa, wishing that Felipe Lopez had been signed (it’s not too late!), trying to talk ourselves into Alfredo Amezaga because he’s a lefty, or outright requesting Chin-Lung Hu, we’ve had no shortage of thoughts on it.

With all those options, one route I never considered they might go with is to not carry a backup shortstop at all. If Jackson’s feeling is correct (and you’d have to assume that Blake DeWitt wins the 2B job in this scenario, since otherwise DeWitt would be in the minors and Carroll would be needed at the keystone) then Jamey Carroll would step in to give Rafael Furcal a rest, with Casey Blake (hilariously!) being the emergency option.

In some ways, it makes sense. Green, Berroa, and even Hu are all varying degrees of terrible. None will help you with the bat, Green won’t help you much with the leather, and Berroa is so bad that he might actually open a hole in the goddamn space-time continuum. If that’s the case, why bother? No need to add yet another righty to a righty-deep bench when that righty can’t hit and can only play shortstop in name only; much better to save that space for the lefty bat of someone like Doug Mientkiewicz, Xavier Paul, or even Brian Giles.

The only problem is, of course, that Carroll’s not much of a shortstop either. He hasn’t even played an inning there in either of the last two years, and considering that he was -6.7 on the UZR/150 scale before that, it’s hard to think he’s improved much headed into his age-36 season. Still, if he’s only starting once every ten games or so, you’d have to think he couldn’t kill you that much – and if anything happened to Furcal, well, Albuquerque’s not all that far away.

But man, Casey Blake at shortstop – imagine that? You’d have to think that would only happen in the sort of emergency situation that would require Blake’s left-side partner to be Russell Martin over at the hot corner. Fun fact, though: Blake has played two innings of shortstop in his career, back in 2008 for Cleveland (on the same day Eric Stults was shutting out the White Sox). Who was his middle infield partner for those two innings? Jamey Carroll. So you think it can’t happen? It’s already happened.

Are We Further Out of Touch Than I Thought?

February 24, 2010 at 5:31 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments

As regular readers of this blog know, I’ve been pointing out how wins (among other stats, but mostly wins) are all but useless in evaluating a pitcher’s performance for nearly three years now. I didn’t come up with the idea, and I’m hardly the first to say it, but it’s been a pet conceit of mine. Recently, some commenters noted that they thought I’d been pointing it out too much – that it’s so obvious by this point that it’s not even worth mentioning. After all, you don’t point out how the sun rises every single day, do you?

Yet I wonder about the thought that advanced ideas, so well-known in the blogging and sabermetric community, no longer need to be discussed. Don’t we all know people who don’t put 1/100th of the thought into baseball as we do, and still think in that antiquated fashion? Sure, the ‘casual’ fan is never going to read this blog, or very likely any blog. Yet the casual fan outnumbers us in terms of attendance and merchandising power by a multiplier I can’t even imagine. It’s why guys like Joe Morgan can not only survive but thrive in the broadcast world, because they speak to the lowest common denominator. It’s refreshing to see guys like Jon Sciambi of ESPN speak about how they’re trying to bring advanced thinking to the masses, yet depressing to know that those same masses rejected a relatively simple stat like OPS as “too complicated“.

The reason this comes to mind today is because of the official Dodger Facebook page, when the topic turned to Manny’s “I probably won’t be back” comments. As I and other bloggers unanimously said on HotStove.com today, the story was a non-issue – Manny was almost certainly not coming back for 2011 regardless. Yet on the Facebook page – and remember, people commenting on the Facebook page are not the same kind of people who seek to comment on blogs – the sentiment was not only “we hate Manny”, but “we love Juan Pierre and the Dodgers made a huge mistake by trading him.”

I’m not going to tell anyone they should love Manny, after all he’s done. And I’m not going to tell anyone that Juan Pierre can’t be their favorite player, since that’s a matter of personal opinion. But to say that Pierre is simply a better player than Manny is really something that’s completely inarguable – it’s not close to true on this planet or any other, nor is it something we’d ever even consider.

Yet according to the overwhelming majority of the Facebook posts… well, here’s just a sample.

I mean, it goes on like that for pages. I absolutely get it if Manny lost the trust and faith that fans put into him, so I don’t mind that he’s not popular. But just look how many people are under the idea that Pierre is simply a better ballplayer, not just a better person.

It’s insane, and it shows that despite all the progress that’s been made, especially over the last 10 years, there’s still absolutely huge amounts of people out there who still just don’t get it. And that’s why I will always point out why wins are ridiculous.

We Don’t Want Your Braden Looper

February 22, 2010 at 9:05 pm | Posted in Braden Looper, Charlie Haeger, Eric Stults, James McDonald, Scott Elbert | 8 Comments

A few days ago, I read an interesting article over at FanGraphs by R.J. Anderson, in regards to Ned Colletti’s assertation that the Dodgers may still look outside the organization for a #5 starter. Anderson, citing other research, noted that there’s really no such thing as a “#5 starter” except in the rarest of instances – due to injuries and ineffectiveness, nearly every team will go through several arms at the back end of their rotation. What this means is that you better have at least a few guys who you can count on to get you through the season. While the Dodgers may not have been able to acquire an “ace” this offseason, they do have quite a decent collection of options for that back-end - young guns like James McDonald & Scott Elbert, fringy young veterans like Eric Stults & Charlie Haeger, not to mention a collection of thousands of mediocre over-30 guys.

As Anderson says, and as I think many of us would agree, McDonald would seem to be the ideal first choice:

McDonald has made nearly 90 starts in the minors, including 42 between Triple- and Double-A. At both destinations McDonald struck out at least nine per nine and walked between three and four batters per nine. He turned 25 in October and started last season in the Dodgers’ rotation. He would only make four starts, as he walked 14 in 13.1 innings and struck out only six. Upon a move to the bullpen, McDonald looked like his minor league self, posting a SO/BB of 2.4 and striking out roughly one batter pr inning.

His stuff doesn’t seem to stink, either: a low-90s fastball, curve, and change. Each pitch was whiffed on at least 8% of the time. His fastball shows great “rise” which makes up for some lackadaisical run. Those whiff rates will likely decrease upon a move back to the rotation, but McDonald’s body of work makes him more appealing than the Ortizes of the world. Plus, who knows, maybe he turns into more than a bona fide number five.

If McDonald falters, you still have Elbert. Or Stults. Or Haeger. Or so on. McDonald & Elbert both have big upside potential, Stults has shown competence, and if you’ve read this blog at all you know what a big fan of Haeger I am. Look, a number five starter doesn’t need to be the guy you look to in October. He just needs to be the guy(s) who can keep you in the game every fifth day, and even less so if you consider off-days. The Dodgers have the guys right now who can fulfill that need, and some with the potential to be more than that.

It’s with this in mind that today’s news from Ken Gurnick is a little disturbing:

The Dodgers remain in contact with the agent for unsigned pitcher Braden Looper, but chances of a deal are slim because they can’t offer the Major League roster spot or the kind of salary the right-hander wants.

So… why?

Obviously, as Gurnick states, it’s unlikely because Looper’s salaries demands are seemingly unreasonable – so I won’t lose much sleep over it. Just saying… the fact that Looper is even on the radar is a little disturbing. I mean, what does he offer, at 35 and coming off a lousy year, that the young guys can’t? Looper was the worst in 2009…

2009 MLB FIP:
Stults: 4.36
McDonald: 4.48
Elbert: 4.67
Haeger: 5.68
Looper: 5.74

…and is projected to be the worst in 2010 by all three FanGraphs measurements:

2010 MLB FIP (projected ranges):
Elbert: 3.76 – 4.67
McDonald: 3.97 – 4.32
Stults: 4.52 – 4.57
Haeger: 4.81 – 5.20
Looper: 4.82 – 5.21

So what does Looper have going for him? That’s he’s a “name”? That he threw 194 innings last year, as though it doesn’t matter that he was hurting the Brewers by being that bad that often? Or is it – and I shudder to think it – because he somehow went 14-7, as though wins actually matter? The Brewers supported him with nearly nine runs a game in his starts, second among NL pitchers with over 180 IP.

The fact is, Braden Looper isn’t very good, coming off what is in many ways the worst season of his career despite the win total. At 35, he’s not likely to start improving, and with the group of other arms the Dodgers have collected, he’d be almost guaranteed to be taking away valuable innings from pitchers with more upside than him – not to mention how much more money he’s looking for.

As Gurnick said, it’s not likely that Looper lands in LA. It’s just the thought that the Dodgers might be interested at any price that is disconcerting.

The Most Beautiful Sight of the Weekend

February 21, 2010 at 6:49 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Camp is officially in session. No matter where you live, out in a far-off and mysterious land known as “Arizona”, there is, once again, Dodger baseball.

Of course, if you’re like me, and spent the weekend fighting a particularly nasty case of food poisoning, simply being upright is a pretty nice feeling too.

Casey Blake Might Be a Little Biased

February 20, 2010 at 2:37 pm | Posted in Casey Blake, Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay | 12 Comments

Via TrueBlueLA, Casey Blake starts off the spring with his real feelings about the pitching moves of our constant tormentors, the Phillies:

#Dodgers Casey Blake, on #phillies: “I have a lot of respect for Halladay, but I don’t feel they got a ton better because they lost Cliff.”

I think we all agree that the Phillies probably made a mistake by shipping Lee off to Seattle for some questionable prospects rather than having a monstrous top three of Halladay/Lee/Cole Hamels, but Blake’s statement is still probably a little off the mark.

Yes, Cliff Lee is awesome. Let’s just not forget that while he’s only two full seasons off of being dumped to the minors with a 6.29 ERA, Halladay has been nearly unhittable for a decade and might end up in the Hall of Fame – despite constantly playing for mediocre Toronto teams in the brutal AL East.

Much of Lee’s legend comes from the last two seasons – his ridiculous 22-3 record for Cleveland in 2008, and his 4 wins for the Phillies in the playoffs in 2009. Yet Halladay’s last two seasons tops Lee’s by almost any measure.

Halladay, 2008-09
37 wins, 485 IP, 2.78 ERA, 154 ERA+, 1.089 WHIP

Lee, 2008-09
36 wins, 455 IP, 2.89 ERA, 147 ERA+, 1.178 WHIP

Both are outstanding pitchers, to be sure. But head-to-head, Halladay’s numbers are slightly better, even though he was facing the Yankees, Rays, and Red Sox, while Lee was mostly facing the Royals, Twins, and White Sox. Imagine what Halladay’s going to do this year facing the Nationals, Mets, and Marlins instead? There’s no question here – Halladay’s superior.

So how could Blake possibly feel that way? I’m sure there’s a little bit of spring training bravado there, a need to make it sound like the Phillies haven’t improved even further after knocking the Dodgers out twice in a row.

More than that, though, I think it’s because of Blake’s personal history. He’s never faced Lee in the regular season, though he did go 0-3 with a strikeout in the 11-0 disaster of NLCS Game 3. Yet against Halladay, Blake has oddly had decent success, putting up a line of .357/.471/.643 with a homer in 14 at-bats. So while it’s hard to say that the Phillies haven’t gotten at least a little better by swapping out Lee for Halladay (and Halladay’s extremely team-friendly extension), you can at least see why Blake might be a little happy about it. He’d better be, because if the Dodgers are finally going to get over the hump, they’re going to need Blake to show a little more than last year’s total October disappearance.

By the way, did you know that Halladay’s full name is “Harry Leroy Halladay”? “Roy Halladay” sounds like someone who’s kind of a bad-ass. But how would you feel facing “Harry Halliday” or “Leroy Halliday”?

Eric Gagne Gets Another Shot

February 19, 2010 at 7:57 am | Posted in Eric Gagne | 9 Comments

As you’ve no doubt heard by now in many other places, former hero Eric Gagne is returning to the Dodgers on a minor-league deal. For obvious reasons, this minor-league deal stands out just a bit from among the John Koronkas, Luis Ayalas, and Scott Dohmanns we’ve seen so far this winter.

For a non-guaranteed minor-league deal to a pitcher who’s unlikely to ever see a big-league mound again, there’s actually a lot to think about here. I tend to think that he’s completely and totally done, though since the Rockies were offering a deal as well, it’s possible that this isn’t just a publicity stunt. On the other hand, Jim Tracy does have a hard-on for his former Dodger players, even offering the corpse of Paul LoDuca a contract for 2010.

Gagne can say all he wants about how his arm feels better than it has in years, but the fact remains that in 2009 he gave up more than a hit per inning and struck out barely more than one man every other inning. Think about how unimpressive that is, and then remember that this took place in the unaffiliated Canadian-American League. If you’re wondering about the skill level of the Can-Am League, note that just one other member of Gagne’s Quebec squad ever played in the major leagues, and even that was only the 68 unimpressive games spread over three season by catcher Pete LaForest, also a Canadian native. Gagne’s last trip to the majors was 50 awful games for the 2008 Brewers, when he put up a 5.44 ERA while walking 4.3/9.

With most guys, you’d say “he’s cooked,” but with Gagne there’s more to it. Without getting too deep into that conversation, he was named in the Mitchell Report and has all but admitted to PED use. As someone who was a mediocre pitcher who became a star for a short time, then completely broke down with injuries, he sure fits the profile. The point here isn’t to point fingers or rehash the past; just that there’s a difference between “he’s lost it” and “did he ever really have it in the first place?” If it’s the latter – and his performance in the Can-Am League last year isn’t a good sign – then his time in camp is going to be limited.

There’s also the issue of how much of a chance he’s really going to have to make the club. Clearly, the Dodger bullpen is stacked. Barring injury, the top 5 are set (Broxton, Sherrill, Kuo, Belisario, Troncoso), and with the Dodgers likely to take 12 pitchers, that leaves 2 more spots, but there’s thousands of pitchers ahead of Gagne. Based on last year, Jeff Weaver likely has the inside track to one, and I’d be shocked if the other didn’t go to one of the runners-up to the 5th starter job, particularly James McDonald if he’s not in the rotation. It’s not hard to see Scott Elbert in the mix, or Charlie Haeger if they don’t want to expose him to waivers, or the two Rule 5 guys, plus young guys on their way up (Josh Lindblom) or fallen guys trying to make it back (Cory Wade). The chances of Gagne breaking through that, to me, seem minimal at best.

But there are some positives here. As always, there’s the normal NRI caveat of “there’s no risk involved”, so there’s no complaints about finances. And let’s say he does make the club. It would almost certainly be as the last man out of the bullpen, which would not only be an amazing turn from his status in his previous stint in LA, it would raise an interesting question:

Can you really enter to Guns N’ Roses when you’re running to the mound in the 6th inning?

I think I’d pay double just to see that. Imagine the situation: the bullpen doors swing open, the first chords of “Welcome to the Jungle” blare, Gagne jogs out… and everyone looks at him like he’s a douche because the Dodgers are down 7-2 with 4 innings left.

If he’s on the club, what’s also going to happen is we’re going to be put in a situation both hilarious and sad: the first time Jonathan Broxton blows a save, or even has slight difficulty in converting one, the casual fans are going to start calling for Gagne to get his old job back, which would be ridiculous. But you know it as well as I do – that would happen, and it would just be another front in the battle between educated fans and the “Juan Pierre was the 2009 MVP!!” crowd.

I’ll leave you with one last thought on this, though. Each year for the last few years, the Dodgers have picked up an old-and-busted pitcher off the scrap heap who ends up contributing, and for the last three years it’s been former Dodgers. Hell, in 2009 I even came up with an award and gave it to Jeff Weaver. In 2008, it was Chan Ho Park, 2007 was Rudy Seanez (both former Dodgers), and 2006 was Aaron Sele.

Unless you’re hitching your ride to the Russ Ortiz bandwagon, there’s no good candidate for this year’s crown, and no former Dodgers in the running unless we want to bend the rules and let Weaver repeat. Every year, the fates align to revive one deceased pitcher’s career in LA; why couldn’t it be Gagne this year?

(Right. And maybe I’m a Chinese jet pilot.)

Is It Unreasonable to Expect Great Things From Clayton Kershaw?

February 16, 2010 at 10:00 am | Posted in Clayton Kershaw | 10 Comments

Steve Dilbeck’s post today in the born-again LA Times “Dodgers Blog” got me thinking about Clayton Kershaw. Almost every review of the Dodger offseason has included a dig at the club’s failure to land a quality veteran starting pitcher, and usually included something along the lines of Kershaw “having talent, but is too young to count on.” It’s not unfair of others to say that, because it’s nothing all Dodger fans haven’t said before – so often, in fact, that it’s basically an accepted fact. You just can’t count on a guy who will only be 22, with just 51 career starts.

Or can you?

Sure, 22′s young. But it’s also not like he’s 18, trying to come to the bigs directly out of high school as though he’s some modern-day David Clyde. And sure, 51 starts isn’t a lot. But nor is it zero starts, and there have been pitchers with far less experience who’ve managed to succeed that quickly.

In fact, there’s been quite a few. If baseball has seen other guys do it, why couldn’t Kershaw take that next step – this year? Let’s compare him to others who have had success at such a young age.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Kershaw is guaranteed to be a Hall of Famer like some on this list, nor am I saying that if he doesn’t meet these lofty standards in 2010, that’s he a failure. Far from it; if he can make it through the season healthy and show some improvement on his walk totals while keeping up a similar level of domination as he already showed last year, that counts as a huge success for me.

So I wanted to know: how often has someone Kershaw’s age pitched at least 162 innings, and did so with at least a league-average ERA or better? Thanks to the invaluable baseball-reference, we can quickly find out that there have been 139 such seasons since the expansion of 1961. Here’s the top seasons:

Rk	Player	ERA+ 6	IP	Year	Age	Tm	Lg	G	GS	W	L	ERA	HR	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
1	Dwight Gooden	228	276.2	1985	20	NYM	NL	35	35	24	4	1.53	13	.201	.254	.270	.524	52
2	Vida Blue	185	312.0	1971	21	OAK	AL	39	39	24	8	1.82	19	.189	.251	.272	.523	55
3	Mark Prior	178	211.1	2003	22	CHC	NL	30	30	18	6	2.43	15	.231	.283	.352	.635	68
4	Sam McDowell	161	273.0	1965	22	CLE	AL	42	35	17	11	2.18	9	.185	.286	.244	.531	56
5	Bert Blyleven	158	325.0	1973	22	MIN	AL	40	40	20	17	2.52	16	.242	.284	.334	.618	71
6	Mark Fidrych	158	250.1	1976	21	DET	AL	31	29	19	9	2.34	12	.235	.277	.301	.579	67
7	Larry Dierker	151	305.1	1969	22	HOU	NL	39	37	20	13	2.33	18	.214	.261	.316	.578	68
8	Gary Nolan	147	226.2	1967	19	CIN	NL	33	32	14	8	2.58	18	.228	.282	.335	.617	74
9	Oliver Perez	145	196.0	2004	22	PIT	NL	30	30	12	10	2.98	22	.207	.295	.359	.655	73
10	Bret Saberhagen	145	235.1	1985	21	KCR	AL	32	32	20	6	2.87	19	.241	.271	.357	.628	70
11	Jon Matlack	144	244.0	1972	22	NYM	NL	34	32	15	10	2.32	14	.234	.289	.333	.623	85
12	Dennis Eckersley	144	186.2	1975	20	CLE	AL	34	24	13	7	2.60	16	.215	.310	.322	.631	79
13	Britt Burns	143	238.0	1980	21	CHW	AL	34	32	15	13	2.84	17	.241	.293	.348	.641	74
14	Clayton Kershaw	141	171.0	2009	21	LAD	NL	31	30	8	8	2.79	7	.200	.306	.282	.588	63
15	Bill Stafford	140	195.0	1961	21	NYY	AL	36	25	14	9	2.68	13	.232	.294	.329	.622	76
16	Mark Buehrle	140	221.1	2001	22	CHW	AL	32	32	16	8	3.29	24	.230	.279	.377	.656	68

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used

It’s an impressive list. Eckersley is a Hall of Famer, Blyleven should be, and Gooden would have been if he’d kept his nose clean. Saberhagen won two Cy Youngs, while Vida Blue won an MVP, a Cy Young, and made 6 All-Star teams (as did Sam McDowell). Kershaw’s ERA+ of 141 places him 14th on that list, while his OPS+ against ranks him 7th. Out of 139, that’s pretty good just on its face, but remember – Kershaw did that at only 21, so he still has another season in which to improve his standing in this grouping.

And not to go completely overboard here, but how about comparing Kershaw to the top season on this list, Dwight Gooden’s magical 1985? Each pitcher was about equally difficult to get any hits off of (Gooden: .201 BA, Kershaw: .200 BA), and if anyone did get the bat on the ball, neither allowed many big hits (Gooden: .270 SLG, Kershaw: .282 SLG). Gooden’s obvious advantage was that he threw 276 innings, allowed fewer walks, and had gaudy traditional numbers – going 24-4 with a 1.53 ERA.

It’s that which makes me wonder if Kershaw isn’t a little underrated simply by something we should all know doesn’t matter anymore – wins. No one on the list had more than Gooden’s 24 wins (Blue was tied). Kershaw, meanwhile, was tied for 135th out of 139 with his 8 wins. How much differently would we be thinking about him right now if he’d gone, say, 14-4 rather than 8-8? Despite all we know about wins, the fact is that being a “.500 pitcher” still gets you a stigma, even when you strike out 13 and allow 1 hit, yet get a no-decision in your second start of the season, or pitch seven scoreless innings in May and don’t get the win. Or 5.2 scoreless in June. Or seven scoreless in August. Or six scoreless on the next-to-last day of the season.

Point being, Kershaw got robbed of a lot of wins last season, and even though we know that wins don’t matter, in the world of perception, they do. And despite our high expectations for a player so young, it’s not as though Kershaw is blazing a completely new trail, here. Young players can succeed, if they have the talent and opportunity, and I think it’s clear that Kershaw has both.

Even The LA Times Photo Department Can’t Stand Bill Plaschke

February 14, 2010 at 10:09 am | Posted in Bill Plaschke | 5 Comments

I’m not trying to make light of the tragic death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili - obviously, what happened was awful, and it’s a video I wish I could un-see. Still, “Death at the Olympics” makes for a pretty poignant tale for opportunistic psuedo-journalists, doesn’t it? It’s the kind of heart-wrenching story that cretins like Bill Plaschke drool over, and he didn’t disappoint, complaining that the Olympics seem to be business as usual despite the tragedy.

Now, whether the lifelong dreams of thousands of athletes and families, along with the years of work by the host country, really should be lessened or dashed by this unfortunate accident are a completely different argument. What’s not up for discussion is that, as usual, Billy’s got his facts wrong – except this time it’s the Times online layout itself that serves as the proof.

Plaschke’s article – dated today, February 14 – launches right into how he thinks the death has been overlooked, because the flags aren’t at half-staff and there’s no memorial to Kumaritashvili. In fact, he says just that:

One day later, the national flags above Turn 16 still flapped at full staff, the Olympic rings there still glowed a sweet blue, there was no makeshift memorial of flowers or cards, there was no visible memory.

Sad, isn’t it? You’d think that between the thousands of visitors and competitors affected by this tragedy, that someone would have at least put down some flowers in remembrance.

Oh, what’s that? They did, and depsite Plaschke’s claims to the contrary, there’s a photo of exactly that leading the story, just pixels above where he says they didn’t? Looks like my birthday came early this year!

Bill Plaschke: distorting the facts to fit his narrative since 1987.

If this all sounds slightly familiar to you, it’s because it’s not the first time. When Manny came back from his suspension last summer, Plaschke railed against him, saying (among many other tenuous claims) that Manny didn’t acknowledge the support of his fans in Mannywood… except for the photos on Deadspin clearly showing that he did.