|
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.
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”?
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.)
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 |
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.
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.
