2011 January « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness

Did You Want A.J. Pierzynski As Your Catcher?

January 30, 2011 at 9:05 am | Posted in A.J. Pierzynski, Rod Barajas | 47 Comments

I’m not sure this is exactly news – I’m pretty sure we’d heard something similar to this a while ago – but I don’t remember discussing it here previously. Let’s ponder the alternate universe that could have been had the events described in today’s Chicago Tribune played out:

A few days later, as Pierzynski was waiting for Dodgers owner Frank McCourt to approve language in a contract proposal, Sox assistant general manager Rick Hahn and agent Steve Hilliard reached agreement on a two-year, $8 million deal before Pierzynski could tell the Dodgers he would accept their offer.

That allowed the Sox to turn from Olivo, who had them on his short list. He ended up with a two-year, $7 million contract with the Mariners less than a week after Pierzynski returned to the Sox.

“It all came together in a 15-minute span,” Pierzynski said. “I was pretty much resigned to the fact I wasn’t coming back. (h/t MLBTR)

In the same way that Aubrey Huff was reportedly almost the new Dodger first baseman (or left fielder), A.J. Pierzynski was almost the new Dodger catcher, thus satifisfying the continued lust for aging ex-Giant veterans.

I’m mostly kidding about the Giant part – Pierzysnki played just one of his thirteen MLB seasons in San Francisco, coming over from Minnesota in one of the worst trades in baseball history – but certainly not the aging veteran part, as he’s 34 and coming off of a .300 OBP season. My initial thoughts at reading this were, well, let’s just say not ones of happiness.

So while it’s no secret that I wasn’t thrilled with giving Rod Barajas $3.25m for next season, does it turn out that since his was for less money, seemingly coming off a better year, that Barajas’ deal was actually the lesser of two evils? Let’s find out, and let me preface this by saying the fact that Pierzynski has a reputation throughout the game as an instigator is irrelevant to whether he’s a good ballplayer, and besides, that’s generally the type you despise on other teams but love on your own.

Let’s start on offense, where Pierzynski’s career worst 2010 (.688 OPS, 83 OPS+) doesn’t quite stack up to Barajas’ .731 and 97. But there’s mitigating factors there; Barajas had nearly 170 fewer PA, and his line is largely fueled by his completely unsustainable fluky debut as a Dodger. At the time he was dumped by the Mets, his OPS was .677, good for an 82 OPS+, or basically identical to Pierzynski. To avoid the vagaries of one fluky stretch, let’s look back over the last three years:

Barajas: 1176 PA, .237/.277/.418 83 OPS+ b-ref oWAR: 2.4
Pierzysnki: 1512 PA, .284/.315/.410 88 OPS+ b-ref oWAR: 4.2

Pierzynski has clearly been the more effective batter, in a greater sample size, over the last three seasons. Not much argument there. Defense, as we know, is much harder to quantify, but even moreso among catchers. FanGraphs has each of them as essentially average over 2008-10; baseball-reference rates Barajas as slightly above-average, with Pierzynski slightly below, though neither to such extents that it’s really meaningful. Even less meaningful to me are caught stealing numbers, highly dependent as they are on pitchers, but since I know someone will ask, Barajas was at 34%, 34%, and 15% the last three years. (Worth noting that the first two years each came in Toronto, while the last year was split between the Mets and Dodgers). Pierzynski comes in at 18%, 23%, and 26%, which again doesn’t really tell you anything.

I’ve never thought much of A.J. Pierzysnki, and I have to admit I’m somewhat surprised to say that this exercise has convinced me that he’s clearly the better choice than Barajas, without even noting that he’s more than a year younger. Of course, it’s not exactly a high bar to set – Barajas is pretty lousy – and that doesn’t mean that Pierzysnki is all that great himself.

On a one-year deal, I don’t think there’s any question who you’d rather. But Pierzysnki ended up getting two years, and more than twice the guaranteed money. It’s not as though the Dodgers have a young catcher ready for 2012, though, so assuming the Dodgers would have signed Dioner Navarro as a backup regardless, who would you have rather seen as the starter? The lefty-swinging Pierzysnki, historically better but coming off a poor year, for two years? Or the righty Barajas, historically awful, coming off of a fluky Dodger debut, for just one? Or forget Navarro entirely and try to hook up two of the only six A.J.’s in MLB history on the same position on the same club?

Mike MacDougal Gets a Pity Date

January 28, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Posted in Mike MacDougal | 8 Comments

Mike MacDougal, who signed a minor-league deal with the Dodgers today, probably ranks up there with guys like Matt Capps and Kevin Gregg on the “just because you get saves, it does not make you a great pitcher” scale. A few seasons of 20+ saves with the Royals have apparently earned him the right to be referred to as “former All-Star” in team press releases.

MacDougal’s not, you know, any good, nor does he seem to have any real chance of cracking a Dodger bullpen which is not only righty-heavy but also pretty stocked already. Over the last four seasons with the White Sox, Cardinals, and Nationals, he’s put up a 1.783 WHIP with a 99/95 K/BB ratio in 132 innings. That’s the kind of stuff which will play hilariously in Albuquerque, though he does still throw hard (94.7 MPH average on his fastball last year).

Of course, it’s just a minor-league deal with an invite to camp, so there’s really nothing to get worked up about. On the plus side, his middle name is “Meiklejohn,” which is actually pretty awesome.

I’m Not Dead…

January 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm | Posted in James Loney | 26 Comments

But my internet connection is, so posting has been – and may be – spotty for a few days, as I do my best to gank the unsecured wireless connections of the poor saps in my building. So I leave you with a quick thought, and feel free to discuss whatever you like in the comments.

Tony Jackson’s ESPN column today included the following segment:

Begin with Loney.

The lefty-hitting first baseman has never hit more than 15 home runs in a season and hit only 10 of them in 2010, but he had a career-high 41 doubles and drove in 88 runs, his third season in a row with at least that many RBIs.

This is not a dig at Jackson, who’s been one of the better Dodger beat writers in recent years and who I realize has to cater to an ESPN audience, but the part about how Loney has put up at least 88 RBI at least three years in a row – as though that’s some sort of positive – kind of irks me. As I’m sure I don’t need to explain to the enlightened readers of this blog, RBI tells you just about nothing about a hitter other than how well his teammates did at getting on base ahead of him.

Baseball Prospectus has a fantastic statistic called ROB, which requires no fancy explanation; it’s merely the amount of runners on base a particular hitter had when he came up. Simply put, it’s the total number of chances for RBI (other than driving himself in with a homer) that a batter had.

Last year, James Loney had 463 ROB when he came to the plate, which was 10th most in baseball, and that high total is exactly how an average-ish hitter gets 88 RBI. His OBI% (i.e., the amount of those runners driven in, or 78 of 463) was tied for 44th best in the bigs, meaning that he got his 88 RBI by doing less with more.

As a point of comparison, Delmon Young of the Twins came up with 456 runners on base last year, almost identical to Loney’s 463. Yet because Young was so much more efficient with his at-bats, he drove in 91 of those runners, compared to Loney’s 78. That’s not including homers – because the argument I hear is that Loney’s RBI total means he’s very good at driving in runners, even if he doesn’t hit for power – and when you do include dingers, the gap gets larger, since Young drove in 112 RBI on the season.

Taking it the other way, Alexis Rios also had 88 RBI last year. If we’re judging just based on RBI, then he and Loney had the same season. Yet Rios had only 378 runners available to drive in, compared to Loney’s 463. Rios was MUCH more efficient, and had he been lucky enough to have been gifted with 463 runners on base, he would have ended up driving in well over 100 RBI.

As you can probably tell by now, that’s why RBI is as useless as pitcher wins. Yes, you need runs to win the game, and that makes RBI a team stat. It doesn’t tell you anything about how good a hitter is, because if he’s coming up with a guy on third, then someone else did 75% of his work. And what’s the point of a stat if it’s not helping you evaluate the player in question?

******

On Tuesday night, I was kindly invited to be a guest on the new Beyond the Boxscore podcast series with Dave Gershman of, well, everywhere, and Matt Klaassen of BtB and FanGraphs. It was great fun, and I don’t totally come off like a dingus, so have a listen. I’m in the second segment.

Scott Podsednik May Have Chosen Poorly

January 23, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Posted in Scott Podsednik | 38 Comments

After Scott Podsednik came to the Dodgers from Kansas City in late July, he hit an underwhelming .262/.313/.336 (79 OPS+) in 160 plate appearances with below-average defense and a net of only two stolen bases. That was all before September 9; he ended up missing most of the last month of the season due to plantar fasciitis.

Despite Podsednik’s subpar performance as a Dodger and the fact that he’ll be 35 in March, the club picked up their half of a $2m (plus $300k in incentives) mutual option in November. At the time, Ned Colletti seemed to leave the door open for substantial playing time for Podsednik should he return:

“Our thought process after watching him play for us and seeing what he added to our club was that we would like to have him back,” said Dodgers GM Ned Colletti. “He obviously has versatility in the field, plus he has an added component in the speed he has.”

When asked if Podsednik could be an everday left fielder, Colletti said they would “have to wait and see. … He was last year until he got hurt.”

Fortunately for us all, Podsednik declined his option, and the fact that I still say that after three months of watching the Dodgers try and fail to fill that LF hole should tell you all you need to know about my opinion of Podsednik. Presumably, Podsednik’s thinking at the time was that he could do better than a one year, $2m deal, particularly since reports were that he and the Dodgers were still having conversations about his return even after declining the option.

That all went down in the first days of November. We’re now nearly into February – camps open in less than a month – and Podsednik is still without a home. Since then, we’ve heard the rumors fly about him, but nothing has quite worked out. At one point it was the Reds. They signed Fred Lewis and Jeremy Hermida. Then it was the Blue Jays. They acquired Rajai Davis and traded for Juan Rivera (and also, you know, have an awesome GM who’s smarter than that). We’ve heard about the Braves, but it seems unlikely they’d sign another lefty outfielder to go with Jason Heyward, Eric Hinske, and Nate McLouth.

So who’s left? Perhaps the Angels, because at this point absolutely nothing they do would surprise, though their outfield seems full enough with Torii Hunter, Vernon Wells, Peter Bourjos, and Bobby Abreu. The Mets and Marlins may each need a veteran backup, yet neither team has shown any interest in spending this winter.

At this point, I think it’s clear that Podsednik probably screwed up by declining his option. It seems unlikely that anyone’s going to guarantee him $2m or give him an opportunity for as much playing time as he could have had with the Dodgers. The longer this drags on, the higher the chance is that he doesn’t even get a guaranteed major-league deal, though that’s most likely not going to end up happening. Honestly, I just want him to sign somewhere, if only to eliminate that 0.00001% chance that the Dodgers could still bring him back. On the plus side, his mistake is our gain!

Good News For People Who Like Eric Chavez…

January 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Posted in Eric Chavez | 43 Comments

…as I’ve made it clear that I do. Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle has some info on yesterday’s workout:

I heard from a scout who works for another NL team that the Dodgers were raving about Eric Chavez‘s tryout today; he swung the bat well and apparently looked healthy after being put through his paces. Also from the scouting grapevine, it sounds as if there is some pretty strong interest in Chavez elsewhere, but I know that Chavez is really excited about the Dodgers, so I hope that’s where he lands.

I’m trying not to get too excited about a guy who has essentially missed three of the last four seasons (between 2007-10, he played in 154 games with 628 PA, or roughly one full season), but the more I hear about this the more I want it to happen. With a roster like the Dodgers have, you have to take chances, and if there’s even a 5% chance this works out enough to keep Casey Blake on the bench against tough righty pitching, then it’s absolutely worth it.

On Jay Gibbons As a Feel-Good Story and a Platoon Risk

January 21, 2011 at 10:37 am | Posted in James Loney, Jay Gibbons | 19 Comments

With Marcus Thames in the fold and the Dodger roster seemingly all but settled, something I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately is what we can really expect from Jay Gibbons. Looking at the rest of the possible contributors in the left field mix, there’s not a whole lot of question about what you’re going to get. Thames is an atrocious outfielder who will likely hit lefties well. Tony Gwynn is a plus glove – good enough to possibly bump Matt Kemp to a corner – who probably won’t hit enough to justify playing every day. Xavier Paul is an intriguing young talent who hasn’t proven he’s more than an AAAA player and probably won’t get the chance to prove otherwise, at least in Los Angeles.

Then there’s Gibbons. You all know his story by now, as he went from “reasonably successful Oriole” in the early and middle part of the decade, to “blackballed Mitchell Report name who was largely out of baseball” in 2008-09, to “heartwarming success story for his hometown team” in 2010. Though he was certainly a nice boost for the team last year, I’ve always felt that his performance got a little more hype than it probably deserved. Coming on the heels of the Garret Anderson debacle, the bar was set pretty low, and Gibbons made a great first impression – he homered in his first start and put up a 1.102 OPS over his first 47 PA back in the bigs. That’s all well and good, except beyond his own defensive issues, 47 PA is hardly a large sample size, he ended the season in a 6-32 slide, and we’ve learned several times that people put far too much stock into first impressions. If this sounds familiar, it’s because I’ve been saying the exact same thing about Rod Barajas for months.

This isn’t to bash Gibbons, who made for a nice story in the dog days of a lost season. It’s just to point out that despite all the accolades, he’s still a 34-year-old who put up a .313 OBP in 80 PA, and can’t possibly be expected to sustain a .507 SLG. While all the stories read that he hadn’t played in MLB since 2007, it actually goes beyond that; due to injuries, he didn’t even get into 100 games in either 2006 or 2007.

The missed time, injury history, and 2010 semi-rebound should make for a very difficult player to project, but the advanced models seem to have come to a less-than-optimistic consensus on him. Over at BaseballThinkFactory, Dan Szymborski included Gibbons in his ZIPS projections, and came up with .263/.292/.412, which comes out to an 89 OPS+, with 9 HR in 289 AB. I don’t see anything unreasonable with that guess. The CAIRO system has a nearly identical prediction of .256/.296/.409.

I also bring this topic up because yesterday and today, three separate sources have taken on the Gibbons (and Thames) story: a puff piece from Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times and Mrs. Brady’s 4th grade English class, and ideas on the platoon from Dave Cameron and Matt Klaassen, each of FanGraphs.

Let’s start with the respectable writers first. Klaassen:

Thames himself isn’t really a problem as a hitter. For the money, a .249/.311/.448 with a .327 projected wOBA (according to these weights) isn’t all that bad for a platoon hitter. Thames’ platoon skill gets exaggerated because people forget that right-handed hitters’ platoon splits regress heavily to the mean. However, even after accounting for that, I have him as a .344 wOBA hitter versus southpaws, and .314 versus righties. He’s a decent choice for the right-handed half of a platoon.

The problem is Gibbons. I’m happy that he returned to the minors not long after we mentioned him in a “where are they now” post last year. The lefty is the key to any platoon because a) he will get most of the plate appearances, and b) since the platoon skill of lefties varies more than that of righties, by finding a guy with a bigger-than-usual split, a team can leverage that for maximum value. Unfortunately for the Dodgers, Gibbons is a probably a terrible hitter overall at this point in his career (CAIRO projects .256/.296/.409 for .304 wOBA). Moreover, he doesn’t have a very large split — his observed split is actually slightly smaller than the league average for lefties over the past four seasons. When I run his catcher-esque .304 wOBA projection through the mighty platoon-a-tron, I get a Jason Kendall-esque .283 wOBA versus southpaws, but hey, he might hit .311 versus righties, so, oh… wait, that’s worse than his platoon partner’s projected wOBA versus righties? Uh oh…

(snip)

At that point, one has to wonder if the Dodgers aren’t better off just going with Tony Gwynn, Jr.’s glove-only approach in left (or preferably, center with Matt Kemp switching to left) rather than taking up all the extra roster space.

That is the final reason, beyond the offensive and defensive issues, that this seemingly inexpensive roll of the dice is problematic: the Dodgers are going to have to keep Gwynn around anyway. Gibbons and Thames can barely play the corner outfield, and with the other starting outfielders being right fielder Andre Ethier and center fielder Matt Kemp (who are unlikely to overshadow the Ichiro Suzuki-Franklin Gutierrez combination anytime soon), the Dodgers are going to need someone to back up Kemp in center. So Gwynn has to stay. That is five roster spots taken up with outfielders for very little gain. Thames has a place on a major league roster as a right-handed DH/emergency outfielder and Gibbons is nice Triple-A depth/minor league deal material. As a left-field platoon on a team trying to contend, they aren’t a winning combination.

Cameron agrees, to some extent. While he acknowledges that a straight platoon of Gibbons/Thames could look good on paper…

The problem is that it rarely actually works out this way. Starting pitchers often don’t last more than five or six innings, so a platoon hitter may only get two or three at-bats against a starter before being faced with a seemingly never-ending supply of specialist relievers coming out of the bullpen. Their struggles against same-handed pitchers are the reason they’re platoon players to begin with, and these matchups often present problems in late-game situations.

The Dodgers are going to run head-first into this problem with a Gibbons/Thames platoon. While they may start the game with Gibbons against a right-handed pitcher, by the seventh inning, their choice will almost certainly be to let Gibbons hit against a lefty (his wRC+ against them is just 88) or use Thames as a pinch-hitter. Both scenarios present problems. As we noted here a year ago, there is a significant performance loss exhibited by players who have to come off the bench and hit cold; on average, hitters lose about 10 percent of their overall abilities when being forced to pinch-hit. While pinch-hitting Thames against a lefty might sound intriguing, by the time you add in the pinch-hitter penalty, the situation turns again in favor of the pitcher.

Even worse, if there’s a left-handed reliever already on the mound when Gibbons comes to bat, Don Mattingly will have choose whether to send Thames up to the plate to pinch-hit, giving the opposing manager the ability to bring in a right-handed reliever to counter his move. In that situation, not only will Thames be facing a pinch-hitting penalty, he’ll also be facing a right-handed pitcher. The advantage of the platoon is effectively negated in most high-leverage situations.

Cameron goes on to share an interesting thought: the idea of a platoon based on the Dodger starting pitcher. If, as he suggests, the Dodgers have two lefty flyball pitchers (Ted Lilly & Clayton Kershaw) along with three righties who tend more towards groundballs (Chad Billingsley, Hiroki Kuroda, and Jon Garland), then perhaps it makes more sense to start Gwynn when the lefties are on the mound just to take advantage of his excellent defense.

Finally, and I hate to sully such excellent thinking with such Plaschke-itis, but I have to ask about his praise of Gibbons in today’s article. We all remember Plaschke destroying Manny Ramirez endlessly for getting busted on PEDs, right? Regardless of your viewpoint on Manny, Gibbons got busted for the same offense. Yet Gibbons warrants a nice feature, while Plaschke probably wouldn’t slow his car if he saw Manny crossing the street. It’s more evidence of the hypocrisy on the subject of PEDs in baseball as a whole, and particularly of the moral void of Plaschke himself.

******

Over at Baseball Prospectus, Jay Jaffe has his yearly “Replacement Level Killers“, and wouldn’t you know it, James Loney made the list. An excerpt:

Since his strong rookie season, Loney has been incrementally moving backward relative to the average major-league first baseman in terms of True Average, from 27 points above in 2007 to 11 points below in 2008, 16 points below in 2009, and 19 points below last year. At the same time, his salary has risen from $400,000 to $3.1 million last year, his first year of arbitration eligibility, giving the Dodgers less for their money each year. Loney got off to a hot start in 2010 (.309/.361/.442 before the break) but limped home (.211/.285/.331 after it); the Dodgers went from 10 games above .500 and tied for the NL wild-card lead at the break to two games below .500 and 12 out when all was said and doneThey got less value from Loney than they did from the similarly disappointing Russell Martin (3.2 WARP), whom they non-tendered.
Remedy (?): If Loney weren’t a favorite son of assistant general manager Logan White, who drafted him in the first round in 2002, he would have been a non-tender candidate as well. Based upon the arbitration numbers exchanged between player and team earlier this week, he’ll earn somewhere between $4.7 and $5.25 million in 2011, money that could have been put to better use toward a bigger bat for the flagging Dodger offense. At the very least, the team should have come up with a platoon partner to protect Loney from lefties, against whom he’s hit just .261/.321/.381 in his career, but Ned Colletti has studiously been sitting on his hands to the point of numbness, neglecting his offense after fortifying his pitching staff.

No hint of bias there: Jay’s actually a Dodger fan.

Why Is Matt Guerrier Worth More Than Jon Rauch, Grant Balfour, Kyle Farnsworth & Brian Fuentes?

January 19, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Posted in Matt Guerrier | 35 Comments

A few weeks ago, I wondered if the Dodgers should look for another lefty for the bullpen. In the initial version, I completely forgot to include Matt Guerrier. Yesterday, Jon Weisman at Dodger Thoughts put together his initial 25-man roster and did the exact same thing – he forgot about Guerrier.

Why are we all having such a hard time remembering that Guerrier is a Dodger? Perhaps it’s because the signing, which most of us disapproved of at the time, isn’t looking any better as the winter goes along. In the last week, four free agent relievers signed multimillion dollar deals with teams that hope to contend in 2011. (I’m excluding Rafael Soriano from this conversation, as that deal wowed even Yankee fans used to excessive spending.) Jon Rauch left Minnesota to sign in Toronto, while the A’s snapped up both Grant Balfour and Rauch’s former teammate, Brian Fuentes. Earlier, the Rays signed Kyle Farnsworth, in part to replace both Balfour and Soriano.

All four signed deals that were less in total value than the Dodgers gave to Guerrier earlier this offseason. You can make the argument that all four are better pitchers, too.

No, really:

Guerrier’s the only one who hasn’t managed a FIP below 4 in either of the last two years, and he’s also got the highest tERA (which is similar to FIP, but includes weights based on batted ball types) as well. He’s next to last as far as K/BB ratio goes to Fuentes; however, Fuentes was superior in OPS allowed in 2010 (.607 to .625) and is also absolute murder on lefties, which is exactly the need I was contemplating in my post about lefty relievers.

The argument here isn’t that Guerrier is a lousy pitcher (he’s not, really) or even necessarily that the Dodgers should have signed one of these pitchers instead of Guerrier – I’ve long argued that a team with offensive problems as big as the Dodgers do probably have more important areas to spend their money than in the bullpen.

But if you have to sign a reliever, and you hand out the most years and dollars amongst a group of rough comparables, shouldn’t you be confident that you got the best of the group? And if not the “best”, at least not “possibly the worst”?

You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that Guerrier for 3/$12m is a better deal than Rauch for 1/$3.75m (with a club option!), much less better than all of these deals. It seemed obvious from the start of the offseason that relief pitching was going to be the position that was grossly overvalued this year, and it seems clear now that the Dodgers would have been far better off waiting to fill that need.

Two Old Outfielders At Once: Dodgers To Sign Marcus Thames and Gabe Kapler

January 17, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Posted in Gabe Kapler, Marcus Thames | 39 Comments

Finally, some news: Ken Gurnick of dodgers.com reports that the club is close to an agreement with free agent outfielder Marcus Thames. (Dylan Hernandez followed up by saying that the deal is done, and that Gabe Kapler will be signing a minor-league deal.) Gurnick also mentions Eric Chavez, though I’d have to think that signing Thames wouldn’t necessarily prevent signing Chavez as well.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard about Thames, of course; he’s been linked to the Dodgers for over a month now. Back in December, his name first came up along with Jerry Hairston and Scott Hairston. At the time, I preferred Thames:

Marcus Thames cannot be your everyday left fielder; his defense is just too poor. But let’s not pretend as though the team doesn’t have a need for right-handed bench power, especially in late innings against tough lefties. When the other side brings in their LOOGY, do you really want Tony Gwynn up there? Andre Ethier? You can’t bring Jay Gibbons off the bench for that, and Jamey Carroll‘s not a great option either. A righty with some power is a good option to have. Now, can Thames be that? I’d be willing to find out.

Since then, I’ve been swayed a bit more towards Scott Hairston, who offers plus defense but suffered through an absolutely terrible 2010, though I’ve still been clear about my preference for Lastings Milledge.

Interestingly enough, R.J. Anderson of Rays blog The Process Report just so happened to look at right-handed outfielders earlier today, and not only were Hairston, Thames, and Milledge included, so was Kapler, who at 34 had a .578 OPS in 140 injury-plagued Tampa plate appearances last year. (Please try to ignore the fifth name on his list.)

If the goal with Jones is to add an upside play, then the remaining options of right-handed corner outfielders who pound lefties will not spawn the same levels of attraction. In fact, the best option remaining might be an old friend by the name of Gabe. Kapler has easily outhit the remaining choices over the last three seasons versus lefties, with a few low-cost options in hot pursuit:

Gabe Kapler: .275/.348/.491
Scott Hairston: .280/.332/.507
Marcus Thames: .265/.332/.499
Lastings Milledge: .292/.357/.434
Andruw Jones: .219/.352/.428

(Jermaine Dye is not included since he’s really not much of an outfielder, even less so than Thames)

Unfortunately, Kapler might fall to the rare career-ending ankle sprain, which leaves Hairston, Thames, and Milledge out there for perusal. Of those, Hairston is the best and provides the most defensive flexibility. It is also worth noting that he produced those numbers while playing in San Diego and Oakland, where arctic conditions greet offensive expeditions. Thames spent last season with the Yankees and has some experience at first base (44 games worth, Jones has eight, for comparison) while Milledge was playing poor defense and running the bases unimpressively with the Pirates.

So it seems the Dodgers have come up with the #1 and #3 options on the list, based on performance vs. LHP over the last three years.

At this point, I think any arguing one way or the other is just nit-picking. Thames is coming off the best 2010. Hairston is the most complete package, yet was awful last year. Milledge probably has the most raw talent, yet hasn’t been able to put it all together and has had disciplinary issues. Kapler’s had the most success against LHP in recent years, yet was injured and lousy in 2010. It’s almost a toss-up as far as I’m concerned, because you just can’t be sure who’s going to give you what in 2011. If anything, we should at least be happy that they’ve brought in a righty outfielder… even if it was the team’s own odd roster management that put them in this situation.

So if you’ve come here looking to see if I hate the idea of Thames, then no, I don’t. I hate that this is the best the Dodgers are going to be able to do; I hate that with every passing day the idea that much is riding on Tony Gwynn hitting enough to win the CF job. I think there’s good arguments to be made for preferring Hairston or Milledge, yet I can’t complain too much about getting a guy who has an .820 OPS and 94 homers over the last five years (assuming the money is small).

Really, this is going to be determined by Thames’ usage. If he’s a lefty-killing specialist who is 80% off the bench and 20% in left field, that’s useful enough. If he’s penciled in to a strict platoon role where he gets a goodly amount of playing time in the field, that’s an enormous problem. Thames is one of the worst defensive outfielders in baseball, and as tenuous as the idea of a Jay Gibbons / Matt Kemp / Andre Ethier outfield might be, putting Thames in LF alongside Kemp and Ethier would be atrocious, to the point that it might be the worst fielding trio in the game. This is going to be another test for Don Mattingly, and we’ll have to see how he handles that.

Oh, and one last thing: not that we didn’t already expect it, but this should basically seal Xavier Paul‘s departure from Los Angeles.

A Look At Why Bleacher Report Is An Absolute Travesty

January 15, 2011 at 11:02 am | Posted in Bleacher Report sucks | 35 Comments

If you follow me on Twitter, you’ve probably noticed that from time to time I go on a rant against Bleacher Report. The “stories” there, written by unpaid and often inexperienced contributors, are full of horrendous grammar, terrible writing, faulty ideas which have no basis in reality, and facts which are just downright incorrect. When they actually do manage to run sports stories in between lists of sexy women, they’re done in an immensely annoying ‘slideshow’ format, in order to artificially inflate click totals. That’s if you get past the annoying pop-ups inundating you to sign up for their mailing lists, that is.

It’s generally the kind of garbage I would usually neither read nor give the respect of even mentioning on here, and that’s why you never see me link to them. It’s no better than the millions of other mediocre amateur blogs which aren’t worth discussing.

And yet… it’s tremendously successful. They’re the fifth most popular sports destination on the web. They raise millions of dollars in funding. They have content-sharing deals with the Los Angeles Times (among others), and they consistently appear highly in Google search results – as being “news” stories, no less.

That, to those of us who put a lot of work into this for often little or no gain, is tremendously disconcerting. We work hard to bring an interesting or unique viewpoint, while Bleacher Report gets rich by catering to the lowest common denominator. The average reader, or the large site manager looking only for traffic, usually either doesn’t realize or doesn’t care that the quality of the content there is simply atrocious compared to some of the really quality sports writing and blogging out there. I’m hardly alone in this; ten seconds worth of Googling will find you quite a few links of similar complaints. It’s sort of like the Matrix, in that you almost feel like you need to free the readers of that site and show them how good things can be on the outside.

This has been true for some time, but if you’re wondering why I’m bothering to post about BR now, it’s partly because people are often asking me why I hate them so much and I thought it was good to get it written down, but partly because of an “article” that was posted yesterday, entitled “Los Angeles Dodgers: 10 Sluggers Who Could Replace Manny Ramirez in Their Lineup”. The idea, apparently, is to look for power bats who could be imported to LA for 2011 (even though, you know, it’s already January and we all know any further additions would be minimal) and it’s full of such ludicrous ideas, contradictions, and pie-in-the-sky theories that I found it hard to let it pass by.

Again, I generally wouldn’t care that an amateur blogger wrote a terrible article; that sort of thing happens all the time. But if the LA Times and other supposedly reputable organizations are going to syndicate this stuff to their readership, then someone’s got to point out how bad it is.

Besides, it’s 19 degrees where I am, and it’s a long holiday weekend. Have to write about something, right? So here’s the 10 names this piece suggests may be actually be viable for the Dodgers.

1) Jermaine Dye

What BR says…

In 2009, Jermaine Dye proved that he still had something left in the gas tank. Now, at age 36, he could return to baseball and help the Dodgers in a similar fashion to what Manny Ramirez did.

Dye hit .250 with 27 home runs, 81 RBI and a .340 OBP in 2009. Like Ramirez, Dye could be a force in the middle of the lineup.

Why that’s silly…

Manny had a 1.012 OPS as a Dodger. Dye had a .793 OPS in 2009, and didn’t even play last year. Dye (who will be 37 this year, not 36) is like Manny only in that he’s a horrendous outfielder who once played for the White Sox and demands far more money than he’s worth. The only way he’s going to help the Dodgers “in a similar fashion to what Manny did” is if he not only gets a time machine to make him 28 again, but somehow transports the rest of baseball to the deadball era, so he looks as good as Manny by comparison.

2) Prince Fielder

What BR says…

For a couple years now, Prince Fielder‘s name was tossed around as a potential trade target. If the Brewers fall out of the race, which is less likely now that they traded for Zack Greinke and Shaun Marcum, Fielder could be an option in 2011 for the Dodgers, especially since it is a contract year for him.

Fielder can flat-out hit. In 2010, he mashed 32 home runs with 83 RBI. He also gets on base, owning a career .385 OBP. He would dramatically change the look of the Dodgers’ lineup and serve as a nice tandem with Kemp and Ethier.

Unlike Manny Ramirez, Fielder is not a defensive liability. He plays nearly flawless defense and is a good athlete, posting an impressive .997 fielding percentage.

Two problems will make this deal unlikely, however. One, the Brewers expect to compete in 2011, as shown by the Greinke trade, and two, the finances might still be a bit tight with the McCourt divorce.

Why that’s silly…

This contradicts itself more than once, and I kind of love that. “Hey, let’s get Prince Fielder! Sure, the Brewers won’t trade him because their pitching moves mean they’re going for it hard this year, and the Dodgers can’t afford it anyway, so actually this probably isn’t an option, so I probably shouldn’t have included him, but I already wrote four whole paragraphs so… “

I’m not even going to get into the idiocy of using fielding percentage for a first baseman and coming up with “flawless defense”.

3) Jose Bautista

What BR says…

If the Dodgers trade for Bautista to replace Manny Ramirez, their lineup would look better—granted 2010 was not a fluke. In 2010, Bautista hit the 54 home runs and had 120 RBI’s, and he could be the replacement the Dodgers are looking for.

One major problem that could hamper the Dodgers’ chances of getting Bautista is that the Jays will want good talent in return for him. It is likely they would want to pry Billingsley or Kershaw away from the Dodgers, something it does not seem like the Dodgers want to do

Why that’s silly…

I don’t know that “granted” was quite the word you were looking for there, to start, but somehow I doubt the Jays are looking to move their 54-homer man. If they are, then I’m betting there’s about 28 other teams who’d consider him a fit too. Besides, again, let’s contradict our own idea by pointing out that the Dodgers aren’t trading Billingsley or Kershaw for him, thus making trading for a guy who isn’t getting traded a non-starter anyway.

4) Justin Upton

What BR says…

Justin Upton is a young power hitter who is a force at the plate. If the Dodgers could somehow pry him from the Diamondbacks, a National League West title might be in the cards for the boys in blue.

Upton is signed by the Diamondbacks through 2015 and figures to be a big part of their offense, but for a pitching-starved team like the D-backs, they might have to listen to offers for quality pitching, something the Dodgers have.

Why that’s silly…

And if I could somehow look like Tom Brady, then a supermodel might be in the cards for me. Do I really have to explain why the Dodgers aren’t getting Justin Upton from the division rival Diamondbacks?

5) Derrek Lee

What BR says...

Currently, James Loney plays Lee’s first base position, but Lee might still be a fit for the Dodgers. If Loney can move to the outfield (he has played three career games in right field), the Dodgers can put both potent bats in the lineup.

Why that’s silly…

The idea of trading for Lee at midseason, if he’s having a good year, isn’t actually a bad one. The idea of moving Loney to the outfield, based on his three career games? Nearly as laughable as the idea of him being a ‘potent’ bat. Besides, if Loney really breaks out this season, doesn’t that mean you don’t need to go trade for a first baseman in July anyway?

6) Vladimir Guerrero

What BR says…

Vladimir Guerrero may be 35, but he can still hit like he was 25.

In 2010, his .300 average, 29 home runs, and 115 RBIs helped the Rangers get to the World Series. If he were to be inserted into the Dodgers’ lineup to replace Manny Ramirez, watch out.

Although Guerrero looked lost in the outfield during the World Series, it cannot be any worse than Manny Ramirez‘s outfield play. It might be a chance worth taking.

When Guerrero was 25, he had a .345/.410/.664 line. It was the best year of his distinguished career. Somehow I doubt at 36 this year (not 35), he’s going to be replicating that.

I also think the last line of the second paragraph ought to be revised to something more like, “If he were to be inserted into the Dodgers’ lineup to replace Manny Ramirez, watch out… for an outright revolt from the pitching staff, horrified at what would surely be the worst defensive outfield in baseball.”

Whether Vlad is better or worse than Manny in the outfield is immaterial; they’re both horrendous, and Manny was tolerated only because he was putting up the best offensive numbers in Dodger history. Vlad’s strictly a DH at this point, and while he did have a solid 2010, his OPS was nearly 100 points better in Texas than elsewhere. Pass.

7) Jorge Cantu

What BR says…

The 2010 campaign was a down year for Cantu. In his worst full season as a big league player, Cantu hit just .256 with 11 home runs and 56 RBIs.

When healthy, Cantu can be a legitimate power threat. In 155 games played in 2008, he hit a career high 29 home runs.

Although he can play all around the infield, Cantu’s best position is first base, where he owns a career .995 fielding percentage. The Dodgers might be able to get away with putting James Loney in the outfield, but if Uribe or Blake struggle, another position might open up for Cantu.

With Cantu’s down season, he may be a cheap option on the free agent market. Also, since he is a free agent, the Dodgers would not have to part with anybody to pick up Cantu.

Why this is silly…

Cantu as a righty bench bat isn’t unreasonable, but again, bringing up fielding percentage at first base and moving James Loney to the outfield kind of makes the rest of the point invalid.

8) Vernon Wells

What BR says…

Wells is under a seven-year, $126 million dollar contract. If the Dodgers can trade for Wells in a package that includes pitching, he could be had.

Why this is silly…

Sure, Wells did have a nice rebound in 2010 after some down years. He’s also got $87m coming to him over the next four years in what Sports Illustrated once called the worst contract in baseball. And yet the Dodgers, with two solid outfielders and two plus prospects on the way, would be expected to give up pitching to take on that bloated debt for the next several years? Uh, right.

9) Garrett Jones

What BR says…

He has been a Dodger killer so far in his young career, so why not bring him to Los Angeles?

Jones can be an adequate replacement for Manny Ramirez. Although he hit just .247, he hit 21 home runs and had 86 RBIs and could hit the ball further than most.

Why it’s silly…

Beyond not needing another lefty bat, how exactly does “being a Dodger killer” mean that he’d be successful as a Dodger? I’m also not exactly sure on what planet Garrett Jones, who’s going to be 30 and has precisely one good MLB season under his belt, is someone who is worthy of being named a replacement for Manny. He had a .306 OBP last year. Pretty sure Jay Gibbons could do that.

Also, do you get more runs now for hitting the ball “further than most”? I forgot, all of Adam Dunn‘s homers count for seven runs.

10) Jason Bay

What BR says…

The Mets might want to hang on to Bay, thinking he should be better in 2011 if healthy. However, if the Dodgers come up with a nice package deal for him, he could be patrolling left field in place of Manny Ramirez, granted that he waves his no-trade clause to come to Los Angeles.

Why it’s silly…

Again, with the “package deal” for under-performing, over-paid, over-30, broken-down veterans. Bay’s got over $50m still coming to him after a year in which he hit just 6 homers in 401 PA and missed over two months with a concussion. Sure, why wouldn’t the Dodgers put together a nice package of players for that? I think they could offer the Mets a package of unsalted crackers and Sandy Alderson would jump at it.

******

Yeah, I hate myself for devoting this much time to Bleacher Report too. Let this be the last time it happens. If the writer of that article should see this, well, nothing personal, guy. I’m sure that if I were him, with just about no experience, I’d jump at the chance to get my name out there as well. But if the people in charge of any large media site (yes, I’m looking at you, Los Angeles Times) that partners with Bleacher Report sees this? You should be ashamed of yourselves for lending your name to content like this and misleading your readership into consuming this tripe.

No More Lefty Outfielders?

January 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Posted in Johnny Damon, Scott Podsednik | 21 Comments

A quick note from Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times, who’s finally on Twitter:

Colletti rules out signing Johnny Damon. He says he might sign RH bat to platoon in LF with Gibbons; that would also rule out Podsednik.

Not that I ever really expected either signing to happen, but it’s good to finally see a rumor we don’t like being shot down, rather than played up. Right?

The more we hear about the outfield situation, the more it sounds like the hope is that Tony Gwynn can hit enough to carry his excellent glove in CF, pushing Matt Kemp to RF and Andre Ethier to LF. Failing that, it sounds like Jay Gibbons and Xavier Paul are really going to get a shot to battle it out in LF, though that may cause some roster issues.

As for signing a RH bat, we all know the pickings are slim. I’ve made my feelings about Lastings Milledge clear, but I suppose it’s also worth revisiting Scott Hairston. I was lukewarm on him when his name came up in rumors a few weeks ago, mostly because he was atrocious in 2010. That said, Joe Pawlikowski of FanGraphs (and River Ave. Blues) made the case today that Hairston compares favorably to Matt Diaz, whom everyone wanted to see in LF.

Diaz’s draw is obvious, since his value comes on offense. He owns a career .348 wOBA and mashes lefties to the tune of a career .387 wOBA. In three of the last five seasons he has eclipsed a .350 wOBA. Any team that needs to balance their lineup to better match up against lefties will find plenty of use for Diaz. Any of the 29, or maybe 28, teams that missed out on him can find similar value in Hairston.

That’s not to say that Hairston’s bat matches Diaz’s in any way. He has a career .320 wOBA, though he does redeem himself against lefties with a .355 career wOBA. Those numbers, however, don’t come particularly close to Diaz’s. In addition, Diaz has hit righties a bit better in his career, a .312 wOBA to Hairston’s .300. It’s clear, then, why Diaz drew more interest. But as we know, offense doesn’t count for the entirety of a player’s value.

On defense Hairston has been the better player in terms of both UZR and DRS. Since 2004 Hairston has accumulated 14.3 UZR and 26 DRS, while Diaz has been quite average, accumulating 1.6 and 2. Even if we throw out the defensive numbers and go with the eyeball and scout test, Hairston easily grades out as the better defender. Hairston’s defensive value has led to seasons that, in some ways, have been as good as, if not better, than Diaz’s. See the chart below:

This isn’t to say that Hairston is a better choice than Diaz. Given the choice between the two players I would take Diaz. His bat has historically been better, and while both players have had injury problems, Diaz’s haven’t been quite as bad — Hairston has hit the DL every year since 2006. But I don’t think the difference between these two has been reflected in the free agent market. Diaz got plenty of bites and ended with a two-year contract. Hairston has received little interest, and hasn’t been mentioned on MLBTR since December 18.

Teams seeking a right-handed platoon bat who can also serve as a fourth outfielder can find value in Hairston. He’s not a starter, and he’s not going to put on a hitting display, but he can be a solid contributor off the bench to a contending team. I’m a little confused as to why he’s received no attention, while seemingly every team wanted Matt Diaz.

I’m still not completely sold on Hairston, in large part because he was so bad in 2010 that he’d need a big bounceback just to even be decent. Still, I hate the idea of going into the season without at least one more right-handed outfielder, and at this point in the offseason Hairston may even be had on a minor-league deal. If he can be had cheaply, I wouldn’t be against bringing him in.