2011 February « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness

So Long, Duke…

February 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Posted in Duke Snider | 13 Comments

It has just been reported that Duke Snider has passed away today, at the age of 84. What can you say about the man that hasn’t already been said? Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to watch him play, but he is unquestionably one of the greatest players this organization has ever had. A phenomenal player and, by all accounts, just as great of a guy. For those who got to see him, what are your favorite Snider memories?

R.I.P., Duke…

- Vin

Bud Selig Nudges Frank McCourt Closer to the Door

February 25, 2011 at 7:53 am | Posted in Frank McCourt | 28 Comments

Wanted to get to this last night, but it’s too good to pass up, because there’s good news for those who like bad news for the McCourts. Bill Shaikin with yet another great scoop:

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has rejected a proposal under which Fox would have lent about $200 million to Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, three people familiar with the discussions told The Times.

McCourt would have used the Dodgers’ cable television rights as collateral, extending the team’s current contract with Fox by as many as four years if he did not repay the loan, according to the individuals, who were briefed on the proposal but who are not authorized to discuss it.

That, my friends, is what we call a sign, a pretty big sign that you’re not wanted in the club any longer. Selig may not have the power to outright force McCourt from ownership, but there’s plenty he can do to make it difficult. Selig scuttled a similar loan proposal to deadbeat Texas owner Tom Hicks last year, and that played a large part in forcing the Rangers into the hands of new ownership.

This is mostly a win for Dodger fans, because besides for the obvious great news that McCourt looks to be in even further trouble, not accepting the loan both avoids further indebting the team to FOX and keeps open the possibility of larger TV payments down the road. (Had McCourt defaulted on the loan, FOX could have extended the broadcast contract for years at far below market rates.) Yes, I realize some will point out that any future owner isn’t necessarily going to be the white knight we all hope for, and if the Dodgers’ valuation tumbles because of this it may open the door to another underfunded owner. This is a real possibility, and the grass isn’t always greener. But I think we’d all take the gamble that someone else may or may not be better than stick with the near-certainty that what we have now isn’t cutting it, right?

Of course, it’s difficult to know how this affects the short term? If McCourt was willing to mortgage the future like that, he may well be in an even worse situation than we know, though to be fair the Dodgers did spend more on free agents this winter than anyone expected. Still, this is a good step in the direction we all want, and that’s a McCourt-free future.

A Valuable Learning Opportunity

February 24, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Posted in Jonathan Broxton, Tony Jackson | 18 Comments

During today’s ESPN chat with Tony Jackson and Angels writer Mark Saxon, a question about Jonathan Broxton inevitably came up:

Rachel (Hattiesburg)
Hi guys. Can we expect J Broxton to return to the stellar closer he was a couple years ago? Or does he lose his job early? Thanks

tony jackson
Hey Rachel. Judging by the way he pitched late last season, I’m not sure he has a closer’s makeup, but we’ll see. Don Mattingly insists he does have that makeup, and he bases that on the fact that Broxton was never that bad until late last year. But if you look at his career saves percentage, it isn’t that great. They’re going to give him the job for about a month to prove he can still handle it. But if he struggles out of the gate, I think you’ll see a change.

I agree with Jackson’s overall premise – that Broxton has about a month to prove himself – and I generally like Jackson’s work. But the use of “career saves percentage” completely kills me. On the list of “stats that mean absolutely nothing,” it comes in ahead of RBI and only slightly behind wins in my book, and since that message just got disseminated to a wide ESPN audience today, it’s a great chance to illustrate just how meaningless it is.

Saves and blown saves, of course, are generally useless on their face; they’re a manufactured stat that only tells you who happened to be pitching during a predetermined and precise set of circumstances, namely in the 9th inning with a lead of up to three runs. That means the stat alone is heavily dependent on many, many factors outside a pitcher’s direct control – and that works both ways, because Broxton’s well-remembered June meltdown against the Yankees didn’t even count as a blown save, because he came in with a four-run lead, despite that game being basically the definition of blowing it.

Yet they’re constantly misinterpreted as having some sort of significant insight into a pitcher’s performance. Remember when Francisco Rodriguez set a record with 62 saves in 2008? What people conveniently forget is that due to a quality yet low-scoring Angels club, he also set the record with the most save opportunities of all time. That year came in 120th of all-time on the WXRL scoreboard, a much better indicator of Rodriguez’ place in history. Need I remind you of Shawn Chacon‘s 2004, in which he somehow put up 35 saves despite going 1-10 with a 7.11 ERA?

If citing saves are bad, citing blown saves are worse. It’s one thing to say that Broxton blew 7 of his 29 save chances last year. That alone is somewhat misleading, because it neglects the fact Casey Blake let a potential double play through his legs in the Phillies game, or again that the Yankee game didn’t even count. At least he was the closer. At least he was coming into games in the 9th inning with the chance to win or lose them.

But to cite his career blown save percentage? That’s just unfair. Remember, from his debut in 2005 through mid-2008, Broxton wasn’t the closer. He was the setup man, mainly to Takashi Saito. Setup men work in the 7th and 8th inning, not the 9th, and that means that it’s by definition impossible to collect saves, only to blow them. Blown saves are even particularly more meaningless in those innings, since that doesn’t even necessarily indicate that the game was lost. So sure, by the end of 2008, Broxton had 19 career saves and 19 blown saves. Is anyone really thinking that all his quality work in those years made him a 50% closer? Of course not; if so, you’re penalizing him for things he never could have done.

Again, I like Jackson, and I certainly understand the trepidation towards Broxton. Let’s just please not damn him publicly with numbers that have no actual meaning.

******

Hey, great news for anyone who thought Kenley Jansen wasn’t going to make the team. Molly Knight tweets:

Mattingly says Jansen will work 7th inning typically, 8th when Kuo is unavailable and could close if Broxton has gone three days in a row.

Vicente Padilla To Have Arm Surgery

February 23, 2011 at 7:45 am | Posted in Vicente Padilla | 16 Comments

It’s not quite Adam Wainwright possibly needing Tommy John surgery, but it’s also not good:

Vicente Padilla will undergo surgery on his pitching arm on Thursday to release a nerve that is entrapped by one of the deep muscles in his forearm.

The Dodgers have not set a timetable for his return.

You’ll remember, of course, that Padilla missed two months last year with – wait for it – nerve problems in his right arm. He was able to avoid surgery, and came back strongly, putting up a 1.80 ERA with a 52/13 K/BB in his first nine starts after returning.

It’s hard to say the full impact here until we know more details, though it should be noted that Padilla’s deal is heavily based on incentives. With Ronald Belisario still MIA, there’s now three potential openings in the pen, news which must make Blake Hawksworth, Ron Mahay, Scott Elbert, and the cast of thousands happy.

Who knew that the additional pitching depth would be tested by February 23?

Gaining Clarity on the Dodger Batting Order

February 22, 2011 at 7:45 am | Posted in Casey Blake, Don Mattingly, Vicente Padilla | 34 Comments

About six weeks ago, I examined the Dodger batting order, wondering how this oddly assembled mismash of players would fit behind Rafael Furcal at the top. I reviewed some options, but basically determined that there was no perfect solution, particularly at #2.

Over the weekend, a story from Ken Gurnick of dodgers.com has helped us gain a little bit of insight into what Don Mattingly is thinking:

One day before he addresses the full squad for the first time as manager, Don Mattingly said Monday he plans to bat Ethier third and Kemp fourth and keep them there “all year long.”

Mattingly said he’s still thinking about Casey Blake as a No. 2 hitter behind leadoff hitter Rafael Furcal. That would likely mean James Loney following Kemp, with Uribe sixth, the left-field platoon of Marcus Thames/Jay Gibbons seventh and the catching platoon of Rod Barajas/Dioner Navarro eighth.

Ethier at 3 and Kemp at 4 is what I predicted in January, and it could be awesome, or it could just as easily be disastrous. Nonetheless, it’s an acceptable use of imperfect options, because we’ve known all winter that the success of the 2011 largely hinges on what you get out of those two. JaMarcus Gwybbons, Jr., at 7 and the catchers at 8 is also the best you can do with those subpar choices, so that’s fine as well. Loney at 5 and Uribe at 6 seems to also make sense, continuing the L/R balance of the lineup and pushing Uribe’s inferior OBP down as far as you can; ideally, he’ll often come up with some combination of Ethier, Kemp, and Loney on base, allowing his occasional power to do the most damage.

That brings us to the only really questionable idea, which is putting Casey Blake in the two spot. I certainly understand Mattingly’s thinking there, because it does make for a great L/R lineup balance (on days that Gibbons or Gwynn starts at #7, there wouldn’t be a single situation with back-to-back hitters from the same side), and there’s quite honestly no obvious solution. The problem, of course, is that Blake is hardly the ideal answer himself. At 37, he’s coming off what is arguably the worst year of his career; his 27.1 whiff percentage is the highest he’s ever had, and his .159 ISO is the lowest he’s had since 2002. He’s making less contact, he’s hitting for less power, and his age doesn’t exactly promise a rebound. It’s not really the kind of hitter you want to see getting the second-most at-bats in your lineup, or the kind of guy who gives you hope that he can advance Furcal into scoring position for Ethier and Kemp to take advantage of.

Still, I’m hard-pressed to offer a better solution. Uribe’s brand of low OBP and decent power certainly doesn’t fit the spot any better, though I do wonder if James Loney may be an interesting choice there. We all know that Loney has little power, though his K rate was 10% less than Blake’s. On the other hand, that could certainly turn into more double plays, given Loney’s propensity for hitting grounders nearly half the time. I guess the tiebreaker here is that it would also mess with the L/R split, because you’d have lefties at 2 and 3, and righties at 4-5-6 (assuming it’d be Kemp-Blake-Uribe).

So I suppose it comes down to this: I don’t like Casey Blake as a #2 hitter, but there’s also not a really great alternative. So I tentatively approve of Mattingly’s choices here, since he’s doing the best with the limited options he’s been handed.

******

In other news, we have our first injury note of the spring (and yes, I saw that Dana Eveland pulled his hamstring last week, and no, that doesn’t count):

Vicente Padilla is heading to LA to have MRI on his right elbow, which has similar pains as last year. Results expected tomorrow.

That’s not a great sign, though it does underscore the importance of all of the pitching depth Ned Colletti put together this offseason. If anything, it might scuttle any prospective battle between Padilla and Jon Garland for the #5 spot, since it sounds like Padilla’s injury concerns might make him more effectively used in short bursts anyway.

Should Dioner Navarro Be Handed a Job?

February 20, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Posted in A.J. Ellis, Dioner Navarro | 28 Comments

I’m somewhat hesitant to even write this post, because I think we all know that whomever ends up being the backup catcher is about 38th on the list of “will the Dodgers succeed this year?” – and either way, A.J. Ellis is hardly a top prospect that demands opportunity. I’m not ignorant to the fact that this choice probably doesn’t have a whole lot of impact on the season, and it seems more than likely that all three catchers are going to see big league time in 2011 anyway.

Still, the question must be asked: why does Dioner Navarro have a major-league deal and a seemingly guaranteed spot, while Ellis is ticketed for the minors?

I mean, I get the superficial reasons. The switch-hitting Navarro was once a highly sought-after prospect and even made an All-Star appearance in 2008, while Ellis is a soon-to-be 30-year-old veteran of eight minor-league seasons who hasn’t hit a homer since 2008. The idea, I assume, is to hope that Navarro regains his old form and can be the catcher of the future, especially since he’s only just turned 27.

That’s all well and good, and I hope it happens, especially since there’s not much help coming from the minors any time soon. But is he really likely to do that? If not, should he be handed a job as readily as he seemingly has been?

Let’s look a little more closely as Navarro’s Tampa Bay career, which included nearly 1700 PA over five seasons. That’s enough playing time that we can draw real conclusions from it. Here’s his five seasons in Tampa:

One of these things is not like the other, right? Navarro had two atrocious seasons in Tampa (the most recent two), two mediocre seasons (his first two)… and one quite good (for a catcher, anyway) year in 2008. Now let’s look at that chart again, but add BABIP to the equation.

Well, now we have something, don’t we? In three of Navarro’s last four seasons, his batting average on balls in play landed within roughly the same range, yet in 2008 a fluky amount of balls fell for him. I won’t say that his one good year was entirely due to luck, because 2008 was also the one year in Tampa that he’d managed to cut his whiff rate below 13.6%. He was getting the ball on the bat more often, and the balls were falling more often. But his K rate has increased in each year since 2008, and his ISO mark (an indicator of power) has fallen in each year since 2007. With his BABIP regressing to what seems to be his normal levels, it’s clearly not a good trend.

Put another way, he’s basically been on a downward trend ever since he got to Tampa, except for that one fluke year. There’s no better way to illustrate that than by doing so graphically, so here’s his BABIP and wOBA charts, courtesy of FanGraphs:

Well, look at that. Both metrics are on a pretty consistent downward path, with that one fluke year sticking out like a sore thumb. It makes me wonder what his career line, currently sitting at .249/.309/.356, would look like if his 2008 had followed the rest of his career path. His career batting average would likely be in the .230s, and his OBP would certainly be under .300. So basically, he’d be Rod Barajas (career BA/OBP of .239/.284), but without the power – i.e., the only thing which makes Barajas even slightly palatable. Obviously, you can’t ignore the fact that he did put up that 2008, but you also can’t ignore that he’s been underwhelming at best in every other year of his career and downright awful the last two seasons, which of course carry the most weight.

Remember, when he was signed back in December, I shared this quote from the guys at DRaysBay, who’d seen him play everyday for five seasons:

I think I speak for the entire Tampa Bay community when I say, “Thank goodness that’s over.” Dioner Navarro seemed like he had so much promise when the Rays acquired him from the Dodgers back in 2006, and four and a half seasons later, he hasn’t lived up to any of it. His plate discipline all but disappeared (he used to clock in around a 10% walk rate), his power never developed, his defense never improved, and his attitude got surly when the Rays demoted him to the minors this season. Especially with the unexpected emergence of John Jaso this season, I’m very, very glad to see Navarro head out the door.

That’s hardly encouraging, right? Getter back to Ellis, he does indeed have zero power; even playing in high-offense parks in Albuquerque and Las Vegas the last few years, he hasn’t homered in either of the last two seasons. But in this particular situation, that might be okay. The Dodgers have imported high-power, low-OBP guys like Barajas, Juan Uribe, and Jay Gibbons to try and shore up last year’s power-deprived attack. They’ll hit more homers than guys like Russell Martin and Ryan Theriot will, but they’re certainly not going to help the club’s on-base skills. A batter who can get on base, even if he has no power, is certainly a fit – particularly one who was the hottest Dodger hitter in the last month of 2010 (.417/.533/.500).

So tell me, why is it that Navarro has a $1m contract for 2011, while Ellis has bus rides around the PCL to look forward to? Because of that one good year? That fluke year also isn’t fooling the latest iteration of Baseball Prospectus‘ PECOTA projections, pegging Navarro for .243/.304/.336 and Ellis at .256/.364/.321. The numbers just don’t support it, and that’s without even questioning the off-field issues brought up by Navarro refusing to remain with the Rays in the playoffs last year after not making the roster. It’s also without bringing defense into the equation, as that’s notoriously hard to evaluate for catchers, though it should be noted that Ellis has a very good repuation, and the DRaysBay quote above wasn’t exactly glowing towards Navarro. (Update: after this went up, BP colleague and DockOfTheRays blogger Jason Collette added, “enjoy that hot mess behind the plate.” So there’s that.)

Now as I said upfront, I get that Navarro has the prospect history and does have the one good year, and it’s worth it to see if he can recapture that magic and be useful going forward. I’m fine with that; in fact, I love the idea. I’d just have preferred to see it on a minor-league deal, and I don’t understand why he seemingly doesn’t have to fight for the job.

******

Totally unrelated: a few weeks ago, I answered five questions about the Dodgers over at Razzball. They were posted today, and spawned some good conversation. Take a look.

Ronald Belisario’s Troubles Are Far From Over

February 16, 2011 at 11:21 am | Posted in Jay Gibbons, Ronald Belisario | 28 Comments

This morning, it was “we don’t expect Ronald Belisario to arrive today.” Okay, no one really expected him to be completely on time, so if he’s a day or two late, no big deal. Right?

Yeah, about that…

Ronald Belisario could miss the 2011 season, according to his agent, Paul Kinzer.

Pitchers and catchers were supposed to report to the Dodgers’ spring-training complex on Wednesday, but Belisario wasn’t there. The hard-throwing reliever reported late to camp in each of the last two years because of visa problems.

His latest problems could be more serious.

Kinzer would not specify why Belisario was still in his native Venezuela. But asked if Belisario was having trouble securing a visa, Kinzer replied, “It goes a little deeper than that.”

Kinzer said he didn’t think Belisario would be able to enter the United States at any time this year.

“Unless some things change drastically, I’m not very optimistic at this point,” Kinzer said.

Every time I read that quote, all I can think of is Ron Burgundy in Anchorman: “Boy, that escalated quickly… I mean, that really got out of hand fast.”

(Cue Belisario: “I killed a guy with a trident. I stabbed him right in the heart.”)

I’m going to predict the fan reaction here, and that’ll be “cut him loose! He’s unreliable! We don’t need him! Get rid of him!” That’s fair, but also unnecessary. If he doesn’t report, then the team can just put him on the restricted list, freeing up the 40-man roster spot. Any action beyond that is obviously going to depend greatly on what the circumstances are here, though I must admit I’m less interested in knowing what’s really going on than I am in knowing why this is just being brought to light now.

There’s always a silver lining, however, and in this case there’s two. First, seems like I’ll be able to keep up the “Has Belisario Reported Yet?” image on the sidebar there for quite some time. Second, you know there’s a few guys doing a jig in Arizona right now – guys like Blake Hawksworth, Ron Mahay, Ramon Troncoso, Scott Elbert, and even Lance Cormier, who all just saw their chances of making the club rise by quite a bit.

******

Unrelated, but still interesting. All winter, we’ve been treating it as a foregone conclusion that Tony Gwynn, Jay Gibbons, and Marcus Thames would all make the team because of their major-league contracts. Not so fast, says Tony Jackson…

Gibbons’ ability to play first base and the outfield could be a factor in the ultimate decision as to whether to go with five infielders and six outfielders or vice versa. But although Gibbons’ contract is technically a major league deal, the fact that he has to actually make the club to get the last $250,000 of his $650,000 salary means he isn’t viewed as a lock. If he has a bad spring and the Dodgers cut him loose, that would open a spot for an outfielder — presumably Paul — and another utility infielder. Thames could serve as the backup first baseman if Gibbons isn’t around.

I still think that Gibbons is an overwhelming favorite to make the club – whether that’s deserved or not – but this is the first indication we’ve heard that his chances may be at something less than 100%. It gives Xavier Paul a ray of hope, anyway.

******

Finally, as you’ve no doubt seen elsewhere, Don Mattingly named Clayton Kershaw as the Opening Day starter today. I’ve long felt that the gig was completely overrated, but I definitely dig Mattingly’s style of getting it out of the way on the first day, rather than waiting until camp was nearly over like Joe Torre did last year.

Lance Cormier, Come On Down

February 16, 2011 at 7:21 am | Posted in Lance Cormier | 9 Comments

Per Dylan Hernandez, the Dodgers have signed righty reliever Lance Cormier to a minor-league deal with an invite to spring training. Cormier just gets added to the pile of veteran arms in camp on zero-committment minor league deals and is otherwise not really noteworthy, but I’d like to take you through my thought process when I saw the news.

First, I got flashbacks to Lance Carter, who also came to LA from Tampa, but as part of the ill-fated Edwin Jackson trade of 2006. Carter allowed 25 baserunners and 11 runs in 11.2 innings as a Dodger in what proved to be his final professional season. Thinking of Lance Carter makes me die a little inside.

Then I thought of Rheal Cormier, who had a productive 16-year MLB career with several teams, and whom I mainly remember because the name ”Rheal” is pretty awesome.

Getting back to Lance Cormier, an initial look at his baseball-reference page shows that maybe this guy isn’t so bad, as he pitched in at least 45 games in each of the last three years, with ERA of 4.02, 3.26, and 3.92. That could be useful, right?

But then I look over to the right column, and see that he’s walked less than 4.3 per 9 exactly once in his career, and for a guy who doesn’t strike out all that many, that seems brutal. It was even worse in 2010, since he actually walked more (4.9/9) than he struck out (4.4/9). Not good.

The brain doesn’t stop there, though. Seeing that K/BB mark made me think that, “hey, didn’t I write about this guy already?” Indeed I did, back on December 3, when I was looking at the players who were non-tendered by other teams:

Cormier comes up because he had a 3.92 ERA this year. He also had a 1.648 WHIP and walked four more guys than he struck out. Uh, no thanks. PASS.

Yep. Gross. Still, Tommy Rancel of Rays blog The Process Report (and FanGraphs, and Bloomberg) chimes in with an explanation of how a guy with that kind of rate can be successful:

@MikeSciosciasTI Cormier is useful as a low-lev groundball guy.

@MikeSciosciasTI K/BB is awful. He had a reverse split, but I think he was overexposed to LHB last yr. If you need a GB in the 6th, he’s ok.

“If you need a groundball in the 6th inning” is probably what ought to be in the dictionary next to “minor-league invite”, right? So while the numbers aren’t great, he’s managed to kick around the bigs for seven seasons, and while he won’t make the team he might not be totally without his uses.

I don’t quite understand why guys like this bother with the Dodgers this year, though. As I mentioned the other day, the pitching depth is excellent – something like fifteen deep, and maybe only one spot open for discussion in the bullpen. He – or Mike MacDougal, or Oscar Villareal, etc. – wouldn’t have a better chance of grabbing a spot on a team with a more unsettled staff?

Six Reasons for Optimism in 2011

February 14, 2011 at 10:40 am | Posted in Clayton Kershaw, Matt Kemp, Vin Scully | 57 Comments

I’ll be the first to say that this hasn’t exactly been the brightest offseason around here. We’ve been dismayed at the seemingly excessive contracts handed out to Matt Guerrier, Rod Barajas, and Juan Uribe. We’ve cringed at the impending disastrophe of the JaMarcus Gwybbons, Jr. situation in left field, wondered why they couldn’t find a righty partner for Andre Ethier, been disappointed over the inability to upgrade on Casey Blake, and resigned ourselves to another year of mediocrity from James Loney. We’ve been terrified at both how there’s no good option for a #2 hitter and how the lineup as a whole seems to have been assembled with no regard for OBP. We’ve worried about atrocious outfield defense and considered what things may have looked like if the near-misses for aging vets Aubrey Huff , Michael Young, and A.J. Pierzynski hadn’t been misses at all. We’ve fretted that minor-league deals or not, historically poor players like Juan Castro and Aaron Miles are in the mix and just may make the team, and we’ve wondered when and if proven young talents like Clayton Kershaw and Chad Billingsley would see long-term deals.

And that’s just a list of on-the-field concerns, because there’s still the ongoing McCourt embarrassment, the uncertainty around inexperienced new manager Don Mattingly, and yet another fun year of “will Ronald Belisario make it to camp?” (As a sidenote, I considered running an entire post about that, because while the official reporting date hasn’t arrived yet, with his history, how was he not planning to be back in the country by February 1st at the latest?)

So with all of the questions surrounding this team, it’s fair to say that my expectations for 2011 are tempered at best. I see this as a club that’s built to win around 85 games, and if everything breaks right maybe that can be 90. That’s a team that will have a say in the wild card race and possibly the division, though not a team I see as clearly being one of the three best in the league.

Still, a team that has the potential to win 85-90 games is hardly an unwatchable disaster, and as the weather starts to warm and the team reports to camp, there are reasons for optimism – and we’d be remiss to ignore them.

1) Clayton Kershaw. You hardly need me to revisit all the ways in which Kershaw is awesome; I did just that already in his 2010 Season in Review piece. He had a two-month stretch last season in which he was basically the best pitcher in baseball, and while that’s probably a bit too much to hang on his head right now, you can certainly make the argument that he’s already one of the best lefty starters in baseball. Forget what you hear about him still needing to do this or that to be an “ace”; if he made no further progressions, he’d still be worthy of being at the top of nearly any team’s rotation.

Yet, there’s still so much more there. Last year he made a marked improvement in his major weakness by walking 10 fewer batters despite pitching 30 more innings than in 2009. Don’t forget, he’s not even 23 yet. I’ve been arguing that he turned potential into performance last year, but the greater accolades haven’t quite come yet because of his mediocre (and pointless) win-loss record. This is the year that the greater baseball world recognizes Kershaw in his rightful place as one of the dominant starters in the game.

2) Overall pitching depth. Did Ned Colletti overpay for Ted Lilly? Yeah, probably. Did he go overboard on Matt Guerrier? No question. Is the “Jon Garland vs. Vicente Padilla for 5th starter or bullpen arm” thing going to go as smoothly as we hope? I’m not so sure.

Still, while the rotation may not be able to feature the four aces of Philadelphia, the depth from one through five (or six) is nearly unparalleled. Make all the arguments you like that Tim Lincecum & Matt Cain or Zack Greinke & Yovani Gallardo are better than Kershaw and Billingsley (I’m not convinced, but I can see it), but don’t forget that most teams use 7-10 starters throughout the year. While other teams will be like the 2010 Dodgers, picking through scraps of rejects and prospects to patch and fill, this year’s edition actually runs six deep, and that’s without even including John Ely, who filled in so ably last year.

Milwaukee blog The Brewers Bar put this theory to the test in their jubilation over adding Greinke and Shaun Marcum by trying to see what potential NL rotation compiled the most WAR last year. It’s not a perfect evaluation, since everyone clearly won’t have identical seasons in 2011 as they did in 2010, but it’s a fun exercise. How much respect did the Dodgers get? They didn’t even make the initial list. How did they look when added to the results? The overall WAR of their top five beats everyone in the league except for the Phillies. That’s without even counting Vicente Padilla, by the way; I can’t imagine how he compares to the potential 6th starter on most of those teams.

Then there’s the bullpen. Sure, maybe Jonathan Broxton bounces back, and maybe he doesn’t. (I happen to think that he will.) You’ve still got the unhittable Hong-Chih Kuo. You’ve got the tantalizing potential of Kenley Jansen. You’ve got Guerrier, who’s certainly overpaid but still useful. You’ve got Padilla, in whatever role he ends up in. You’ve got Belisario, who I understand cannot be counted on but who most people don’t realize was actually pretty effective last year when he was able to put his problems aside. Then you’ve got a smorgasboard of useful arms fighting for the last spot, guys who in other organizations might very well have guaranteed spots - guys like Ron Mahay, Blake Hawksworth, Scott Elbert, Ramon Troncoso, Jon Link, Josh Lindblom, and Travis Schlichting. Understanding that many of them will start in AAA isn’t a disappointment as much as it is a boost, since there’s no question that depth will be tested as the year goes on.

A pitching staff is not one man, or two. It’s usually fifteen or more, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a team with equal or better depth that far down the line.

3) Matt Kemp. As with Kershaw, I’ve spent so much time talking about Kemp that I’m not going to rehash it in full here. Just know that he’s my top choice for a rebound this year, and before you accuse me of looking at it through Dodger blue glasses, realize how many other players I’ve criticized and don’t expect to have good seasons.

So why am I high on Kemp? It’s because all of the signs are pointing in the right direction. Remember, even though I’m not going to defend his 2010 production, you’d think by the way people talked about him that he hit like Garret Anderson. This is still a guy who set a career high in homers and had an OPS above league-average. If that’s his “disaster” year, that’s still a guy who’s pretty special. Besides, any and all excuses are now gone. Think that his troubles last year were due to work ethic issues? He’s taken responsibility. Think that he spent too much time with Rhianna? I don’t agree, but they’re split up now. Think that he didn’t get along with Joe Torre? He’s got a good relationship with Don Mattingly. Think that his issues with the rest of the coaching staff last year were reflected on the field? As you’ll see in a second, that staff has largely turned over. Instead of cranky Bob Schaefer and Larry Bowa, he has baserunning guru Davey Lopes.

Again, not defending Kemp’s reaction, but it’s hard to ignore that after his scorching April last year, he headed downhill at just about the time Ned Colletti oddly called him out in April. Then, as it became clear that Torre & crew wouldn’t be back in 2011, he ended the year by homering in five games in a row. That’s got to be a pretty nice taste in your mouth as you head into the offseason.

Kemp’s in his age-26 year this season, and in addition to playing for a contract, he’s got to know that many view this as a make-or-break season for him after his turbulent 2010. I think we all know that regardless of the moves the club has made this offseason, 2011 largely depends on Kemp’s resurgence. I won’t pretend I’m not at all biased here, but I’m squarely in his corner as far as expecting a breakout 2011.

4) Coaching staff turnover. You could almost consider this as a companion piece to Kemp, but the implications here are much wider. If you’ve been reading this blog for any period of time, you know how happy I was when Joe Torre decided to leave. As I’ve said several times, he may have been the right manager for the 2008-09 “Manny-mania” crew, but he wasn’t the right man for 2010 and certainly wasn’t going forward. But it wasn’t just him. Bench coach Bob Schaefer not only was the man who caused some of the Kemp drama, he aired the dirty laundry on the radio before the season was even over. Larry Bowa was so old-school and despised that even though Mattingly may have wanted him back, Colletti didn’t. I can’t say I’m disappointed to see a single one shown the door. (Mariano Duncan left as well, though I can’t say I really had an opinion on him either way.)

Sure, there was – and still is – a lot of concern over choosing Mattingly over Tim Wallach. Mattingly will have to prove himself to be the right choice, but the new coaching staff seems like a massive improvement. Trey Hillman was a failure as a manager in Kansas City (though you can’t totally ignore the lack of talent he had), but his experience and relative youth (47) makes him a good choice as a bench coach. Getting Wallach to stay in the organization as 3B coach should be seen as a coup, and adding Davey Lopes is an absolutely great get, particularly for his baserunning prowess. Inasmuch as you can grade coaching staffs, this is a group I’m very satisfied with.

5) The next wave of young players. After the much-hyped group that arrived between 2006-08, including Kemp, Loney, Ethier, Kershaw, Billingsley, and Russell Martin, the last two seasons have been something of a dry spell as far as impact prospects are concerned. Ivan DeJesus got hurt and hasn’t recovered his lost luster. James McDonald showed promise, but couldn’t hang on and was shipped out. (Foolishly, in my mind, as you might know.) Scott Elbert still has a chance, yet has proven little and probably won’t make the club out of camp. The same goes for Xavier Paul, who has potential but is a third outfielder at best, and likely to end up elsewhere anyway. There was also Russ Mitchell, who many tried to sell as “the next Casey Blake” but whom I see as a bench piece at best. The only young player who debuted over the last two years who really made any impact is Kenley Jansen, and his ascendence was something of an out-of-nowhere story, considering his catching conversion.

That’s not so much an indictment of the farm system as much as it is a cyclical fact of life; if you graduate as many quality players as the Dodgers did several years ago, you’re almost certainly going to have a gap until the next class is ready. But while we’re probably still at least a year away from seeing the next group push through to the majors, 2011 is a notable year because many of the names we’ve been hearing about are likely to make the move to AAA, putting them just one step away from the bigs. That includes Jerry Sands, a late-round pick who has destroyed every stop of the minors. It includes Trayvon Robinson, who had a breakout 2010 and is probably the closest to being big-league ready of this group. At some point during the season, it’ll include Dee Gordon, who’s unrefined but undeniably exciting. It may even include Rubby De La Rosa, the organization’s 2010 minor league pitcher of the year who turned heads with his exciting 2010.

Again, it’s probably premature to expect much big-league impact from them this year, other than possible September cameos by Sands and Robinson, but 2011 will go a long way towards seeing if the answers of the next few years can come from within or not.

6) Vin Scully is still here. No explanation required. It doesn’t matter if this team wins 10 games or 100, as long as Vin’s calling them, it’s worth listening to.

******

What have I missed? What causes for hope are exciting you for the upcoming season?

What Kind Of Games Are Happening In the Dodger Bullpen?

February 11, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 37 Comments

So here’s something fun: Twitter friend “JustOneMiss” comes through with an excellent find, of what what appears to a rudimentary scoreboard inside the Dodger bullpen area under the left field bleachers, taken during a stadium tour in late January.

(click to embiggen)

It’s fascinating, really, even though I have no idea what they’re tracking. It can’t be wins or saves; the first entry is for Ramon Troncoso on April 8, but he pitched a scoreless 7th inning in a 10-2 Dodger win. It can’t even just be for good performances, since April 16 shows Russ Ortiz, yet he gave up four earned runs over 1.2 innings.

But it does appear to have some correlation to in-game activity, since each of the names pitched that night. It also appears to have some connection to games the team won, since the April dates noted are all Dodger victories. So it seems that if the team loses, no one in the bullpen wins. Yet why, after Carlos “Monty” Monasterios gets noted for April 21, did no one pop up for the next eight days? The Dodgers did win on April 24 in Washington, an extra-inning affair in which Monasterios pitched 2.2 scoreless innings to get the win. Despite that omission, it’s clearly got something to do with Dodger victories, since you can see how long the May list is – it seems like forever ago now, but the Dodgers did go 20-8 that month.

If you look closely, the July 21 entry reads “Borzy/Flip”, clearly referencing bullpen catchers Mike Borzello and Rob Flippo. I suppose you can infer they earned some extra credit for Chad Billingsley‘s complete-game shutout of the Giants that night. There’s also a special notation of “Weaver #100″ on May 7, and that indeed is the day Jeff Weaver picked up his 100th career MLB victory – though apparently not enough to give him the nod over Ramon Troncoso in the bullpen olympics that night.

What I find most interesting here is that it’s not, as you might think, just a way to pass the time while at Dodger Stadium, because these are not all home games. Right off the bat, the April 8 game was in Pittsburgh, so they’re keeping score and on the road and bringing it back home.

It’s also an interesting way to see the progression of the bullpen as the season wore on. Mainstays Jonathan Broxton, Hong-Chih Kuo, and Ronald Belisario are listed the most, but every now and then you’ll see a Justin Miller, a Jon Link, a Travis Schlichting. We probably forget too often that relievers actually do have lives during the 23.75 hours a day they’re not actually in the ballgame, and seeing the winners from April who didn’t last with the team must be a stark reminder of the human element of baseball, staring at you on this board months later.

So have at it, MSTI I-Team. What are we looking at here? What did you have to do during a Dodger victory to earn enshrinement in the Sharpie Hall of Fame here? Tossing sunflower seeds into a hat? Who can get the most digits from girls in the bleachers? Pin the tail on the Ortiz?