|
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 
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.
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? Thankstony 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.
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?
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.
