I’m Pretty Sure James Loney Is Trolling Us At This Point
August 21, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Posted in Chad Billingsley, James Loney | 52 Comments
The biggest news of the day for the Dodgers came shortly before the game, when it was revealed that first baseman James Loney had thrown a bullpen session, since Saturday night’s extra inning affair had exhausted much of the Dodger relief corps. (Why exactly this was a preferable solution to simply shooting the useless Eugenio Velez into the sun and getting an arm from Albuquerque to Denver overnight is unknown, but I’ll try to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that travel concerns for today’s day game made that implausible, and not that Velez is just too valuable to replace.)
This of course led to the usual spate of jokes that if the need arose, Loney would be a more valuable pitcher to the Dodgers than he’s been a hitter this year. Don’t forget, he’d entered the day with the 17th-worst seasonal OPS+ by a first baseman since Jackie Robinson integrated the game in 1947, and he’s lost a portion of his starting job to Juan Rivera, having entered five of his last ten games as a defensive replacement or pinch-hitter.
And then Loney went out and got four hits, including a double and a homer, good for his second four-hit game of the season. Because of course he did.
What we’d forgotten, of course, was that this game was played in Coors Field, and James Loney loves hitting in Coors Field. This is more than just your usual “inflated Denver offense” situation; the homer was his 9th in Colorado in 187 career plate appearances. That’s nearly halfway to his Dodger Stadium career total of 20, which he’s needed 1429 plate appearances to accumulate. Of Loney’s six homers in 2011, four have either come in Colorado (three) or against them (one).
Of course, all this focus on Loney obscures the bizarre day Chad Billingsley put forth in picking up his tenth loss of the season. With the bullpen in shambles, Billingsley absolutely, positively had to put up innings, something which has traditionally been tough for him in Colorado. When he allowed a Mark Ellis single and a Carlos Gonzalez homer within the first three batters of the game, you could almost hear the wheels turning to get Loney out to the bullpen. But Billingsley got Troy Tulowitzki and Jason Giambi to end the first, and then faced just one batter over the minimum through the next five innings. In fact, Billingsley went 7.2 innings, and allowed just one hit after the first frame; unfortunately, it was a Seth Smith homer to right, following a walk to Giambi, in the 7th inning. The non-Loney Dodgers managed just four hits against the corpse of Kevin Millwood, and that’s how Chad Billingsley allowed just three hits while going into the 8th inning in Colorado, yet still came away with the loss. As Jon Weisman notes at Dodger Thoughts, this is only the third time in Rockies history they’ve won a home game with three or fewer hits.
Baseball’s a funny game sometimes. But not as funny as it would have been to see James Loney pitching.
******
I’ve tried to stay away from the “why is guy X playing over guy Y”, since the day-to-day machinations in a lost season don’t really matter too much, particularly when there’s not a ton of great alternatives. But seriously, Dioner Navarro, after another 0-4 today (along with a throwing error), is now at .193/.276/.324. He’s had his chance to prove that his terrible last few years were the fluke, as opposed to his solid 2008. It hasn’t happened. Why exactly are we not seeing A.J. Ellis play every day for the last six weeks?
******
In the LA Times this morning, Ben Bolch delves into new-fangled stats like WAR, VORP, BBQ, and LOL, little of which will be news to most of you. Unfortunately for Don Mattingly, because I’ve generally been a supporter of his this season, I’m obligated to share with you that he’s making me sad:
Don Mattingly, the Dodgers’ manager and a former American League batting champion, said he preferred runs scored.
“Think about it,” Mattingly said. “You have to be on base to do it; you have to be getting yourself in position [to score]. If you’re scoring 100 runs, you’re out there a lot, so it means your on-base [percentage] is up there, it probably means you have some extra-base hits or been a guy that can steal a bag.”
Though the flaws in Mattingly’s argument are obvious, I don’t need to explain why, because Ned Colletti, of all people, is on the case:
Colletti’s rebuttal: Runs scored are influenced by other hitters in the lineup, so they’re not the most valuable measurement.
Well, there’s something you don’t see every day: right on, Ned.
52 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
right on Mike, Mattingly has been making me sad and frustrated all year long.
why not give this fed ex guy we got in the robinson trade a look? if their thinking of giving him a chance to compete of the starting job next year then why not take a look at him too?
Comment by format— August 21, 2011 #
I’m surprised you haven’t called out Mattingly for trading Robinson.
Comment by Brandon— August 21, 2011 #
come on Brandon get real.
Comment by format— August 21, 2011 #
Just because,
we always groan when our closer doesn’t pitch the ninth inning of a tie game on the road, we still have to acknowledge that now Mattingly can say “I told you so’. Saturday’s game it happened once again, but this time it worked. The other relievers held Colorado scoreless and gave our closer a chance to ‘close’ IN THE 12TH. The fact that he failed, is not important. Mattingly won that round.
Comment by DAVID S— August 21, 2011 #
I LOL’d at LOL. Good stuff, Mike.
Comment by Michael Castillo (@110Report)— August 21, 2011 #
There’s no P worth bringing up from Albuquerque. They would have had to reach down to AA. Otherwise I agree with your post.
Comment by a— August 21, 2011 #
Navarro was not lifted because they had no depth at catcher should the Dodgers have tied the game. Barajas was limited to pinch hitting duties.
What should have happened was Ellis should have been called up Friday night for Velez and Troncoso brought up last night by optioning Oeltjen. Its not like they are playing him. And with their limited depth at 3B, putting Blake on the DL for Mitchell might have made sense.
Overall lack of depth this weekend really hurt them.
Comment by Carl— August 21, 2011 #
That’s why he’s batted Casey Blake second all year. Because he scores a ton of runs.
Comment by Deuce— August 21, 2011 #
and can bunt!
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 22, 2011 #
On top of Navarro’s hat trick and throwing error, he had a passed ball, and cost Billingsley at least three strikes via sloppy receiving. He has few redeeming qualities, other than the uncanny ability to always be at bat in the ninth inning of a game we are losing.
Jettison him and bring up Ellis and if Barajas can’t catch, DL him and UPS FedEx up from AAA.
Comment by SamAdams— August 21, 2011 #
And then Colletti followed up that statement by saying: “… Not like Wins and RBI’s, now there’re some stats that tell you everything you need to know.”
Comment by Greg— August 21, 2011 #
Did Colletti really say that?
Comment by The Count— August 21, 2011 #
Yes, Colletti was actually advocating OPS in the article. Pretty sure it’s Ned that is trolling us, not Loney.
Comment by Bip— August 21, 2011 #
Sigh, five walks, Billingsley? What’s the difference between Kershaw and Billingsley that allows Kershaw to cut his walk rate in half over two years and keeps Billingsley’s in the same place, while his strikeouts actually decrease? Is it that Billingsley doesn’t have the stuff to confidently go after hitters like Kershaw does?
Comment by Bip— August 21, 2011 #
technically four, since one was inentional. I think the difference is that Billingsley is a solid starting pitcher, while Kershaw is teasing a Hall of Fame career.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 22, 2011 #
Yeah, about Troncoso: http://www.examiner.com/baseball-in-albuquerque/isotopes-run-out-of-luck-against-redbirds
* * *
Now, the smart thing would be to DFA Velez and purchase Link’s contract, but then he went out and did this last night: http://www.examiner.com/baseball-in-albuquerque/de-jesus-launches-walkoff-homer-as-isotopes-stun-redbirds
* * *
Or for those who do not wish to click, the pitching down here stinks and will be of no help to the Dodgers. Sorry, folks. But do check MiLB.com for a FedEx-led Pacific Coast League notebook tomorrow.
Comment by Chris Jackson— August 21, 2011 #
It would be smart to just DFA Velez and have an empty roster spot.
Comment by Mike— August 21, 2011 #
I am still sentimental about Troncoso’s 4 inning save at Coor’s in 2009. I know he is not the same pitcher anymore, but the Dodgers needed an inning eater today, whomever that may be, in case Billingsley faltered again in Colorado.
Comment by Carl— August 22, 2011 #
Does anyone know why carrying Velez is any better than going with DeJesus for the remainder of the season? If DeJesus isn’t in future plans (he apparently isn’t) then why not let him play, build some value, then deal him to a team that is redeveloping?
And how is it of any use to carry guys who are useless due to injury – Blake, Barajas – and not make some move, ANY MOVE, to inject some life into the bench…it’s as if the front office doesn’t care (insert joke here) or are asleep (another joke)…when your only healthy bat is Eugeni0-23 or whatever the heck pathetic number, there is something radically wrong…
I just don’t get it…
Comment by Rob C— August 21, 2011 #
You know you guys bash Navarro and Loney, they may not be the best, but they are out there everyday.
Comment by Ned Colletti— August 22, 2011 #
Yeah, and especially in the case of Navarro, that is precisely the problem. He’s out there every day screwing up any chance of winnng. Ned, Jr., the season is all but mathematically over. Blake is worried about his long term health due to his neck injury. Put him on the DL for his own good, as well as the team’s.
Groin injuries can linger. Put Barajas on the DL.
Invent some imaginary injury for Navarro, if you can’t bring yourself to release him.
DFA Eugeni0forinfinity Velez.
Four roster spots immediately opened. Bring up AJ Ellis, FedEx, DeJesus, and Sands.
September should bring us an infield of Dee at short, Sellers at second, DeJesus at third, and Sands at first.
And, oh yeah, Ned, Jr., how about Trayvon in…….uh, never mind.
Comment by SamAdams— August 22, 2011 #
No reason to bring up DeJesus, he’s got no power and no value to ever be even Aaron Miles….
Comment by Jon#7#22— August 22, 2011 #
It’s not about winning anymore, but seeing what we have going forward. Velez is not part of any MLB team’s future, and maybe DeJesus isn’t either, but I’d rather give playing time to a young player with potential for improvement, than a waste of oxygen like Velez.
We all know what Carroll and Miles can and cannot do. They need to be shuffled back to utility infielder roles.
Btw, DeJesus just hit a walk off home run yesterday (see Chris Jackson’s post above)…and yes, I know it’s Albuquerque.
Comment by SamAdams— August 22, 2011 #
I think we need to keep Velez long enough so he can set a Dodger record for most ABs without a hit for a full season.
Comment by The Dude Abides— August 22, 2011 #
See you make my point for guys like Navarro, Barajas, Velez and Blake. They are either injured or have got to the majors with little or no ability, but yet they go out every day and give it their all. Those are the type of professional players I look for, that can be leaders by example to those younger players down in the minors.
Comment by Ned Colletti— August 22, 2011 #
I completely agree, Ned. And you forgot to mention pinch-hitter extraordinaire Mark Sweeney, who was the consensus MVP for our 2008 team despite his tough-luck batting line of .130/.250/.163. He had a brutal BABIP. So many of his ten-bounce grounders found their way into infielder gloves. So many of his fly balls run down by the catcher. He had a professional haircut and always ran out his grounders as hard as he could, despite getting thrown out by 15 feet. He set a stellar example for our young players that season, and was undoubtedly our brightest star, far eclipsing that dreadlocked slugger who hit a bunch of overrated home runs.
Comment by The Dude Abides— August 22, 2011 #
Sorry, I forgot to add “rally-killing” when I described the home runs that the dreadlocked slugger used to hit for us.
Comment by The Dude Abides— August 22, 2011 #
Ned, to add to the Dude’s point, I feel not having Brad Ausmus around this year to add his veteran expertise has really hurt the ballclub. His wisdom and card playing ability would have added 5 wins minimum to the team. How could you let him retire??
Comment by Deuce— August 22, 2011 #
“Runs scored are influenced by other hitters in the lineup, so they’re not the most valuable measurement.”
.
That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard a GM say. Runs scored are not the most valuable measurement? And that is why we have a team that is 28th in runs scored.
.
Nice work Jed.
Comment by Rory— August 22, 2011 #
Wait, what? Colletti is 100% accurate there.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 22, 2011 #
Runs scored is not the most valuable measurement? Isn’t that what determines who wins the game? I think it’s been that way since Abner was a minnow.
.
Give me a guy who scores 100 runs every year at the top of my lineup. You think OBP guys in front of Ethier and Kemp wouldn’t make a difference for this club? Give me Pedroia, Ellsbury or Granderson at the top of this lineup and maybe the Dodgers move up from 28th in runs scored.
Comment by Rory— August 22, 2011 #
You’re doing it backwards, Rory. Runs scored DO equal winning games. They do NOT automatically equal the best ballplayers. Would Pedroia or Ellsbury make a difference on this year’s club? Hell yes. But that’s because they’re great players who get on base and hit for power. The fact that they score a lot of runs is partially due to the fact that guys like Gonzalez and Youkilis are behind them crushing the ball. Put Matt Kemp on the Red Sox, and he probably has 25 more runs scored despite being the exact same player. It’s too dependent on those around you.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 22, 2011 #
So what you are saying is, the best ballplayers score a lot of runs? But runs scored is not the most valuable measurement of the top of the order players? At the end of the day, the team that scores the most runs will win every time. What the Dodgers have is Ethier and Kemp and a lot of #8 hitters. What the Red Sox and Yankees have are hitters 1 through 9. So, yeah, you are right. Fill the lineup with superior ballplayers and your team will score a lot of runs. But on this Dodger team, if guys don’t get on in front of Ethier and Kemp, the Dodgers are not going to score a lot of runs. So, what Mattingly is saying makes a lot of sense to me.
.
Maybe it’s just the way Jed said it that rubbed me the wrong way. “Runs scored are not the most valuable measurement.” It always was when I was playing the game.
Comment by Rory— August 22, 2011 #
The difference is as a player, you are trying to score runs and win that individual game. As a general manager, you are trying to identify who is the best player over the course of a season. Runs, like RBI and pitcher wins, don’t help because there’s there’s too much interference in how your teammates performed.
As an example, who helped more? the guy who got hit by a pitch and then scored because the next guy hit a homer? or the guy who tripled but got stranded at third because his loser teammates couldn’t get him in?
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 22, 2011 #
I’m betting it has something to do with the horrendous OBPs that is indicative of the Dodgers lineup. Just saying.
Comment by Tony Fernandez— August 22, 2011 #
this.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 22, 2011 #
Great article on stats, L.A. Times – if it were 25 years ago. And not only is it well-suited for 1986, I could’ve written that in 1986 – when I was 14 years old and knew more about stats than anyone associated with that article.
And did Colletti actually say there’s been a team that won the division despite being outscored for the season? Is that true?
Comment by David Milstead— August 22, 2011 #
2007 D’Backs. That’s the only one I can remember. Their Pythagorean was 79-83, yet they ended up being 90-72.
Comment by Tony Fernandez— August 22, 2011 #
Yep. It hasn’t happened often, but has at least once or twice.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 22, 2011 #
Recently enough that I should have remembered. But, alas, not often enough that Colletti should minimize the issue of actually getting outscored for the season.
Comment by David Milstead— August 22, 2011 #
Maybe he’s a guy who believes in clutch performances?
Comment by Tony Fernandez— August 22, 2011 #
Hey Mike, didn’t you feel as though it got even worse when they mentioned that Wallach likes batting average with RISP?
This was a revealing article, that Colletti is really the genius of the whole Dodgers staff? Now that’s saying something.
As for A.J. Ellis, the Dodgers only seem to care about power and batting average. Since that’s not Ellis’ skill, he gets ignored. What a shame. This lineup desperately needs his OBP.
Comment by Tony Fernandez— August 22, 2011 #
The one good thing is Justin Sellers is playing everyday so, it’s not so bad. Both catchers should be released and a few others too.
Comment by JayDavis— August 22, 2011 #
Barajas is close to a .700 OPS, which isn’t terrible for a catcher. He also seems to be able to get his mitt down and move his body enough to block pitches in the dirt, which is a skill that our banjo-hitting backup doesn’t seem to have.
Comment by The Dude Abides— August 22, 2011 #
It is terrible when we have a guy in the minors who is putting up a .467 OBP at AAA, an OBP that goes even higher when on the road.
Comment by Tony Fernandez— August 22, 2011 #
Which is why our banjo-hitting backup should be DFA’d, and not Barajas.
Comment by The Dude Abides— August 22, 2011 #
For a while it seemed like Navarro kept his foot in the door by being Kershaw’s personal catcher, but all of Kershaw’s recent games have been caught by Barajas. So, Navarro now has no value but is still on the team probably because he’s a catcher, which I guess Ned considers the most valuable resource on the planet (as long as they’re bad catchers, good catchers can be thrown away for pennies, or just dumped outright.)
Comment by Bip— August 22, 2011 #
Barajas and Navarro each have a wRC+ of below 100. That’s a below average offensive contribution. Among catchers with 100+ PA, in the NL there are 14 that have a wRC+ above 100. Why are we sticking with guys who have shown that they can’t nor will hit? Might as well bring up Ellis AND Federowicz to see how they’ll do.
Comment by Tony Fernandez— August 22, 2011 #
[...] recovery. As Navarro continued to struggle, we wondered yet again why Ellis was being kept down in August: I’ve tried to stay away from the “why is guy X playing over guy Y”, since the day-to-day [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2011 in Review: Catcher « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 3, 2011 #
[...] that was the end, it seemed, of James Loney, Los Angeles Dodgers. But beginning with the ridiculous 24-hour span in which he threw a bullpen session in case he was needed to help support an overworked bullpen and [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2011 in Review: First Base « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 5, 2011 #
[...] Yet I can’t even rag on him. It’s not fun. Well, okay, it was fun when he first came up and actually started a game in left field, unless you’ve suddenly forgotten about “Baron Ironglove Von Pickoff“, and I did at one point advocate shooting him into the sun. [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2011 in Review: Second Base « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 7, 2011 #
[...] then again in his next start, on August 21: Of course, all this focus on Loney obscures the bizarre day Chad Billingsley put forth in picking [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2011 in Review: Starting Pitchers, Part 2 « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 27, 2011 #