Thread: Los Angeles Dodgers--Official September Thread

Originally Posted by irisher

I chalk it up to the original poster.

More like the Curse of Juan Pierre.

Originally Posted by jbruin152

The difference between a .280 and a .320 hitter is one hit a week. You wouldn't notice it by simply watching games, but as we all well know there is a very large difference between the two.

There are also subtle aspects to the game that the stats don't tell you. That argument goes both ways. Forcing a bad throw, allowing another runner to advance into scoring position, distracting a pitcher and making him throw over to first, all kinds of stuff.

I judge all hitters on the same criteria: how much they individually bring to the offense. Hence my using of stats that aren't skewed by the performance of teammates. If you want to be led astray, that's your call.

The whole game depends on the performance of your teammates, it's a team sport. Guys can't drive in runs if other guys don't get into scoring position, guys can't score if other guys can't drive in runs. You can get three hits, looks great in a box score, then leave guys on in your fourth at bat and come away with nothing. Every situation is different.

Again, no surprise: you are jumbling the logic and changing the subject. Why Pierre bats at the top of the lineup or why Pierre plays every day are irrelevant to the argument. I am simply explaining why his run totals being higher than others have a lot less to do with speed than it does with an unlevel playing field.

And again, none of this changes the fact that Pierre leads the team in runs in large part because he plays every day, bats at the top of the lineup, and as I'm surprised at myself for excluding... bats in front of the best hitters on the team.

How am I changing the subject? It has everything to do with speed, that's why he's in there and why he's at the top of the lineup. That's his role. If he's leading the team in runs scored and second in the NL in stolen bases, he's doing his part. The best hitters on our team aren't very good, so it's a good thing Furcal and Pierre can get extra bases. If we're waiting for them to string four hits together to get a guy in we'd have even less offense than we do now.

Yet again, the difference is mine is backed by data.

So runs scored and stolen bases aren't data?

I've already clarified this. Team runs are important. Individual runs don't really tell me a whole lot about an individual player.

That's where we disagree. Guys at the top of the lineup are supposed to score runs, that's their role on the team. If Pierre was not getting on base or was getting thrown out at the horrible rate you claim, he wouldn't be scoring runs.

More disliked:

JD Drew or Juan Pierre?

Hmm. It's a tough one. Both have really ****ed this team up. Drew opting out forced Colleti to sign Nomar, sign Gonzo, and could keep the Dodgers from signing Boras clients. Pierre's signing will leave the lineup with a hole for 4 more years, possibly force the trade of Ethier and/or Young, weaken the defense, and tie up money that could be used on somebody good.

I'm going with Pierre because his presence will do more long term damage to the club. Gonzo is gone and Nomore isn't far behind. I suppose the answer should be:
C) Ned Colleti/All of the above

An interesting suggestion in Neyer's chat today, since the season is over it's time to discuss the many trades and signings that will never happen.

Marc(Minnespolis): Am I crazy for wanting the Twins to trade Johan to the Dodgers for Kemp, LaRoche and Kershaw?

SportsNation Rob Neyer: I think you're brilliant, Marc; make that deal and toss in a one-year contract for Barry Bonds, and you've got yourself a 90-win team next year.

Colin (NY): You're talking 90 wins for the Twins or the Dodgers?

SportsNation Rob Neyer: Twins. The Dodgers would get only 88 under the Santana Plan.

Would you do it? Kemp looks like a legit middle of the order guy, Kershaw is a consensus future ace (but so were Jackson and Miller), and LaRoche is still a question mark as the 3B of the future.

Johan? Probably the best pitcher in baseball, he's gonna command around $20 million per in a contact extension.

It's the same question again, potential or performance?

No way I would do that. The Dodgers don't need pitching help. That 20 mil+ could be spent on a power bat which would really help the club. Trading away cheap, quality players and not filling any holes doesn't make sense. Not that the rotation doesn't need help it just isn't a priority. Now Kershaw, Kemp, and LaRoche for Pujols and I'm game.

Originally Posted by jbruin152

Sergio Pedroza might end up being a guy we regret getting rid of... just ask Claw21. That kid can rake.

I hated that trade.

JBruin152, we will regret trading him. In college he hit bombs. In the minors, he has hit bombs. His only knock was that he struck out a little bit too much. But as often is the case, youth and the ability to hit homeruns sometimes leads to K's. He will improve in time. I have no doubt.

I hope he has a great career. And his brother Jaime, I was hoping he would become a Titan. He didn't. I'm glad he's a Dodger though.

Originally Posted by Italian Seafood

There are also subtle aspects to the game that the stats don't tell you. That argument goes both ways. Forcing a bad throw, allowing another runner to advance into scoring position, distracting a pitcher and making him throw over to first, all kinds of stuff.

Which is great and all, but far less important than a guy who can hit versus a guy who can't.

Originally Posted by Italian Seafood

The whole game depends on the performance of your teammates, it's a team sport.

Obviously, but again I'm not talking about team runs. I'm talking about individual contribution.

Originally Posted by Italian Seafood

Guys can't drive in runs if other guys don't get into scoring position, guys can't score if other guys can't drive in runs. You can get three hits, looks great in a box score, then leave guys on in your fourth at bat and come away with nothing. Every situation is different.

Are you really trying to tell me that a guy who gets three hits in a game, on an individual level, isn't doing his job? We are talking about individual production here. If a guy goes 3 for 4, he's not the problem.

And I've said this 100 times already... I don't care about one game. Over the course of the season (and definitely over the course of a career), it tends to even out. If you get 3 hits every game, chances are you'll do just fine even if your team doesn't back you up in some games.

Originally Posted by Italian Seafood

How am I changing the subject? It has everything to do with speed, that's why he's in there and why he's at the top of the lineup. That's his role. If he's leading the team in runs scored and second in the NL in stolen bases, he's doing his part.

Again, again, again: context and proportionality.

You oversimplify and keep throwing this nonsense out without bothering to figure out why it is what it is. Please try to understand WHY he is leading the team in runs scored. I've already told you.

Pierre has the 4th most plate appearances in the NL, yet he's only 15th in the NL in runs scored. That's very telling.

If you replaced Pierre with a good hitter and gave him the exact same number of plate appearances, he'd score more runs than Pierre. Very simple.

Originally Posted by Italian Seafood

The best hitters on our team aren't very good, so it's a good thing Furcal and Pierre can get extra bases. If we're waiting for them to string four hits together to get a guy in we'd have even less offense than we do now.

Saying "our best hitters aren't very good" is a statement relative to the entire league. You say he's leading the team in runs scored, so please compare him to guys on the team. When I say they are the best hitters on the team, I'm quite obviously talking relative only to other players on the team. So of course Pierre has a better chance of scoring when he's on-base (which isn't all that much in a relative sense, and is quantifiable) than other players on the team when he's on base.

If we had a better hitter than Pierre, we wouldn't have to worry about stringing together hits either.

Originally Posted by Italian Seafood

So runs scored and stolen bases aren't data?

Of course they are data. How many times Grady Little picks his nose a game is data too. When you throw stats out there without regard for proportion or context, it isn't particularly relevant.

Originally Posted by Italian Seafood

That's where we disagree. Guys at the top of the lineup are supposed to score runs, that's their role on the team. If Pierre was not getting on base or was getting thrown out at the horrible rate you claim, he wouldn't be scoring runs.

We know Pierre isn't getting on base very much. Look at his on-base percentage, which is generally used as an indicator of "getting on base very much."

We know Pierre gets thrown out on the bases. Look at his CS. His SB% is actually above break-even, so I'm glad he's running rather than not running, but it's only a marginal impact if you consider both sides of the coin.

He still leads the team in runs. So a curious mind starts to wonder, why is that? That's where you look at data and figure it out.

Originally Posted by jbruin152

Which is great and all, but far less important than a guy who can hit versus a guy who can't.

Pierre's hitting .294, I wouldn't say he can't hit. It would be nice if he walked more, yes, but let's not act like he's Alex Cora.

Are you really trying to tell me that a guy who gets three hits in a game, on an individual level, isn't doing his job?

No, just making the point that numbers don't tell you everything. Timing can't always be measured in compiling stats.

You oversimplify and keep throwing this nonsense out without bothering to figure out why it is what it is. Please try to understand WHY he is leading the team in runs scored. I've already told you.

Pierre has the 4th most plate appearances in the NL, yet he's only 15th in the NL in runs scored. That's very telling.

I'm not discounting your point, it makes sense, but there's more to it than just blaming Pierre. Our top HR guy has 20 (Kent) and our top RBI guy has 85 (Martin) with a week left in the season. So sometimes it's Pierre not being on when they do get hits, other times it's Pierre getting on, stealing his way into scoring position, then being left there.

If you replaced Pierre with a good hitter and gave him the exact same number of plate appearances, he'd score more runs than Pierre. Very simple.

And if we had 3 and 4 hitters who drove in more runs Pierre would score more by doing what he's doing.

If we had a better hitter than Pierre, we wouldn't have to worry about stringing together hits either.

How do you figure? We have Furcal in the leadoff spot with almost identical numbers to Pierre. You can place blame anywhere. Again, I'm not putting Pierre in Cooperstown or even the All-Star Game, I just don't get how he's to blame for everything. Some of you guys decided before the season that you didn't like him and that was that.

Of course they are data. How many times Grady Little picks his nose a game is data too. When you throw stats out there without regard for proportion or context, it isn't particularly relevant.

Runs are runs, I don't know what other context you're looking for. Maybe if we had more than two guys with more than 70 RBIs in a season Pierre would have scored more runs, Furcal, too.

What you're saying can be taken to mean Pierre is less valuable because he comes to the plate too much.

That's like saying Luc Robitaille only had so many goals because he got more shots than everyone else. Of course he did, that's a valuable thing to do, even if most of them are stopped.

I think we should be grateful to have a top of the order guy who plays 162 games, steals lots of bases, and scores a lot of runs. Yeah, his OBP and OPS aren't in the $9 million range, but we haven't heard McCourt complain about spending money and there's no cap in baseball.

Would I like him to get on even more and steal 100 bases and score 200 runs every year? Of course! But I think there are much bigger problems on this team than a #2 hitter with a crappy OPS.

Having said that... if I were making up the lineups based on the info I have, I probably would have used an OF of Gonzo-Kemp-Ethier more times than not.