Sweet, Sweet Veteran Leadership

I can think of no better example of the necessity of veteran leadership:

Tamba Bay Starting 3rd Basemen
April 11-August 7: .278/.352/.533
March 31-April 9, August 8-18: .328/.403/.625

I stand by my 2004/5 offseason argument for Aybar over Young.

***

Oh, another veteran making news is Greg Maddux. I'm guessing the Dodgers will give up two players whose loss will be mildly agitating, but I won't entirely rule out that this will turn out to be a really horrible move when the names shake out. I sort of implied in the THT article that I thought Gammons got gamed on his Baseball Tonight report; I think San Diego was trying to get Gammons to spill and oversell the story, since people seem ready to believe a lot of things about LA's front office. That way, they'd have more leverage when... I'm sorry, did I say when rather than if? How silly of me.

But I guess Greg Maddux is still a better option than Stults or Jason Johnson. And Tanyon Sturtze is on the roster. (I want Colletti to trade him for Myrow.) So Maddux makes three starts in August and gives the Dodgers a little more flexibility in September, maybe? He'll save like 2 runs over Stults and hopefully will turn it over to the bullpen quickly; with Johnson and Stults in the stable, especially with September call-ups coming, the Dodgers have enough bullpen options that that figures to work out fine.

In the playoffs, Maddux is more an insurance policy. He could end up helping a bit and he probably won't take playing time away from better options, though that could happen.

So were I the Dodgers owner, I'd be fine adding $1 million and a far-away prospect with a bench-player upside to acquire Maddux, provided that such a decision didn't impact the future dealings of the GM.

With San Diego having no leverage whatsoever - can they really even try to get picks for Maddux? - then I would think the Dodgers would be able to close this with some pocket change and linty PTBNL. But if McCourt has simply extracted every last stray coin from the sofa, then we're in for pain.

***

To Paul in the comments: I'll do a full post on Logan White some time, hopefully soon. I've studied White, and I'm not one to parrot hype. I've certainly never said he was the best, but the Dodgers' amateur scouting since he took over has easily yielded among the top 10 in results among Major League teams and, depending on how you assess the resources available, have arguably been among the top five. The statements in the THT article are pretty clear and aren't attempting to differentiate between what component is luck and what component is skill, precisely because that is NOT something I have studied at great length.

Open Thread/Further events

My examination of the "Remains of the Season" for the Los Angeles Dodgers is up over at the Hardball Times. Since it was filed on Tuesday morning, several things have happened that would change the piece a bit were it written now; the intro was updated by the editors but not the body (besides them splitting up my absurdly long paragraphs).

-Jones to the DL, Garciaparra off of it
-Penny got lit up, although by a good offense
-Falkenborg was claimed by San Diego

If you want to leave some comments on it feel free to do so here or at Ballhype.

UPDATE: In case anyone wondered what I meant, I have Dunn being worth about 1-1.2 wins better than a Romero/Burke platoon in RF for the D'Backs over the rest of the regular season - that is what I meant by "that much." (Dunn improving the D'Backs in October doesn't figure to impact LA.)

NL Intraleague Standings

CHC 67-38
MIL 63-43
PHI 60-45
STL 60-48
FLA 58-48
LAD 56-49
HOU 54-48
NYM 55-50
ARI 55-50
PIT 49-56
ATL 47-58
COL 47-60
SFG 44-57
SDP 43-59
CIN 44-62
WSN 36-67

BriFal Update

DePodesta on his current team picking up Falkenborg. DePo doesn't mention that it was his 2004 Dodgers that finally gave Falkenborg his second call up five years later, and I find it noteworthy that DePodesta was able to reacquire him (he was signed when Evans was still the buck receiver and DePo and the Dodgers let him go after 2004 as a minor league free agent rather than protect him on the 40-man roster) only after the Dodgers had to make room for Brad Penny of all people.

I'll put the over/under on Falkenborg's ERA with San Diego at 3.90. I think MSTI would ramp that up to 5.50 or something ;)

For the sake of completeness

If you pay very close attention in the next few days, you will see why I am posting this. From 2005-2008, NL Position Players outside of Juan Pierre posted a .345 wOBA using the full formula from The Book. For various reasons, I am accustomed to using a simplified version that doesn't give credit for bases reached on error and that treats the HBP the same as an unintentional walk (wOBA gives a weight of .92 to ROE and .75 to HBP, meaning the simplification devalues the former by .539 runs and the latter by .026 runs if you assume an out value of -.3). Juan Pierre draws more HBP and ROE than the average hitter, so my simplification devalues him. By how much? From 2005-8, Pierre's wOBA is .3073 with the simplified formula against a league of .3359; with the full formula, it is .3195 against a league of .3451. So my simplified version makes him -16.1 per 650 PA instead of -14.5.

However, by "full formula" I am still referring to a formula that removes all IBB and SH. For a player with as many bunt attempts as Juan Pierre, that obviously works in his favor. If I include the SH in the PA term in the full formula, Pierre goes to -16.55. If I include IBB as walks, Pierre (who has only 2 in the period and 5 for his career) is -18.2 per 650 PA.

This isn't an anti-Pierre post, by the way, it's just a preemptive footnote. But I guess since I'm on the subject and Pierre started against Cole Hamels last night, I'll take a look at the idea that Pierre should be subbing for Andre Ethier. For his career, Ethier has a .318 wOBA (simplified as above) against LHP (299 PA) and .356 wOBA against RHP (1072 PA, and at this point, he's had extremely similar numbers against RHP in each season in case you were curious). Pierre is .314 (1462) against LHP and .324 against RHP (4117). But using the unsimplified formula, Pierre's gap shrinks to only 5 points of wOBA when including ROE, whether or not any of the SH and IBB are added. So there is something to the idea that Pierre is about as good against LHP as against RHP, and interestingly it is in part because Pierre has a higher ROE rate against LHP and a much higher HBP rate (30 of his 59 career HBP came against southpaws). Of more significance is that Pierre has struck out slightly less against LHP; from 2005-8, LHB have struck out in 21.9% of PA against LHP and only in 16.1% of PA against RHP. Meanwhile, if you include everything including the IBB, Ethier has a .365 to .332 gap, which is pretty similar to the league-wide (05-08) gap of .348 against .311. Now, the league-wide number has sample bias issues so let us not confuse it with the notion of a typical split for an individual player. In any event, though, Ethier's splits thus far indicate he's about typical in his split (despite having a higher BABIP in his 299 PA against LHP). In a league of a .331 wOBA, we would expect Ethier to be about .320-.325 against LHP and .350-.355 against RHP. Pierre is perhaps more like .310 against RHP and .300-.305 against LHP. So if you believe the gap between the two in Fielding+Baserunning is about 12 runs in favor of Pierre (say, +14 runs in range for Pierre, +7 in arm for Ethier, and +5 in baserunning for Pierre) then it would indeed mean Pierre has a one run advantage against LHP and a 13 run disadvantage against RHP (over a full season, that is).

(Obviously, you don't do it based just on the relatively small sample of their actual platoon splits, since you need to regress. But we have no reason to believe Pierre's split will be the typical because he is far from a typical player. We'd want to regress to a mean for left-handed hitters with a similar offensive game, not LHB in general. It's something I've wanted to study for a while but have not yet done, so hopefully the approximation above is close enough.)

So if Torre wants to start Pierre against LHP instead of Ethier - which saves the much better hitter for PH duty against RHP relievers, just as was done last night - then I don't mind.

Now, you may be asking how I could make that argument when this very blog has several times argued that Pierre shouldn't be starting against LHP. I still believe that Pierre the player is not somebody you want starting against LHP, and it all comes back to opportunity cost. Simply put, it is easy to get a good RHB outfielder to cover the days that LHP are starting. Mr. Colletti seems to either entirely not grasp this concept or to be vehemently opposed to it, as in his first year he jettisoned three of the four candidates in the Dodgers' system (Jayson Werth, Cody Ross, and Justin Ruggiano), even though the former two are arguably good enough to play everyday and the one he kept, Jason Repko, has never been much of a hitter. The Dodgers' outfield starters in Colletti's tenure have included lefties Drew, Lofton, Ethier, Pierre, and Gonzalez with no RHB getting serious time on the bench other than Kemp, Repko, and Brady Clark's 66 PA (switch-hitters Delwyn Young and Jose Cruz have also been 4th/5th OF for parts of a season). This season, Colletti signed RHB Jones and then replaced him with Ramirez, but that didn't address the issue since it has still fundamentally been Pierre and Ethier that are alternating playing time as the two RHB have been the better overall players (or, in the case of Jones, treated as if they were the better overall player). The Dodgers don't have a LHB who is truly above average on a day an LHP starts, and they haven't had one in Colletti's tenure other than perhaps Drew. But given the poorly-constructed roster, with Jones on the DL it is sensible to be starting Pierre against LHP.

Parisi?

"So for the second time this year, Andre Ethier gets a walk-off base hit - against a very tough lefthanded reliever."

- Vin Scully

Missing the nuance of the punctuation, I thought this was implying that Mike Parisi was a very tough lefthanded reliever. (It is implying that J.C. Romero is a very tough lefthanded reliever, which I'm not so sure I agree with but is certainly reasonable.)

Prospect Face-Off!

Up until now, it was merely necessary to argue that LaRoche was, at this point in time, the superior player. Now, we have a Dodgers' franchise apparently claiming it would rather have DeWitt in the future. DeWitt was born 23 months and 7 days after LaRoche.

At 20, DeWitt hit .268/.339/.442 in 478 FSL PA (league: .255/.326/.375) and .183/.241/.221 in 112 Southern League PA (.249/.322/.368). LaRoche hit .283/.359/.525 in ~280 SAL PA (.261/.329/.400) and .233/.288/.429 in ~240 FSL PA (.256/.323/.374). Overall, that makes each about average hitters for the high A level at that age.

At 21, DeWitt hit .298/.338/.466 in 361 California League PA (league: .271/.344/.426) and .281/.306/.466 in 187 Southern League PA (.259/.334/.392). LaRoche hit .333/.380/.651 in 274 FSL PA (.261/.329/.386) and .273/.367/.445 in 266 Southern League PA (.266/.339/.394). LaRoche shows himself to be ahead of the curve in high A and well above average in AA; DeWitt shows himself to be well above average in high A and perhaps average in AA.

At 22, DeWitt has hit .257/.324/.364 in 309 NL PA (.260/.330/.413) and .5/.6/1 in 25 PCL PA. LaRoche hit .309/.419/.483 in 277 Southern League PA (.249/.322/.368) and .322/.400/.550 in 230 PCL PA (.271/.341/.416). DeWitt looks like he's a solid AAA player as of now, whereas LaRoche looked like a top AAA hitter or an average major league hitter.

In LaRoche's injury-impacted 2007-8, he has hit .304/.417/.541 in 477 PCL PA (league of about .278/.346/.439) and .217/.348/.316 in 184 NL PA (league of about .264/.332/.420). So, his numbers suggest his hitting has been above average relative to major leaguers.

So, I am interested in what DeWitt will eventually do, but the gap between the performance of the two is still substantial. DeWitt may have a defensive edge, but let's not go jumping to any such conclusions yet.

From DeWitt, assuming he is able to claim the 3B job next season, the Dodgers will get 2009 and 2010 for the minimum and then a super-2 year and three arbitration years through 2014. LaRoche will be with the Pirates for the minimum from now through 2010 and then for arbitration money in 2011-2013. It seems improbable that DeWitt will end up the better value, but I suppose time will provide an answer.

Logan White's Cult of Personality

Logan White has been an excellent scouting director. The Dodgers have drafted very well. It is foolish to think that White is nothing special. He is special.

However, he is special at finding amateur players who will eventually succeed in the majors and seems to be pretty good at helping them get there. That specialty is distinct, however, from the ability to structure a roster or the ability to assign the proper value to major league players. It would be of little surprise to find out that White is really on the ball in understanding how valuable major league players are in relation to their peers and how much they should be paid, but personally it would be of little surprise to find out he is not on the ball in this regard. White seems a likely candidate to eventually be a GM, so perhaps we will get a good sense at that time. For now, though, I haven't seen the evidence that he can distinguish quality among successful players, which is distinct from his well-evidenced ability to distinguish quality among amateur players.

So, Logan White has established his reputation as someone I would want to draft the next Andy LaRoche, but he hasn't done anything to establish his reputation as someone I would want to decide how much value the rights to LaRoche have vis-a-vis Ramirez, Ethier, Blake, DeWitt, etc. He may be miscast in an Assistant GM role, and he may not be. In any event, I feel he was taken for the proverbial ride yesterday by seemingly giving his assent to Colletti/McCourt's disappointing charade.

Most of the significant decisions made by the Dodgers in Colletti's tenure have shown an inability to precisely and accurately evaluate talent in the major leagues and upper minor leagues. What amount of responsibility Mr. White holds in this regard is, of course, unclear to me. I just feel as if those who make remarks about trusting White's judgments of major league players or even AA and AAA players are falling victim to a faulty syllogism: White is good at drafting talent, major league players are talented, therefore White is good at discerning among major league players. It is simply the case that baseball performance data for physically mature players with years of professional training (generally, any player older than 23 or 24 or so) can be projected successfully into the future, and that this projection offers a much greater degree of precision than a scouting-only assessment.

I'll continue to give White props for his outstanding drafts for years to come. I've never had any reason to trust his acumen for gauging the relative strengths of major leaguers. Then again, Colletti has done nothing but establish distrust, so White is looking pretty good next to him.

For the record

I've discarded about nine potential posts so far. Suffice it to say that I believe these things:

-Manny Ramirez is not exactly a major upgrade, and he's only a significant upgrade because the Dodgers have Pierre in LF instead of an average LF. Ramirez is a ~5 win/season offensive upgrade, a ~3 win downgrade in range, about a full win upgrade in arm and a full win downgrade in baserunning. Ok, so 2 wins/season, and we'll give some extra credit for improving the bench if Monsieur Sweeney ends up cut. So, 1 win this season and a .015 or so improvement in their expected win percentage for the playoffs.
-Casey Blake is a slight upgrade over LaRoche, I guess. I'm not going to give a shred of credit for being an upgrade over DeWitt.

And for that, they give up the entire careers of LaRoche (major league regular already and has a very good chance to be a 3-4 WAR player), Santana (has enough with the bat that it would be a surprise if he doesn't eventually achieve competence as a major league backup, and could certainly end up a 2-3 WAR player), Meloan (probably a solid #2/#3 reliever, potentially a bullpen ace or #4 starter), and Morris (he's pretty far away but seems to have the potential to be a major league starter). Personally, I wouldn't have traded LaRoche straight up for a salary-less Ramirez and Blake, although I guess the draft picks would make it closer to consideration.

The big spin is that the Dodgers get the Winners now and get a draft pick to replace each of the prospects traded. The problem there is that they have traded successful draft picks (Morris excepted, perhaps) whose bonuses have already been paid. It is true that they may end up with 4 players of equal caliber, but it is not likely, they have to shell out signing bonuses, and there's about 4 years of depreciation. Plus, it's not like the Dodgers wouldn't eventually get compensation picks in six plus years if LaRoche and company are successful major leaguers.

I know few Dodger fans would likely agree, but LaRoche is way more valuable than Andre Ethier; if the Dodgers could have traded Ethier instead of LaRoche to complete this deal, they absolutely should have. Blake could have played RF and LaRoche could have played 3B. Ethier's hitting is below average for his position, he'll probably be a super-2 at the end of the year, and while his defense may be a plus I haven't seen compelling evidence that he's any whiz out there. Blake could have been his equal in RF, and LaRoche could have been Blake's equal at 3B. Maybe LaRoche was key to getting the deal done, in which case we have to wonder about why the Dodgers would neglect the simple fact of LaRoche's superiority and build a strategy around his jettisoning.

So yeah, if the Dodgers win the World Series, LaRoche is no more than an average 3B, and one or two of the comp picks ends up being a legit major league regular then I guess I'll apologize to Ned. But this is clearly a wrongheaded trade and seals the wrongheadedness of its predecessor, the Blake deal. Unfortunately, the gasbags on parade have lavished enough praise on Colletti for this trade that even its likely disastrous outcome will be downplayed because of the obvious Need for the trade. Well, you can't spell Need without Ned.