Dodgers Postmortem: Grading out management
When a season crashes and burns like it did for the Dodgers, it's natural (and appropriate) for a critical eye to land on not just the players on the field but the guys responsible for bringing them in and putting them on the field. And at this point, most fans look at Grady Little with expressions ranging from red-cheeked anger on one end to the same confused, befuddled look my parents had when I told them I wasn't going to law school on the other. Very few smiles sent his way. As for Ned Colletti? He might be a little more popular, but no doubt sales of his fanzine are down as well. And why not? At one point, the Dodgers had the National League's best record. Not sure if you noticed, but they didn't finish that way. We've evaluated the position players, we've evaluated the pitchers. We've handed out hardware.
Time to take a look at Colletti and Little.
In 2006, the pair seemed to find a successful formula working under tough, injury-laden circumstances. They plugged in young players, mixing them in with veterans. Colletti found guys like Greg Maddux and Marlon Anderson to help down the stretch. They guided the team through a horrific stretch of losing coming out of the All Star break, and in September when the Dodgers had no choice but to win, they did.
That was then.
This season, the Dodgers tried to use a similar formula, hoping to squeeze one more year out of older players while giving the kids a chance to develop. They assembled a potentially strong starting staff with an underlying presence of injury risk, hoping volume would help patch any holes. They hoped an offense that didn't have big pop last year would be able to produce similar numbers this season. In the end, there were problems with each approach. The bottom fell out of the starting staff when not only guys like Randy Wolf and Jason Schmidt got hurt, but also potential replacements like Hong-Chih Kuo. The kids came along faster than they expected and some of the vets fell off, meaning that offense didn't produce in nearly the same way, questions of playing time became acute, and in the end, there were some angry ballplayers. Other factors- Rafael Furcal's injury, for example- only exacerbated the problem.
So how much was their fault, and how much is just baseball?
Ned Colletti: I had a very interesting discussion with a passionate baseball fan and Dodger watcher about Colletti's work this season. There were a lot of things we agreed on. For one, the Pierre signing was the biggest mistake he's made as GM. Considering what they were looking at last summer after J.D. Drew's defection, the Gonzo signing made sense. That bringing back Nomar for two years, given how he finished last year, was questionable (he didn't want to bring him back at all, where I thought the second year was dicey). We both had high hopes for Wilson Betemit. Despite that, I felt the move to send him out of town for Scott Proctor was a good one that will pay dividends next season.
Our most interesting debate centered around whether or not can evaluate a GM both on what they do and what they don't do. Where you land on this question is important when it comes to evaluating Colletti's work this season. Heading into the year, the Dodgers were in a tricky spot. Unlike, say, the Angels, who have in years past had prospects blocking prospects yet kept them all, the Dodgers young guys all had reasonably clear paths to the bigs. Lack of seasoning, not entrenched starters with long term contracts, was the motivation for not handing them the keys. So while they clearly had needs, the Dodgers had to be careful as to how they filled them if they wanted to avoid placing more permanent obstacles ahead of their kids.
There were a couple big bats in last year's free agent class. But given the money and years they got, would Carlos Lee or Alfonso Soriano been quality signings? I don't think so. During the season, given what they would have had to give up to make it happen, should they have made the trade for Mark Teixiera? Jon Garland at the deadline to shore up the rotation?
I wouldn't have.
The Dodgers clearly made a choice that unless a player became available that was too good to pass up, they weren't going to package together a group of Major League ready players to bring back one high profile bat or arm. In the long run, I think this will pay off. Look around the league. Look at the free agent lists for 2008 and 2009. There's not much help there. The value of young, productive players has increased exponentially it seems over the last few years, as teams lock up their guys early, often through their arbitration years. It's not just a question of finances. There are literally fewer players to choose from, and those that are available become far more expensive. Once the Dodgers were committed to that path, Colletti's options were reduced. He was forced to work around the margins.
In discussing Colletti, my friend laughed and said he assumed the GM would just run out and get more vets to fill out the starting lineup for next year. That he would, like a Chocoholic in the Dove aisle, refuse to give guys like Kemp, Ethier, and Loney everyday gigs, or sign marginal starters to push Chad Billingsley back to the pen. Should this happen, I encourage all fans to storm the Ravine, pitchforks and torches in hand. I suspect it won't. The Dodgers will, since the market has very little quality, likely stock up on quantity in an effort to shore up the pitching staff. A young player or two might move to bring in someone with more bonafides. But there will not- or best not- be another "Luis Gonzalez" in the outfield to steal time from Kemp and Ethier.
In the end, this year was not a step forward for Colletti. He overreacted to an OF shortage and signed Pierre to a long term deal that is likely going to get more cumbersome as the years pass. His other big ticket FA acquisition, Jason Schmidt, flamed out in a big way. Colletti misread the readiness of the team's youth, and put guys ahead of them that didn't need to be there. Understandable, but still a misread. Especially in the case of Nomar. Given his second half drop off, perhaps Colletti (and me, since I supported the arrangement at the beginning of the year) should have seen the writing on the wall with Garciaparra before Loney picked up some Sharpies and underlined it. Colletti was unable to summon the cavalry down the stretch (in fairness, there was a shortage of good horses available). David Wells helped shore up the staff a little, but Esteban Loaiza certainly didn't, and now it's hard to have faith that he'll be useful next year, either.
Essentially, the Dodgers tried to squeeze just a little more juice out of already dry fruit. It didn't work. The rotation became a worst case scenario, the offense didn't have the pop or (more importantly) the timeliness that last year's version had. This is going to be an interesting offseason for Colletti. The needs are still clear, but should be far fewer question marks regarding the guys who will be back. GRADE: C+ (lower for what he did do, higher for what he didn't).
Grady Little: Many of you already know my position on him, and managers in general. I think they get too much credit when things go well, and too much blame when they don't. More often than not, talent and on-field performance are the determining factors of winning and losing. That doesn't mean the manager doesn't matter, or isn't important. He is. Quality skippering can help smooth out the rough edges of a season, hold together a clubhouse, and give the team the best chance to win by making sure the best guys are on the field.
Little became a lightning rod for all perceived imperfections with the Dodgers. They didn't have a stable lineup. They didn't play the hot hand or try something new. He pulled guys too soon. He didn't pull them early enough. They ran themselves out of innings. They didn't run enough. But while I often found myself in a position of Grady Defender this year- as much on the principles of what I was arguing about than genuine support for Little's decisions- that doesn't mean I think he did top quality work this year. Too often his lineup choices weren't simply unconventional, they were weird. It was difficult, at least as someone observing the team, to get a feel for the flow and rhythm of the club. Often, of course, because there wasn't one. As the year went on injuries played a role in that, but no doubt so did Grady's decision making.
It's fair to say that Little didn't have the same touch in '07 as he did in '06. For whatever reason, the bag of tricks didn't produce the same results. I've never thought he was a brilliant in-game strategist, but that his best qualities as a manager showed up with the other stuff. Management of people, steady guidance, etc. And for a few months, while the Dodgers looked ready and primed to break out, things were (generally) hunky dory. Then the bottom fell out. The rift between the vets and younger guys seemed to both sneak up on him and be larger than he thought. How he could/should have responded to it is up for debate, but if he truly underestimated the problem, that's on him.
On the field, I think he made a mistake by not picking personnel and sticking with them (here, I'm mostly referring to the OF situation). While I don't think playing Ethier over Gonzo six days a week (what I would have done) would have put them over the edge, I think it might have made the situation more clear. Gonzo wouldn't have liked it and likely would have complained, but at least a decision would have been made and clarity on the issue achieved. The same can be said, to a lesser degree, about Nomar. But generally by trying to keep everyone happy, there were to many people that became unhappy.
In the end, I feel that Little is in that large middle of Major League managers. He's not the best, he's not the worst, and in less someone demonstratively better became available, I'd be in no hurry to fire him. He's a supportive manager for young players, and given the composition of the club, that certainly doesn't hurt. For over half the season, the Dodgers were cruising along, not thriving but definitely succeeding. Then the wheels fell off. Injuries, lack of performance, losing. There's plenty of blame to go around, from the guys who constructed the team to the players who played on it to the guy who managed it. Nobody elevated their game, and the result was a collective failure.
I don't blame Grady specifically, but I don't absolve him either. GRADE: C/C-.
There's no doubt the '07 season was a disappointment, but it's not one that should cripple the organization going forward. Or at least it shouldn't. The Dodgers should enter next season with less uncertainty around the diamond. If Colletti can help shore up the back end of the pitching staff, there's no reason to be anything but optimistic about '08. All in all, this management combination is one for two. No reason to freak out... but you don't want that average to continue dropping.
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
I thought you were going to hold Honeycutt and the trainers to the griddle as well?
At least you don't need to hear anymore Dusty talk... unless he doesn't pass his physical.
Posted by: benzo jones | October 17, 2007 at 05:53 PM
I'd give Ned a C and Grady a D. I just think he is the weakest manager the Dodgers have ever had. He makes Davey Johnson and Bill Russell look pretty good right now.
I really hope the Dodgers are looking for power in the players they are drafting. It is such overpriced commodity these days in free agency you almost have to bring them up from your own farm system.
Do the Dodgers have any potential power in the minors?
Posted by: Andy B | October 17, 2007 at 06:12 PM
By the way, if my posting improves and becomes more insightful and entertaining, can I get an "A" next year?
Posted by: Andy B | October 17, 2007 at 06:15 PM
benzo-
Too hard to quantify the grades for coaches and trainers. Really, I'm not going to sit and speculate as to whether or not Hong Chih Kuo would have hurt himself had Stan Johnston remained head trainer. And the effect of batting/pitching coaches can be very difficult to measure. So I stuck with the biggies.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | October 17, 2007 at 06:26 PM
I don't disagree with your comments about Ned except I don't see the Pierre signing as a big mistake. His shortcomings only became problematic with the collective failures in other areas. Anyway I don't think you can really grade a GM for a year as his vision needs to be longterm.
I agree with you that the manager gets too much credit and takes too much blame but the only thing Grady did well was avoid spontaneous combustion. His mangling of the pitching staff, bizarre lineup changes and failure to cut off a clubhouse rift earn him a D/D-.
Posted by: uclart47 | October 17, 2007 at 07:15 PM
BK - no sweat. You're right.
I can see it becoming a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line?
The sunflower seed guy never had enough ranch flavored seeds....
Posted by: benzo jones | October 17, 2007 at 07:57 PM
BK
A C/C-? You actually gave chicken Little a passing grade and I don't know why. I mean he only drove the team to a fourth place finish, lost control of the clubhouse and had no leadership whatsoever and was pretty much a deer caught in the headlights the last couple of months. This was one of the most frustrating years if not the worst I ever witness. But hey, let me reward you for this miserable season and come back next year and do it again. I know he dealt with numerous injuries to the pitching staff, over the hill players that never produce (Nomar, Gonzales), and a weak offense, but that still doesn't exclude the moves he made, the incosistent line-up changes, not knowing when to pinch when he had to, and the lack of urgency he exhibit all year. Batting Olmedo Saens in the clean-up role in some games, giving Kent, Loney days off down the stretch, benching players that were hot one game, and giving player that hadn't played in a while a start, I mean he batted Olmedo clean-up, I know I already said this but 'CMON! Olmedo batting cleanup, why? What reason do you have to justify this? Your saying he did a good job with the "management of people and steady guidance". What???? It's that why the clubhouse imploded at the end. When is enough enough around here? It's like a pitcher that's getting bomb while the manager refuses to pull him out. Watching Little manage is like going to the dentist and getting your tooth pulled with no novacaine.
What touch did Little have in 06? Other than barely guiding the team to the playoff as a wild card and then getting swept by the Mets. that team made the playoff in spite of Grady not because of him. All I hear around here is excuses for Grady when is so obvious this guy should not be coaching a major league team. Not even the Kansas City Royal let alone the Dodgers. Little is the worst manager in the history of the Dodgers. He deserves an F-.
Hey Andy B
Grady makes Jim Tracy look good right now and I thought that guy was bad. Like I said before on this blog Donald Duck will do a better job than Chicken Little.
Posted by: dcerros | October 17, 2007 at 09:53 PM
dcerros-
I said he didn't do a very good job with those things he's supposed to be good at (management of people, etc.). As for the grade, I sat on it for a long time. In some drafts, I had a C, some a C-, some a D+. Basically, I tried to differentiate between what I felt were Grady's shortcomings, and what were baseball things that were either out of his control, or defensable actions that I simply didn't agree with.
It was a tough call. But I will admit that as soon as I posted, I did regret the C part of the C-. My point was to show that I felt his performance was below average, but the grade may not have properly reflected that. But it's a little disingenuous to change things like that after they've gone live.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | October 17, 2007 at 10:46 PM
A managers job is to get the best out his 25 man roster. Put players in a position to succeed. Grady LIttle does not do that. His game management is horrible. Not to mention his line up changes. I have heard and agree that a manager can influence the outcome of about 10 games. All the one run games the Dodgers were in and lost because of lack of action by the manager, was ridiculous. If you have a manages by who's feelings he hurts, are kidding me? When the dodgers struggled to score runs, what did he do? Change the eight place hitter, come on. By far he is the worst dodger manager, a half notch above Tracy. Grade F
Posted by: coachtorch | October 17, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I give Grady a B- and Colletti a D. I think Grady did a great job considering what he was dealt...maybe bradley was the better teammate than kent? The one thing I don't understand is why pierre wasn't in left field from the start, although part of the blame goes to colletti for signing two left field veterans. I don't know how in the world tomko wasn't cut by mid may, but I thought he was a horrendous signing in 2006 and probably a key reason both the dodgers and padres missed the post season.
It would have been nice to have edwin jackson nearing major league readiness this season. It would have been nice not to have a Giant's trainer to tell us a Giant's pitcher is healthy and fit to sign. It would have been nice not to trade away a solid young cheap utility player with great power numbers (batting average to come in later years? definitely the best acquisition of 2006) for a middle reliever with a veteran salary who has trouble finding the strike zone. I like the nomar signing and was glad to see drew go, but it should have been made clear to nomar before spring training that if loney has a good spring nomar will be a utility player. The dodgers were still hurting from the furcal signing in 2007. I like furcal as an offensive player but as a SS he was the biggest defensive weakness on a team that had juan pierre soft tossing mis-judged balls back too the infield. He may have the strongest arm in the league, but I'd rather have kept izturis as the primary and furcal as a 3b who can move over if izturis arm didn't hold up. I thought furcal would have been ideal trade bait at the deadline to get a sub 4.20 starting pitcher to fill the injury wholes while shoring up the defense by subtraction. I have absolutely no idea why the dodgers would cut marlon anderson who is a starting caliber major league player over ramon martinez as the utility guy, though I respect martinez as a player. Losing 5 tool Jayson Werth seemed absolutely senseless, injury history or not. The reason colletti doesn't get a flunking grade is he did steal Ethier in 2006 for a AAA utility player and a problem, he didn't overspend on an unnecessary slugger, and he resisted trading kemp and laroche (though betimit had a better overall major league season than laroche had at AAA) in 2007. Also, he did finally cut strings with tomko, though wells could hardly be considered an upgrade.
That leaves the Dodgers in a good spot and a chance at redemption if they can stay healthy with the current head trainer in charge. I'd like to see no offseason signings, other than a veteran, bargain starting pitcher to battle houlton for the #5 slot while the youngsters move in. I'd also be contented to see them make a move with furcal to 3b or another team before spring training starts. Still, the 2008 season outlook is bright with lf pierre, ss furcal, cf kemp, 1b loney, c martin, 2b kent, rf ethier, 3b garciaparra/young/abreu/laroche. That lineup should have plenty of power with loney having his best power numbers ever at any level and kemp and martin growing by leaps each of last two years. Even ethier was starting to look like 20hr potential. Hoping to see repko healthy out there to play killer defense in place of pierre in the late innings, and I think he may still develop offensively. For the pitching staff Billingsley should be just fine as the ace unless control problems re-appear. Lowe and Penny are both quality #2 starters. Wolfe or schmidt might come out healthy for the 4th spot in the rotation. And a reliable veteran should be brought in to compete with hendrickson, houlton, kuo, stultz, hull, kershaw for the fifth spot. On the relief side Saito didn't show signs of age at all last year, broxton is an established setup man, beimel is a high quality middle man, proctor is a good innings eater. Somehow the 2008 dodgers already look better on paper than the 2006 or 2007 dodger lineups did...and even with more depth
Posted by: coach | October 18, 2007 at 03:42 AM
I was at Game 2 of the 1988 World Series. That was the last World Series game played at Dodger Stadium and (correct me if I'm wrong) have won 1 playoff game since then. That's 19 seasons with 1 playoff game win. And if you look at the 88' team, that championship was an absolute miracle. Even in 81' when they won the WS, they finished 2nd in the NL West (pre-wild card). They made the playoffs due to some strange computations after the strike-shortened season. My point is that the Dodgers have been miserable under-achievers for decades. Even the Marlins and Diamondbacks have won championships in the past 10 years (Florida TWICE!!) The ownership issues over the past decade haven't helped with the continuity of a long-term game plan. I would rather see the Dodgers with a bunch of young players (Martin, Loney, Kemp, Ethier, Abreu) out there busting their asses than to have to watch Luis Gonzalez ground out weakly to 2nd every other at bat. Sorry, just venting.
Posted by: Paul | October 18, 2007 at 09:49 AM
Good point Paul. The Dodgers really haven't had a GREAT team since the 1970's. The '70's Dodgers were always competing with the "Big Red Machine" as the ELITE team in baseball. The '81 squad was on their last gasp - a team of veterans who finally came through and beat the Yankees after failing in '77 & '78 (much like the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers). And the 1988 Dodgers were by no stretch of the imagination a "great" team. They were a miracle team and a memorable team. But seeing as how they didn't make it back to the playoffs for another 7 years, they were obviously not a great team.
As for the grades, BK, I have to agree that the Juan Pierre signing was the worst move Colletti has made, for many reasons. 1. Knowing that there are free agents such as Torii Hunter, Aaron Rowand, and Andrew Jones available this off-season, why block centerfield for 2008 and beyond? 2. He could have re-signed Kenny Lofton for maybe $2 million for one year, and then used that saved money to go after one of the aforementioned free agents in THIS off-season. 3. Because Juan Pierre is stuck in L.A., now there is no room in the outfield for a player like Delwyn Young to develop unless you move another one of the young studs (Kemp, Ethier).
As for Grady Little, I think his biggest problem is that he tries to manage the team that he WANTS to have, as opposed to the team he does have. In other words, since Colletti loaded the top of the lineup with Furcal/Pierre, the object of the Dodgers' offense is to get men on base and move them into scoring position as quickly as possible. I can probably count the number of times on one hand when I witnessed Grady put on a sacrifice bunt or a hit and run. Still, I think that a C- grade is appropriate, as I'm sure Grady didn't expect such poor production from Nomar/third base, only one win from Schmidt, and a disabled Randy Wolf, etc. Working with what he had though, I think he could have done better... hence the C- grade.
Posted by: Higgins | October 18, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Coach,
Could you please clarify a couple of your statements for me? In your first paragraph, you are indirectly saying that Wilson Betemit was "definitely the BEST acquisition of 2006." Really? Ugly Betty was a better pick up than Greg Maddux?
Also, I think it is really unfair that you are forgetting that 2006 was the year that Ned acquired Toby "Puttin' on the Ritz Carlton" Hall. :-)
Next, you can on to say that Ugly Betty had a "had a better overall major league season than laroche had at AAA." I'm perplexed, because when I look at the following pages, The Roach had better numbers all across the board compaired to Ugly Betty, with the exception of RBI's:
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/teams/players/bio/?id=2791&hubname=mlb-yankees
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Andy%20LaRoche&pos=3B&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=451188
Posted by: DodgerBlueBalls | October 18, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Coach,
If Jason Werth is a five-tool player, you must consider striking out a tool.
Posted by: Chunkdog32 | October 18, 2007 at 01:05 PM
BK-
While I have been a vocal opponent of Little's, I agree with the C- grade, based simply on the fact that you are correct; managers get too much credit/blame and about 90% of them fall into the middle lump. Would this team have been any better with Terry Francona at the helm? Or Eric Wedge? Or Clint Hurdle? Probably not. Injuries killed us this year and the on;y way I think you can ever blame a manager for them is if he over uses guys. We didn't see any over-use injuries.
However, I disagree about the Pierre signing being the worst Coletti move. I don't like it, by any means, but only because it is a 5-year deal. Honestly, if you take uot April and May, he was one of the more consistent Dodger hitters this year. Grady's biggest stubborn mistake this year was keeping him in the 2 slot while Furcal consistently struggled to get on base.
Finally, I have said this before, but does anyone else like the sound of trying to steal Gibby away from the D-Backs? To me, that would be the most ideal off-season move we could make (aside from signing A-Rod, hoping, praying, crossing my fingers). Gibby got tons of credit from young and old D-Backs this post season for being an amazing clubhouse influence and a guy truley interested in player development. Sounds about right for us! Plus he's Kirk effin Gibson, the last Dodger hero. Who better to bring us back to the promised land?
Posted by: nick | October 18, 2007 at 01:08 PM
Higgins
"As for Grady Little, I think his biggest problem is that he tries to manage the team that he WANTS to have, as opposed to the team he does have."
Good point. Maybe one of the best descriptions of Little.
Coach
"That leaves the Dodgers in a good spot and a chance at redemption if they can stay healthy with the current head trainer in charge."
There lies the Dodgers biggest problem. They cannot stay healthy. Injuries have killed this team the last two years. Ned needs to find players who have a better history of staying vertical.
Posted by: Andy B | October 18, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Balls,
Greg maddux? Are you serious? 4 era, usually only 5 innings and then tax the bullpen...he did ok for his age. But he cost a very good player, played only a couple months for the team, and at a high salary. I'd rather they'd built for the future and maybe we'd of had good D in 2007. Betimit was on minimum salary and tied up to the team for a few more years...not even comparable.
Laroche's offensive numbers are always pretty solid, but pretty similar to betimit per at bat. You must have missed the defensive numbers where laroache was one of the worst 3b in all of professional baseball, and betimit was slightly above average. Hopefully Laroche will turn things around at 3b because he can be a real offensive force (and as I mentioned keeping him has been one of colleti's best moves).
Nick,
I'm all for bringing back dodgers. How about scioscia for GM, hershiser for major league pitching coordinator/assistant GM, hatcher for assistant head coach, shelby for bench coach/outfield instructor,koufax for minor league pitching coordinator, and gibson as hitting instructor/assistant base running coach to maury (if they can get him out of his contract). Just pay them all triple what anyone else will because we need the dodger way back and because there is no socialist cap on coaches. And while we're at it, bring back the Dodger trainer and dump the giant loser! Of course none of that will happen, because of the owner who gets a D- grade too because he talks about restoring tradition but most of the moves have been for San Francisco and Boston personnel and players, while letting one dodger hero after another slip away (the hershiser, gibson, and ross porter ones really hurt, especially porter when you consider just how bad lyons and steiner have been...couldn't we at least replace porter with Karros if we're going to dump porter? Karros sounds very good in the broadcast booth)
Posted by: coach | October 18, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Grady is the worst manager I've ever seen. Damn, I have been following baseball for 40 years too. He never calls for a bunt with two men on and no out. He lets pitcher hit with the bases loaded when the team is down by three or four runs. And his batting order defies logic most of the time. One time in August, he started "the tomato " at first and had him batting third in the order. Andre who have been hitting over 400 since the All-Star game batted eighth which is where Grady usually puts him. He even bats Martinez and LaRoche ahead of him. I think he came close close to destroying that kid, rather than building up his confidence. The bottom line is he is not a good manager of players. All you have to do is listen to his simplistic mumblings to get a good idea of his brainpower which translates to bad decisions on the field
Jim
Posted by: jim | October 19, 2007 at 12:09 AM
bk, grady a C/C-?
sorry to say, your in very low minority group, by FAR. the rest of the world has him at D for sure man. besides all his shortcomings, he had no fire. attitude reflect leadership, and say all you want about the vets being the team leaders, the main leader is always the manager.
Posted by: the WOLF | October 19, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Chunkdog32,
Strikeouts are irrelevant, except with a man on third and less than two outs...but on the other hand better than ground outs with a man on first and less than two outs. Exactly which of the five tools does he lack?
Higgins,
I agree, particularly 2007, before which colleti gave a long winded speach about injury history being a big factor in how you judge a player and how he was going to emphasize it more than his predecessors...then he went and signed a trainer for a team who had its best players missing (granted they were over the hill) major parts of the last 5 years and randy wolf and jayson schmidt (finished season looking hurt and with reduced velocity in 2006) to fill out the rotation? Re-signed nomar to be a starter? Everyone was worried before the season about these guys, they all got big contracts, and every one of them went down hard.
Posted by: coach | October 19, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Living in Sequim Washington now, and celebrating 51 years of Dodger fandom, I only saw one game this year in person and about 30 on TV. So my comments are based on limited experience.
When Grady Little didn't take Martinez out, he demonstrated that he cares too much how players feel that what is best for the team. He demonstrated this again in spades with his refusal to go with the younger players sooner, especially Loney.
There were also too many managerial decisions made during games that made no sense at all. While i agree too much is placed on the managers shoulders, the on-field decisions are critical. Bringing in left hand pitchers to face left handed batters who have a higher batting average against left handed pitchers is just one such decision that cost a game.
let's sign Torre.
Posted by: Scott Schaefer | October 19, 2007 at 08:21 AM
Coach,
Strikeouts ARE RELEVANT. If you strike out ALL the time, you have a .000 batting average.... strikeout = an out..... doesn't matter what tools you have if you can't make contact w/ the ball.
Posted by: Rob | October 19, 2007 at 09:29 AM
Coach,
Are YOU kidding me? You really think Ugly Betty had a better impact on the 2006 dodgers than Greg Maddux??? His ERA with the Dodgers was not 4, it was 3.30. He pitched 73 innings over 12 games. How does that average out to 5 innings per game. That's 6.08 innings in my book. And he won 6 games in 12 starts for the Dodgers! How many games did Ugly Betty win for the Dodgers in 2006?
Then there's the intangibles that Maddux brought with him. 300 game winner, countless Gold Glove & Cy Young awards, all those division titles with the Braves. Do you think that didn't rub off a little on the Young Impressionables like Billz or Brox? Could you please discuss the intangibles that Ugly Betty brought over with him in the 2006 season?
Finally, you bemoan the fact that the Dodgers gave up a "very good" player to get Greg Maddux. Sure, the player that the Dodgers gave up was sooo good, in fact, that when the Cubs sent the "very good" player to the Pittsburg Pirates, the Cubs made out like bandits when they stole "a player to be named later" from the Bucs!
Ugly Betty was the best 2006 pickup by Ned & the Dodgers??? Better than Greg Maddux?!? Whatchootalkinbout, Coach???
http://www.john-gates.com/video/ds/1.jpg
Posted by: DodgerBlueBalls | October 19, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I'm not defending players who strike out a lot in general, but I think that the point coach is making is that much depends on the situation when players make outs via the K.
And situations vary. A strike out with nobody out and someone on 3rd = an out + NO RBI, (where a deep enough fly ball or GB can result in the out plus the RBI). A strikeout with a player on 1st = an out, but likely just ONE (where a GB instead = TWO outs). A player who strikes out more (given he makes an out) will also hit fewer double play balls, but might get fewer RBIs when he comes up with RISP etc.
Sure striking out in general is not positive, because hits or walks don't make an out at all but there are plenty of players who strike out a lot but have great numbers in other offensive arenas (e.g. lots of power hitters). There are others who hardly ever strike out but have obvious other issues -- it's not like we rush to comment positively on Pierre just because he is one of the hardest players in the league to strike out. He puts the ball in play, and also has the speed to beat out the DP -- but I'll take bets now he won't hit a HR next season, even if Grady plays him all 162 games.
Given that all players make outs (except for career AL pitchers), the question becomes whether strikeouts are *intrinsically* worse (therefore more relevant) or not (and therefore irrelevant).
Posted by: CleoMG | October 19, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Balls,
Not sure why you mention the cubs trade to the pirates. Why do you think the cubs traded for him? it was to cut salary...he was just a stop gap while they waited on their shortstop of 2 years ago to get back from injuries and for 4 or 5 infield prospects they already had at the position to be ready in 2007. In 2007 they had so many guys they didn't know who to play. I can tell you why the pirates got him...because their manage knew exactly what he was getting, in spite of already having too many good middle infielders himself.
You left Salary and contract length and amount out of the equation and your derrogatory references to betimit make it clear you are not going to be reasoned with. You completely ignored the effects of salary on the makeup of the roster. What good did maddux do them this year? What would it have cost them to have izturis this year? Who put up better numbers at third for the dodgers this year or last than betimit? How much did they pay maddux for 2.5 months? How much did they betimit for about a year? And, as bad as proctor is, he'd still have to be considered something they got in the trade for betimit in 2006, so they're still getting benefits from that trade. How much of that salary maddux got wasn't available for better players at other positions in 2007? How good of a player could colleti get with the difference in salary? How good of defense did the guy the dodgers got rid of for maddux play and at what salary? How many games did furcal cost them with his bad throws? I'm not saying izturis is a better overall player than furcal, but for that difference in salary they could have had a good enough player or two at other positions to more than make up the difference. For instance...for the difference in salary they could have signed more than one maddux.
Posted by: coach | October 19, 2007 at 03:32 PM