Another installment of JP vs. AE
In his column for today's LAT, Bill Plaschke took a look at Juan Pierre, and liked what he saw. In a lot of respects, I can't blame him. I like Pierre, too. He's a nice guy. I admire his work ethic and appreciate that he doesn't complain or make excuses when he's not playing well. He always plays hard. He's definitely a stand up dude, and a high quality human being. Nor is Pierre a bad player. Overpaid, probably, but a) we're talking about professional sports, where that tag can be slapped on a lot of people, and b) it's not his fault he makes what he makes. If some big media company backed up the Brinks truck to add me to its staff, I wouldn't turn down the cash just because I wasn't worth the money. There are plenty of players in the Major Leagues who are worse than JP.
Unfortunately, one of those isn't the guy from whom he'd theoretically take ABs, in Andre Ethier.
Look, I realize there's really only one guy- Joe Torre- who has an opinion on this that matters, and that from the looks of things, Pierre is going to be the everyday LF. But at the risk of channeling too much of my www.firejoemorgan.com vibe, there are a few things that Plaschke wrote that I think completely miss the point. (The point, by the way, is putting the best team on the field as much as possible.)
After discussing Pierre's grit, drive, and determination, Plaschke writes that Pierre has become a lightening rod for fans who see him as representative of all the team's problems last year. To some extent, that's true. Lord knows he gets a lot of flak from readers here, and on other Dodgers sites as well. Probably more than he deserves, given that it's a team sport with a 25 man roster and a lot of moving parts. He didn't necessarily help elevate them, but Juan Pierre certainly didn't singlehandedly cost the Dodgers the NL West last year. In the end, pitching and a lack of timely hitting did them in (not, by the way, the old vs. young rift that got so much play in the media). From there, though, Plaschke wades into waters with way too many sharks for me to follow:
"Now that the Dodgers have added Rafael Furcal's health and Andruw Jones' pop, I think Juan Pierre's presence at the top of the lineup will be as oversized as his cap.
Now that the Dodgers have moved him to left field, I think Juan Pierre will fit as easily there as his bat fits on a bunt.
Now that Joe Torre is installing an aggressive running game, I think Pierre's ability on the basepaths will be as evident as the dirt streaks on his jersey.
Now that it can be a complement instead of a cornerstone, I think the idea of Juan Pierre will work."
Couple things here. I disagree that Pierre fits best at the top of the lineup, because with those guys behind him, the best way to take advantage of it is by getting on base, which he doesn't do enough. If Pierre could be the guy who was up near .370 for an OBP- not HOF level, but certainly good enough- that would be different. But over the last three seasons, he's not been able to produce those numbers for sustained periods. .326, .330, .331. Over a whole season, that's just not good enough for a leadoff hitter, no matter how fast. They can't drive him in if he's not there. And since all he offers is that speed, it's vitally important that he get on. He's a great baserunner, even beyond stealing, but Pierre really can't hurt a team any other way.
And if you put him with Furcal, himself never a high OBP guy but a much more dangerous hitter, that only compounds the problem. As for the aggressive running game to be installed, the Blue are already an aggressive team, or at least they were in '06. Even with a hampered Furcal, the Dodgers still stole more bases than all but four teams in baseball, and probably would have been behind only New York if Raffy was healthy.
A few times, Plaschke also talks about Pierre's D:
"Pierre adds an irreplaceable speed component to the top of the Dodgers order. And, in left field, what Pierre lacks in arm, he can overcome with that speed.
"Johnny Damon never had much of an arm, we moved him to left field, it worked out fine," says Torre. "You can offset that kind of arm with your aggressive play. You can get good jumps, get to balls that other guys can't."
And later:
"...This (meaning last season) was also the first time Pierre had been criticized for his arm.
"I've had the same arm my whole life and I'd never been criticized like this," he says. "I couldn't understand it. It's never been an issue before."
Placing Pierre's weak arm under the spotlight -- and, in fact, putting his whole game at risk -- was the injury to Furcal.
The Dodgers shortstop couldn't reach many shallow center-field balls that shortstops usually reach. He also couldn't move Pierre along the bases as a good No. 2 hitter should do.
Without a rangy shortstop, Pierre was playing a center field that was twice as big."
There's no doubt that Pierre's arm- which by the way was criticized a great deal before he arrived in LA,
one of the reasons many thought it was a bad signing to begin with- will be better protected in left than center, but it still matters. And to say that Furcal's injury was the real mitigating factor in Pierre's CF trouble last year totally misses the point. The issue wasn't that Pierre didn't cover enough ground, but that he couldn't throw anyone out, or even threaten to. Runners would go from first to third or second to home without even thinking about it. In left, Ethier also covers a lot of ground, and has the added ability to prevent runners from taking the extra base because of a top shelf arm. He's a better defensive player, overall.
And the comparison to Damon, simply using their arms, isn't a good one. Damon has, through his career, been a far more productive player than Pierre.
Plaschke mentions Pierre's postseason experience as well:
"Pierre also brings something that, during last season's doldrums, everyone seemed to forget.
You can find it in a locked box in his Fort Lauderdale home.
He's one of only three Dodgers with a World Series ring."
This one always drives me nuts. No question, winning is important, and having guys who have been there and done that matters. The postseason is a different animal, and it can chew up players who have great success in the regular season (see Rodriguez, Alex). But still, is that a reason to have him play 145 games in left this year? Because he won a ring? Slava Medvedenko has two. Should the Lakers bring him back? (Actually, they should, but for totally different reasons. See Blog, Lakers, for an explanation, where we loooove us some Slava Medvedenko.) The better question is which player gives the Dodgers a better chance of actually making it to the postseason. Pierre's ring and playoff experience doesn't do them much good if they don't get there to begin with.
The Dodgers have the flexibility to be an aggressive, running team whether Pierre plays or not. Furcal moves well. Martin, who I think was born to hit in the two slot, moves well. Kemp is fast. Even Jones, despite his increased girth, can still get from first to third. And it's not as if Ethier runs like the '72 Chevelle up on blocks you wish your neighbor would get off his lawn. He may not steal bases, but that doesn't mean he can't run them. Aggressiveness means more than stealing. It's also about taking the extra base and forcing the other team to make plays. Ethier runs well enough to do that.
Plaschke is right- It's not fair to blame Juan Pierre for everything that went wrong with the Dodgers last year. No baseball team wins or loses on the strength or weakness of one guy. He's also right to say that he's not a bad player. But the question isn't whether Pierre is good, but if he's the best left fielder the Dodgers can put on the field. And this is where Plaschke makes another mistake. In writing his column, he focuses on those things that Pierre does well, and those areas in which he feels Pierre has been treated unfairly. Along the way, he totally ignores everything Ethier brings to the table. This decision isn't being made in a vacuum. Ethier is a good hitter, with some power. He can drive the ball into the alley, hit to all fields, and take a walk. Plus, he's an excellent outfielder. He also hustles, and also works hard. And he could still be improving.
Plaschke seems determined to prove that Pierre doesn't suck. No need. He doesn't. He's just not as good as the guy who would replace him.
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
Great, well-reasoned response to Plaschke's column. The point at the end--that Pierre's ability when compared to Ethier's ability should be the real focus, not whether or not Pierre is a good player--is the heart of the matter. But in spite of what seems obvious, we'll probably see another season of JP in every game. What will really be infuriating if Ethier starts splitting time with Kemp rather than Pierre.
Posted by: JoshG | March 05, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Does anyone know much about bennett's defensive skills? The last couple of games he seems lacksidasical (spellling). I don't know if that's because it's ST, he's not that good defensively or he knows he has a job. I'm hoping it's the first.
In today's game Repko looked good and so did Park and Koplove. Penny wasn't so bad
Posted by: K T USN (almost retired) | March 05, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Your bottom line IS the "bottomline". Pierre is good and Ethier is better.
Ned, please put the best team on the field. Look, Pierre gets the $36 million (or whatever) whether he plays or NOT. Don't let your ego drive you to try to prove your decision to sign him was the right one. Ethier is superior defensively, runs the bases well, works cheap - so far, hits with power, is young so (fingers crossed, more likely to be healthy long term), he can be here a long time AND he is not a malcontent. That alone oughta be worth something! Andre has, and continues to keep his mouth shut. Not that Pierre complains but I've heard a lot more quotes attributed to him than to Andre.
And finally, the idea that Pierre should play because he has a ring is as ridiculous as saying Andre Ethier (and Russell Martin and Matt Kemp, et al) should NOT play because they DON'T have rings. Stupid.
Oh, and P.S. Let Delwyn be the fourth OF. The kid could roll out of bed at 2a.m. and knock the ball. He looks like a true hitter.
Posted by: Dan in Pasadena | March 05, 2008 at 04:40 PM
I can see only one scenario where having Pierre start over Ethier is better for the team... if Ethier can be packaged with LaRoche for a solid third baseman. (Braun/Zimmerman)
Even though he has won "sportsmanship" awards, reading Ethier's recent comments hints that he may not be thrilled about coming off the bench or platooning.
AE deserves to start on a Major league team.
Posted by: Jesse | March 05, 2008 at 05:08 PM
So its settled, Ethier should start in left; this then should be LAs starting lineup on opening day:
1. R. Furcal, ss
2. R. Martin, c
3. M. Kemp, rf
4. A. Jones, cf
5. J. Jent, 2b
6. J. Loney, 1b
7. A. Ethier, lf
8. A. Laroche, 3b
9. B. Penny, p
Posted by: steve | March 05, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Jessie,
who do you want to trade? Because I see you mixed up Ethiers name with Pierre's with the comments, so I was thinking you wanted to trade Pierre instead of Ethier
Posted by: K T USN (almost retired) | March 05, 2008 at 05:40 PM
Skillfull, smart and compelling break-down of the issue.
Fair and reasoned analysis of the article.
Posted by: James | March 05, 2008 at 05:44 PM
Very good response to Plaschke BK. I applaud your blog! I agree with everything you wrote.
As much as I want to see Ethier playing ahead of Pierre, it looks like JP will be starting in LF everyday. I hate to say it, but I think the Dodgers should trade Ethier because his value is waaaayy higher than Pierre's. Pierre brings back nothing but a few cases of pine tar.
Posted by: Higgins | March 05, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Apropos to nothing in particular, am I the only one who thinks the lady in the University of Phoenix ad look a little like Nomar?
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | March 05, 2008 at 06:41 PM
Personally, I think we stole Andre in the trade with the A's. I'd HATE to see us trade him. If we DO make an early trade, I'd rather look for a solid left handed starter than a 3B. Maybe its just me, but that would make me feel better.
Posted by: Dan in Pasadena | March 05, 2008 at 06:43 PM
KT, I would rather see Ethier start. However, if Ned can package Ethier and LaRoche for a top-notch third baseman...then Pierre's speed would be formidable.
I highly doubt someone would take Pierre in a trade with that ridiculous contract(ChiSox maybe). Who knows, maybe Torre will be right and Pierre will ignite the offense...
Posted by: Jesse | March 05, 2008 at 07:10 PM
BK
Great assessment of Bill's column! Don't you think that the only thing to do is break Juan's consecutive games played steak? Maybe, then we can acess whether the Dodgers should start Juan, ever? The same pressure that Grady had to play Juan is still there. 55million big ones. I think Torre will play who he wants. Eithier is a great solid player. I think you have outlined it well.
Package
Posted by: Package | March 05, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Thanks, Package.
There's no question in my mind that Pierre's streak will come to an end this year, probably early, just to get it out of the way. There's pressure to play him, I think, but I agree that in the end, Torre will play who he wants. Right now, all the tea leaves say that's Pierre. Hopefully that changes (or, if not, Dodger fans should hope he proves everyone wrong). While I don't know the ins and outs of what happened this winter, whether or not Colletti tried to move either Ethier or Pierre, what was offered, etc., this is the sort of situation I thought they needed to avoid coming out of last season. It's not like 3B, where there are two imperfect options (no matter who you like more- I like LaRoche, you like Nomar- it's impossible to say that both don't have question marks). They have four regular OFs, and only three spots. Behind them, they ahve two more very serviceable backups in Young and Repko, assuming he can stay healthy.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | March 05, 2008 at 08:28 PM
One additional point: Juan Pierre's one plus-plus skill is speed, which translates into very good baserunning and defensive range. But if/when you move him into LF, that advantage is partially negated due to the proximity of the seats to his right. Teams get away with playing immobile behemoths like Adam Dunn in LF, as long as they have a rangy CF. Ethier/Jones/Kemp can cover all the ground just fine.
Also, Plaschke's "point" about Furcal the hitter is ludicrous. JP hit 2, not 1, the vast majority of the season, 123 starts vs. 31 at leadoff.
Posted by: El Lay Dave | March 05, 2008 at 09:19 PM
Overall, I think that Juan Pierre, offensively was OK. Although his OBP is mediocre, he makes up for it with his speed. Also, people overlook other intangibles which don't appear in the box score: pitchers must throw fastballs when JP is on base. It also adds more stress to the other team defensively. Increased stress, over the course of a ball game can make a difference.
My main problem with JP last year wasn't even his arm. I don't know too many centerfielders with cannons to begin with. Typically, teams put their Howitzers in right field anyway.
My problem with JP is mainly his lack of baseball instincts. Now let me clarify here that lack of baseball instincts does not imply stupidity. For if that were the case, then I'd be diagnosed for Down's syndrome if people saw me dance. JP's work ethic eliminates the explanation of laziness or stupidity.
He just doesn't have the ability to track balls off bats. The instincts to extrapolate, or anticipate where the ball is going to be, and the quickest way to get there. This stuff is not taught in classrooms, books, or instructional videos. Just as Robert Deniro's ability to become a chameleon is not accessible to most people, such is the same with baseball instincts.
You would think that his speed would enable him to get to more balls and cover more territory, but that would only be true if he didn't have to take so long to process that information. That extra split second of time to read the ball off the bat seriously diminishes his range and effectiveness as an outfileder.
I remember seeing Milton Bradley play centerfield when he was with the Dodgers. Say what you want about him, but he seemed to have a PhD in Astophysics the way he could track the ball and anticipate the flight path, and take the shortest route to the ball. He makes it look so effortless. His baseball instincts were off the charts. As a result he had a lot more range than JP notwithstanding the fact that he is a hell of a lot slower than JP.
I'm still on the fence with JP. On the one hand, you'd like to squeeze some power from your corner outfielders (they make up for power in center however). But then he does bring speed on the bases. However, on the other hand, he can be a liability defensively.
One thing to watch for here is whether playing in a new stadium had anything to do with it. Marlin stadium is a uniquely shaped stadium and I don't think he had to battle the sunlight there as he did here. So hopefully, with a year under his belt, he'll have a better feel for Chavez Ravine. Of course, it doesn't help that he's shifting over to left field which might severely cramp his style. Stay tuned.
Overall, I say we should cut the guy a break. Lookit, he's doing the best he can. We can't ask him to give us anything that he doesn't have. That's stupid.
And also, we should look at his career stats. If you look carefully, you'll see that the DODGERS GOT PRECISELY WHAT THEY PAID FOR. It's not a case of bait and switch which is what happens to most MLB free agents (see Jason Schmidt, Brett Tomko, Barry Zito). It's rare in MLB free agency to go out, get a free agent with a long term contract, and expect his numbers to stay the same or slightly improve, in the case of JP last year. More often than not, the financial stability of a fat, long term contract extinguishes any sort of competitive fire in them.
At least JP isn't one of THOSE guys. In that sense, I don't view JP as another Ned Colletti screw-up.
Posted by: Johnny Drama | March 05, 2008 at 10:40 PM
We are not dealing with rocket science here. Who is the better offensive player? Who is the better defensive player? How can you not start him?
Posted by: Jim | March 05, 2008 at 11:18 PM
We are not dealing with rocket science here. Who is the better offensive player? Who is the better defensive player? How can you not start him?
Posted by: Jim | March 05, 2008 at 11:18 PM
BK- This was an outstanding analysis of the LF situation. I especially agree with your assessment of Ethier's defensive skills. I think he's been the Blue's best defensive outfielder over the past two seasons, and a trio of Ethier, Jones and Kemp would give the Dodgers plus range and plus arms in all three outfield spots.
Posted by: VaDodger | March 06, 2008 at 04:48 AM
Great comments on both sides of the "Whoze in Right" talk but Joe's opinion IS the only one that matters
I know it is early spring and tune up time but I'm getting a little nervous with the hitting. The Blue Crew's numbers are a little weak compared to the rest of the teams they have played. It seems like the only guys hitting (with a few exceptions) are minor leaguers and invitees. Pitching is coming along very well. Yancy B. might be back in a big way. 93/94 and throwing easy.
Posted by: Jack | March 06, 2008 at 06:35 AM
Sorry, that was "Whoze in Left" .
Posted by: Jack | March 06, 2008 at 06:37 AM
Sorry, everyone. The handwriting is on the wall and today's article about the need for speed clinches it in my mind. Pierre will be the starter.
Posted by: Chunkdog32 | March 06, 2008 at 07:36 AM
BK, we're in trouble, as our management, field and in the box, just doesn't get it. I'm a harder soul than you, so it isn't near, but .370 and up for the OBP. If Pierre could find a way to reclaim that [the year following the ring, when he OBP'd at .374], then his speed would truly be lethal. If not, he's just an out-creating machine.
For the doubters, consider Jack Cust. Had almost 30 HRs and drove in 82 in less than 400 ABs. In contrast, well, take Pierre's ABs, minus hits, then minus BBs, then minus HBPs, and we should have something like 430-some outs made for Juan Pierre last year. Jack Cust did everything that he did while Juan Pierre was busy making out [less than 400 ABs for Jack, 430-some outs for Juan]. I'd rather have the slow Jack Cust, and watch him whiff 160-some times, but also watch him homer nearly 30x, drive in 82, and he'd walk a little over 100x, and so his OBP would be over .400 to boot.
But rather than Jack, I'll probably see more of Juan Pierre jogging instead of using that blazing speed to make it back to the dugout after making just one more rally killing out [and you can kill the rally by not starting it just as easy as you can by making the third out to end it].
Posted by: PDH5204 | March 06, 2008 at 08:36 AM
Oh by the way Plaschke, Kent doesn't have a ring. That is a lame excuse for why Pierre deserves to start. Grabbing at straws aren't we.
Posted by: jim | March 06, 2008 at 08:50 AM
In three games during Spring Training, Andre Ethier has: (a)Thrown out a runner at 2nd base, (b) thrown out a runner at home, (c) hit a HR. I highly doubt that in the rest of the games we see him play in ST, much more during the course of a 162 game season, that we'd see Juan Pierre do any of those things, ONCE.
Make the right choice Joe & Ned, start Ethier alongside Jones and Kemp. Keep Young and Repko and trade Juan Pierre.
Posted by: wsg | March 06, 2008 at 09:49 AM
Kent and Nomar both have rings, but they didnt actually play in the World Series; their teams voted them shares even though they were traded midseason. The other two Dodgers with rings are Penny and Lowe.
Joe Torre has four rings, but he shouldn't be starting in left field over Ethier either. (I love that I get to write Ethier either in consecutive sentences).
You say Either, and I say Either. Potao, Potahto,. Let's call the Pierre thing off and put Andre in left where he belongs. In truth, he'd be even better in right, because his arm is as strong as Kemp's and even more accurate.
Posted by: SaMo | March 06, 2008 at 10:50 AM