Another installment of JP vs. AE

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