Do You Get It?

Well the Dodgers have made big moves at the trade deadline to acquire the best players available in Machado in 18 and Darvish in 17. As far as signing long term expensive free agents I think that has proven to be fools gold. Ask Philadelphia and SAN Diego how that worked out this year. And Epstein in Chicago! AF is smarter than all of us here combined! Dodgers in good hands! And by the way the WS MVP last year was Steve Pearce! Hardly a high value pick up!

I’m not an expert on save rules, but every time I see “Britton blew 6 out of 8 save opportunities,” I read it as, Britton virtually never gets an actual save opportunity,, because Chapman is the closer. So these “blown saves” are actually him not holding a lead in his one (8th) inning. If he pitches 75 games, and holds the lead 67 times, and on 8 occasions he gives up at least one run, he “blew eight saves?” No non-closer could ever have a positive save ratio under those rules. If I am wrong about this, and Ottavino actually blew seven saves in the ninth inning, I would be very surprised. But that’s just an ancillary issue.

This season should not be valued solely on “Did we win a championship?” That is unfair. But a series of seasons should matter. And I don’t think the choice has to be as stated, which is win a few titles and then fall back, or be very competitive but never win one. Teams ebb and flow, but the best franchises in any sport stay near the top on a consistent basis. Baseball is harder than the NFL or NBA, in that the most talented team is less, likely to win the title. But it does often enough. When you have not won one title in 30 years, something is lacking, rather clearly.

Of course, Guggenheim is not responsible for the years before they got here. But there are some similarities, in that the Dodgers have virtually never signed a major free agent, since Peter O’Malley signed Strawberry and Butler, and then decided that the Dodgers would never do that again. Guggenheim signed Greinke, and that was the only one. I’ve said this before, of course. The way that the Dodgers do it, is to almost solely rely on: 1) homegrown prospects, 2)under the radar minor league players whom the GM sometimes astutely picks up, 3) second-tier free agents or players in trades who often have a history of injuries (Hill, Kazmir, Pollock) They have done well with this approach, but not well enough, since a franchise in this market should win as many titles as virtually any other franchise, and we do not. My opinion is that some of these relatively lesser talents do not do as well in a World Series as some of the higher-value players which a few other teams are willing to pick up for a higher price.

I will enjoy the playoffs., at least until and if we are eliminated. We have a pretty decent chance, as we now almost always do. But like in any competitive event, where the goal is to win it, you have to be the best, not the third best. Baseball is less predictable than the NBA, where the best team is almost always the one which wins the title. But hiding behind that unpredictability to validate allowing a few other teams to make more daring and expensive moves, is not what an ideal Dodgers ownership should be doing. So we’ll see how it all plays out, and maybe the Dodgers will play their best baseball in the playoffs, and win it all. Or we will not, and be back here next year with another team which is still not the best one going into the season, and thus likely will not win the title then, either. That seems to be okay with many Dodgers fans, and they are certainly entitled to that approach. The ownership counts on it, though.

Another peeve- Starter goes 8 innings of shutout ball, reliever comes in the 9th and gives up 3 runs. Home team then scores 4 runs in the bottom of the 9th and the reliever gets credit for a win. Starter should get the win.

When is a save not a save? Examples – When a reliever comes in with the bases loaded, no outs, three run lead and doesn’t allow a run to score, THAT I A SAVE! Next reliever comes in, no one out, no one on, three run lead and he allows two runs to score. He gets credit for a hold or maybe a save. These two could either get a save, but they certainly are not equal! If you look only at the number of saves it doesn’t give you the whole picture.

No offense but you’re all crazy! Winning the World Series is the ONLY point!!! You’re all off your meds!

Winning the World Series is not the end all be all for me! I’m in the great PNW for a couple of weeks enjoying my grandchildren. They are not perfect, but it doesn’t matter. They are mine and I love them dearly and I enjoy every moment I can be with them. Whether they grow up to be brain surgeons or professional baseball players doesn’t matter to me as long as I can enjoy their journey and be with them. My love of the Dodgers, while certainly not as deep, is similar. I enjoy the journey, I love watching the young pups come along, and I appreciate the contributions of the older players. But I would never sell my baseball soul just for a World Series victory. The day after the victory, you’ll wake up to have to play another day.

There is an interesting article in ESPN by Sam Miller about 95 and plus fastballs and where each playoff teams rank. That made me feel better about our offense!

Well Mark beat me to it as I was having a rough time reading the comments from William and others about the state of the bullpen and what AF should do. I respect William for his passion and knowledge, but I do not agree with his over reliance on opposing OPS. It is one of many metrics. What about:

aLI – Average Leverage Index – The average pressure the pitcher saw in a game or season.

RE24 – Base-Out Runs Scored – Given the bases occupied/out situation how many runs did the pitcher save in the resulting play.

I have not read where anyone has measured these metrics for a group of pitchers. But I bet AF and his staff have these algorithms teed up at any point in time, plus hundreds (?) others. There is more to a pitcher than opposing OPS, or ERA, or WHIP, or blown saves, or inherited runners scored. William likes OPS, Mark likes ERA. They are both right, but incomplete.

There is also the fact that either of those stats can be blown up in a few bad outings vs. a very good body of work overall. Relief pitchers have very small sample sizes in innings pitched, so a couple of bad outings can be a problem in certain measurements. Let’s take a look at Shane Greene. Many wanted Shane Greene to come to LA. I did, but last winter not at the trade deadline. But he was being touted as a closer, while I was touting him as a setup guy. Shane Greene since being traded to the Braves:

23 G, 21.1 IP, 4.22 ERA, 22 H, 18 K/5BB, 1 SV, 2 BS, .272/.326/.395/.721, 4 inherited runners scored.

Not very good at first blush. But most of the damage (and both blown saves were in his first 6 games). Since then, his last 17 games:

17.0 IP, 1.59 ERA, 9 H, 14K/3BB, 1 SV, 0 BS, 9 Holds, .155/.219/.207/.426, 0 HR

The Braves are relying on Luke Jackson to be their closer, and letting Shane Greene be their setup. In those 17 games, he pitched 1.0 inning in every game, and came in to the game in the 8th (15 games), or 9th (2 games). Now who is Shane Greene, the pitcher with all 23 games with the Braves or the one with the last 17 games?

For me a key metric for middle relief is holds. To give more credence to Mark’s position of the volatility of relievers, of last year’s top 22 relievers with number of holds, there are only 7 repeaters.

I do not measure the value of Adam Ottavino as a closer, but as a setup/middle relief which is where he excels. But he was never going to come to LA. He is a NY kid whose dream it was to play for NYY. Where do you think he was going to go? Zack Britton made it very clear that the only team that he was going to sign with and not be the closer was NYY. He was not coming to LA. Kimbrel was showing signs of KJ syndrome last year until Gagne figured something out (or did he?). AF was not going to match what NYM did to get Diaz. Seattle wanted a starting catcher for Alex Colome’, and got a good one in Omar Narvaez. Who did the Dodgers have to match that? They were looking for a catcher. There isn’t always a match.

I looked at the list of FA relievers and there may be two that I would consider to be an upgrade, Will Smith and Will Harris. Will Smith is a southern boy who may find his way to Atlanta or even Tampa Bay who shows they can compete, and love relievers. He may re-sign with the Giants. LAD will have to overpay to get Smith, and maybe they will, but probably they will not. Will Harris will be 35 next year, and it is just as likely that Houston will try to keep him, but if not, how many years are you going to offer him. The Dodgers already have Collin McHugh, his name is Ross Stripling (younger and longer control). Maybe the Dodgers take a gamble with Arodys Vizcaino or Tony Cingrani (again). But neither of the Will’s are likely to land in LA and it is not always in AF’s hand.

The best way to build a bullpen is from within. That is exactly what the Dodgers are trying to do. Will they succeed? IMO, Yimi Garcia is an inch or two away from being a dominant middle reliever. Will he succeed? Will Scott Alexander come back and be the ground ball specialist that he was acquired for? Will the re-grip for Caleb Ferguson be a game changer for next year? Will Dennis Santana make a good transition to reliever? Will Marshall Kasowski or Victor Gonzalez make an impact? AF sees something in Josh Sborz. Maybe it comes together next year. Will Ross Stripling get a chance to start for someone else next year for a ML reliever. Or can he be turned for a couple of highly regarding reliever prospects? Or would you rather have Tony Sipp or Cody Allen? Not me!! I am guessing that AF will be more right than wrong.

Ok Mark, tomorrow’s column has to make me feel more confident in our offense! And sbuffalo don’t forget about Urias next year. He’s gonna be a stud! And I bet AF signs Hill next year on a cheap incentive laden contract over an expensive Ryu deal. Ryu will have to leave some money and years on the table to resign with Dodgers. If not then I think Hill is coming back. It’s a tough call with Maeda. His contract revolves around starting andvinnings pitched. If he goes to the pen he makes nothing.

Reading about Michel de Montaigne’s quote and the study about it made me wonder if it is a “defense mechanism”. You know like going to the doctor worrying and positive you are are going to die and feeling great relief to find out you are going to live another day. Better than the other way around, thinking you are ok and finding out you are not? The key here is “faith”. I have it and believe the Dodgers will be ok. I enjoy the journey also.

Yah, I have to agree with you, Mark, bullpens are volatile and you don’t have to look beyond Colorado’s effort to build a bullpen through high profile relievers to understand it’s difficult to do. Relievers may be good one year, bad the next. Sometimes you hit the jackpot with an under the radar signing like Brandon Morrow. But then the Cubs signed him for a lot of money and he breaks down, which wasn’t all that surprising since he had a history of injuries and the Dodgers really rode him hard in 2017. I was hoping the Dodgers would pick up Doolittle when they acquired Hill. He would have helped them back then and going forward.

The problem with acquiring relievers today is the high cost of mid-season trades where everybody wants your top prospects or in the winter where relievers and their agents want top dollar because of the value being placed on those players. Most of the time those signing don’t work out.

My issue with the Dodger bullpen has been a lack on consistency, which also plagues other teams.

Moving forward, I think the Dodgers would be best served developing their own relievers, which they have done with Jansen and Baez. Would appear to be a few potential bullpen pieces coming through the system now.

Maeda should be in the bullpen next year. Considering May and Gonsolin should be given shots at starting, the likely return of Ryu to go with Kershaw, Buehler, Stripling etc. it would appear Kenta will have more value to the Dodgers as a reliever. Plus Gray has to be in the mix for a call up at some point next summer.

I know some people place the ultimate value on winning a World Series, but it’s really a what have done lately game. Polishing trophies when your team goes into a long drought isn’t fun. Think those Giants fans are happy? The long winter has arrived. I want to be good every year, win the division, then have a chance to win it all. The best teams don’t always win the World Series. With a few exceptions, it’s about getting hot at the right time with a little luck thrown into the mix.

One final thought, if everybody is going one way, the best path is usually in the opposite direction. Maybe the Dodgers should focus on having starters go at least seven innings. Create a new mindset and develop them for those roles. Sort of like developing pitchers who understand how to actually pitch instead of just throwing hard.

Good column, Mark.

I like how you were able to weave concern over the current state of the Dodgers into lowered brain mass, lowered IQ and dementia. LOL. Clever.

It’s now a cliche it’s been repeated so much, but In the playoffs anything can happen, and the Dodgers are still in a good place heading into them, but you can’t deny that they aren’t clicking like they were earlier in the year, whereas the Astros are doing exactly what a great team should be doing going into the playoffs – surging.

Look at offense for the last 30 days. The Astros are head and shoulders above everyone else in baseball, but the Dodgers are middling. https://tinyurl.com/yy7lgcft

Or what about starting pitching, which had been probably the Dodgers biggest asset? The Stros went out and got Greinke and some guy who they tinkered with and subsequently threw a no-hitter. They shored up their #4 spot for the playoffs with Greinke. The Dodgers for their #4 have either a 39 year-old Rich Hill, who hasn’t pitched the entire second half of the season and is held together with baling wire and duct tape, or a parade of relievers who were in AA a month ago. It shows in the performance of starting pitching over the last 30 days …. https://tinyurl.com/y654pyry

The relief core is actually a bright spot. The Astros are struggling a little here, while the Dodgers, although not elite, are doing better. Still, though decent, the big problem is the reliance on Kenley as the anchor – or “closer” of that corps. It doesn’t inspire confidence. https://tinyurl.com/yyqaolzy

I don’t really fault AF here. They have a plan that’s working and they’re not deviating from it. There’s not a whole lot more I can think of that they FO could have done differently at the deadline save maybe getting a reliever like a Nick Anderson, who’s more of a diamond in the rough type. Roberts has done a good job I think managing the workload and getting them rested and peaked for the playoffs. The team just isn’t peaking. That’s just the way it is.

I think the Dodgers have as good a chance as anyone to win, but the reality is the Astros and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Yankees are just very impressive teams. So were the Mets and the As in 88.

No, I don’t want a championship or two and then 13 years of suckage. That’s dumb. I also don’t want to be the Bills. Why does it have to be an either/or question?

The Dodgers were once considered the best organization in baseball. They were respected by all. There was an aura around the organization, and they were considered a model – before they were sold to Fox. The Dodgers are getting back to that. I prefer a system that maintains excellence year in and year out, from the top to the bottom of the organization. I expect AF to make the right moves to put the team in the best position to win every year.

I am likely in a very small minority, but I would not trade 3 “guaranteed” WS championships if the trade off is not being good for 12 years. World Series is not the end all for me, I love the regular season and consider post season play to be nothing more than another tournament that has been watered-down with the inclusion of “wild-card,” regular season runners-up.