Arm's Race

If only there were five of this guy, then the problem would solve itself...

Watching the San Francisco Giants fluke their way to take their second World Series in three years has made one thing clear, to both fans and management: Pitching wins championships. Well, pitching and Scott Rolen errors helping you avoid a deserved sweep in the NLDS. While injuries sunk the team in 2012, pitching was clearly an issue. Clayton Kershaw is arguably the best pitcher in baseball, but his supporting cast was iffy to put it lightly. Ted Lily showed flare early on, but went down with injury. Chris Capuano started out with authority, but fell back to earth, finishing 12-12 with 188 hits and 82 earned runs allowed (most of all Dodgers starters). Chad Billingsly was shut down in the middle of a hot streak late in the year. Even Clayton Kershaw missed a few crucial starts with hip problems, leading to starts being required from Aaron Harang, rookie Stephen Fife, reclamation project Josh Beckett and...ugh...Joe Blanton. Pitching help quickly became a top priority for Colletti and Co. this winter, and there are plenty options out there.

But who will be the guy? Will it be just one guy? And how will he end up in blue?

1. Zack Greinke, 29 years old, RHP

Why It Makes Sense: Greinke is easily the best pitcher on the free agent market, potentially the best free agent period, so it isn't a shock that the Dodgers are brought up in discussions for the former Cy Young winner. Though he undoubtedly won't come cheap, he's been long coveted by Dodgers fans. He split last season between Milwaukee and the evil side of Los Angeles baseball, posting a 15-5 record between the two clubs. While his ERA still hung at 3.48, it was his best since his 2009 MVP season and his FIP (painting a more accurate picture) was an impressive 3.10. He also clocked 200 Ks, with a K/9 of .848. He's reletively young, so a long contract offer his way followed up by an extension to Clayton Kershaw assures the Dodgers have a powerful 1-2 for years.

Why It Might Not Happen: Despite his impressive credentials, there are many reasons to suggest the Dodgers don't land Zack. The Angels have been pretty insistent on bringing Greinke back, and have shed a ton of salary, and look to be shedding a ton more. The team has shed two of their starting pitchers from the 2012 season, and will more than likely offer Greinke the contract he wants. It can also virtually be promised that he's receiving multiple offers from outside teams. Furthermore, his history of social anxiety  though seemingly a thing of the past, could potentially resurface, especially while playing on a big market team. Finally, the Dodgers would be the fourth team in Greinke's career. He has already requested a trade out of one struggling team in Kansas City, should the Dodgers fall flat on their faces, would Greinke want out of L.A. as well? 

2. James Shields, 30 years old, RHP

Why It Makes Sense: His stat line doesn't look as pretty as Zach Greinke's, but James Shields has also played for the meek hitting Tampa Bay Rays his whole career. Though slightly regressing statistically from his 2011 Cy Young calibre season, Shields had a solid campaign for Tampa in 2012, going 15-10 with a FIP of 3.47. He's a workhorse, having pitched 200+ innings every season since 2007. His ERA has jumped around quite a bit throughout his career, but his FIP has found stability in the past two seasons, raising slightly from 2011 career best of 2.42. Having accumulated 22 losses over the past two seasons may scare off some people, but on a weak hitting Tampa Bay team, W/L records can be misleading. On a team with a more potent offense, Shields' fairly attactive 15 wins could of easily became a prom queen-esque 19 or 20. Like Greinke, Shields is a reasonably aged option that would provide the Dodgers with some solid seasons within the teams presumed championship widow.
Why It Might Not Happen: Though he would almost certainly come cheaper salary wise, Shields isn't a free agent. The Rays picked up his option for 2013, meaning the Dodgers would have to swing some kind of offer Tampa's way. Should this happen, One of two things will have to happen. One, the farm team would likely be gutted, making anything short of a World Series an embarrassment, and probably spell the end of Colletti. If not a slew of prospects, Tampa would likely request some form of Major League ready position player coming back, preferably one that can hit, and the Dodgers really don't have any player like that expendable, unless you count Andre Either (and if you do...stop that). On top of that, other teams looking for pitching could make the Rays a much better offer than the Dodgers could, both involving roster ready players and prospects.  

3. Kyle Lohse, 34 years old, RHP

Why It Could Happen: Kyle Lohse is the pitching equivalent of drinking a Pabst Blue Ribbon when you  want a Budweiser. He probably isn't anyone's first choice, but they aren't exactly pissed off to have him. Lohse posted a career low 2.86 ERA on his way to a 16-3 season with the National League runners-up. His K/9 reached it's highest since his rookie season in 2001 at 6.10, striking out a career high 143 batters over 211 innings. His BB/9 also reached a career low, as did his WHIP (1.09) and total opposition batting average (.234).

Why It Might Not Happen: More accurately, why is SHOULDN'T happen. The Dodgers are looking for a legitimate number two, and despite a solid season in 2012, Kyle Lohse can't be expected to fill that role. His stats are completely misleading. Sure, a 2.86 ERA looks nice, but his FIP was 3.51, meaning his defense really padded that statistic. He gave up the most home-runs in a season for him since 2007. He pitched 200+ innings, but that was only the third time he's done so. He won 16 games, but he also played on the fifth highest scoring team in the majors, which was good for second in the National League (said team offered him nearly five runs a game on average). And on top of that...think back to his last start. Game seven against the Giants. 2 innings...6 hits...5 earned runs...in an elimination game...yikes. I'm not saying Lohse is an awful pitcher. He just isn't right for the Dodgers. We already have a Kyle Lohse type of our own. Only we call ours Josh.

4. Dan Haren, 32 years old, RHP

Why It Could Happen: Not much buzz has been going around about Dan Haren, but following a voided trade with the Chicago Cubs, the Angels decided to let the pitcher walk. Haren posted a 12-13 record, with a 4.33 ERA, the worst since his sophmore season. His stats completely fell off, and he pitched less than 200 innings for the first time since, again, his second Major League season, but his career shows that he has the tools of a quality pitcher. Perhaps the rocky year opens the Dodgers up to offering Haren a cheap deal that could end up being a bargain. 

Why It Might Not Happen: Again, like Lohse, Dan Haren shouldn't be looked at as a number two guy. Although I would rather see Haren in a Dodgers uniform compared to Lohse, what's to say that this was the start of a decline rather than just an off year? He might be worth the risk...just for another team. 

5. Ryan Dempster, 35 years old, RHP

Why It Could Happen: The Dodgers were major players in the Ryan Dempster talks at the trade deadline, but any potential deal fell through when Ned Colletti refused to include prospect Allen Webster (who was later sent to Boston as part of the Adrian Gonzalez deal). Now, they can have the veteran for free. 2012 marked the first season since being moved from the Cubs bullpen to the starting rotation in 2008 that Dempster didn't pitch in 200 innings.
Why It Might Not Happen: Well, Ryan Dempster is 35 for one thing. For another, he appears to be on the decline. Though he's been logging a lot of innings, four out of his last five seasons have seen Dempster log a higher FIP than ERA. He puts a lot of runners on base and gives up a pretty substantial number of home-runs. We can say what we will about Colletti...but holding off on sending Webster for half a season of Ryan Dempster was one of the smartest things he's done.

These options aren't the only ones out there, but they're ones I was hearing tossed around, or just that I felt logic would dictate some form of interest for the organization. For obvious reasons, I have my hopes built up that Greinke is a Dodger sometime in the near future, but for now, it's just a waiting game. Colletti will make a move. All we can do is hope it's not a bad one.

You know...kind of like this one was.

Just Throwin' Him Out There...

Ethier may be available, and this is a problem.

When Carl Crawford came over, many Dodgers fans (myself included) began wringing our hands and gleefully grinning over what this meant for the team. First and foremost, we were in the middle of the Shane Victorino Experiment, and bringing on a guy like Crawford meant we would have four outfielders (should Victorino re-sign) going towards 2013. So who was the odd man out? Crawford is on a huge contract, Matt Kemp is Matt Kemp, and Andre Ethier had just been extended five years. And when Victorino had made it clear he wanted to be an everyday player, many Dodgers fans were more than happy to reply with hopes of a door not hitting a certain Hawaiian ass as it flew out the door and into a section of memory reserved for the likes Andruw Jones. The thought of a 2013 with a healthy outfield of Crawford, Kemp and Ethier was down right gorgeous in our minds. Crawford hitting ahead of Kemp could have to potential of greatness. Ethier is just added flair. You couldn't pitch around A-Gone or Hanley with confidence, knowing a former 30 home-run bat was taking warm-up swings. This line-up had the possibility to do amazing things.

And then, Buster Olney broke the news and sent Dodgers fans into panic. Ned Colletti is open to trading Andre Ethier. 

Now, I'm not Colletti's biggest supporter, but I'm also not his biggest critic. He seems to blur the line between total genius and incompetent fool. Hell, bringing in Andre was the very first thing he did when he took the job as general manager, and he did it for dirt cheap. And I know that "open to trading Ethier" isn't the same thing as "actively shopping Ethier", but I don't get why either would be an option right now. He developed into a great talent. He's not a superstar, but not everyone has to be. He's a fan favourite. He's a solid bat for later in the line-up. Sure, he's streaky. Sure, he struggles against lefties. He's not going to be an NL MVP. He's might not break 30 homers again, but that's fine. Solid is the perfect word to describe him, and that's all he needs to be. Why in the hell should we trade him? More importantly, who would replace him?

I'll be the first to admit it...there are some outfielders on the market that I wouldn't mind seeing in Dodger blue. But that's the extent it gets to. I "wouldn't mind" it. Sure, a 1-2-3 of Michael Bourn-Carl Crawford-Matt Kemp is enticing. Yeah, Cody Ross has the power against lefties that Andre lacks. And I've always been a BJ Upton fan, so seeing him on my favourite team would be awesome. But with all these names, there's only one thing that keeps coming back: They aren't Andre Ethier. 

We don't need Bourn's base-stealing skills with Crawford, Kemp and a pray-to-God-he-returns-to-form Dee Gordon. Cody Ross can hit lefties, but Kemp and Gonzalez dominate them as well. Yasiel Puig may very well be to SoCal version of Oakland A's left fielder Yoenis Cespedes, but we can't rely on him being ready with no back up plan should he falter. 

The thing Ethier brings right now is stability. He's solid at the plate. He's solid in the field. He's tried, tested and true. Fans love him. Donnie seems to love him. He seems to love the city and team. He's got his flaws, but most ball players do. I don't see a (realistic) scenario in my head where trading him makes this team better. He's worth more to the Dodgers than he is to other teams. The Dodgers need someone to slot in behind Kershaw in the pitching rotation. Andre Ethier won't net them that in a trade. And trading him for bullpen help just seems like we'd end up feeling ripped off. With the pool of free agent outfielders shallow, and the trade value on a player like Ethier low...it only makes sense to keep him where he belongs: In a Dodgers uniform. Ned can't be that stupid, can he?

Then again...

The Case for Clayton

Does Clayton Kershaw realistically deserve a second consecutive Cy Young?

I'm going to get my biased opinion out of the way as soon as possible: Clayton Kershaw is my absolute favourite player on the Dodgers, in the NL West, in the National League, in the MLB, in all of friggin' baseball. Save for a few (possible) exceptions, I think he's the best pitcher in baseball today. 

Now that I've let that out: Can I put that bias aside and say that Kershaw should be in consideration for his second Cy Young in as many years?

Honestly: Yes. Yes I can say that. I don't think for a second that he's going to win, but I think he should get a lot more consideration than he seems to be getting. I may be an isolated case, but whenever I talk to (informed) baseball fans about the NL Cy Young this year, three names come up. Mets starter R.A. Dickey, Nationals starter Gio Gonzalez, and Braves closer Craig Kimbrel. Personally, if Kershaw were to end up as the runner up to Kimbrel, I don't think I could argue. Kimbrel was lights out this year, closing out 42 games (tied with the Cardinals Motte, who blew 5 more saves) with a mind-blowing 1.01 ERA and 0.65 WHIP over 62.2 innings. Kimbrel IS the Cy Young winner in my eyes, and should be the first NL closer to win it since the Dodgers Éric Gagné (who I feel tempted to refer to as Judas for some reason).

However, the thorn in my craw here isn't that Kershaw may lose to Kimbrel, this thorn is more from the one or two other pitchers who Kershaw out performed, but may still fall behind. The fact of the matter is that people actually put weight into a pitchers W/L record, which is ultimately absurd. 

If an NHL goalie has a save percentage of .929 and a goals against average of 1.95 but only 35 wins, does that make him worse than the goalie with a .913 save percentage and 2.36 goals against average who has 42 wins?

If you said yes, you're agreeing that Conn Smythe winner Jonathan Quick isn't as good as Marc-Andre Fleury.

Is that not lunacy? Is it not absolutely insane to view Fleury as the better goalie because his team was more offensive? Well, the same goes for baseball. Why do we think Gonzalez or Dickey are automatically better than Kershaw this year based on W/L alone?

In terms of ERA, WHIP and Ks, Kershaw ranks 1st, 1st, and 2nd respectively in the NL and 1st, Tied for 1st (Weaver, LAA) and 4th in the MLB overall. His ERA lead in the NL is 0.20 over the second place Dickey (and is 0.46 over Gonzalez, who sits at sixth). He only trails Dickey by one strikeout, and leads Gonzalez by 22. Outside of W/L, these three statistics are stated the most whenever I discuss pitching with other baseball fans. And it's pretty much the only reason why Gonzalez is in the discussion. 

Gonzalez leads the NL in wins with 21. Dickey a close second with 20. After a pretty glaring drop off, Kershaw checks in just cutting inside the top 20 with a 14-9 record. Don't get me wrong here, I get that strong starts are important for a pitcher, and by extent, a ball team. A 21 win season is damn impressive, but ultimately, W/L is not a good measuring stick.

Clayton Kershaw went 14-9 with an ERA of 2.53 and 229 strikeouts.

Lance Lynn finished with four more wins than Kershaw. His ERA was 3.78, and he struck out 49 less batters.

Wade Miley finished with two more wins than Kershaw. His ERA was 3.33, and he struck out 85 less batters.
Barry Zito finished with one win more than Kershaw. His ERA was 4.15, and he had over 100 less Ks.

Now I have to swear in this next sentence because of the absurd nature of the claim so if you can't handle a little cursing, skip ahead: If we use wins as a way to judge a pitcher, we're living in a world where Barry fucking Zito is better than Clayton Kershaw. Let that sink in. If you want an accurate judgement, you need to look beyond the W/L and into the statistics like Quality Starts.

Because I'm sure there are some people who view quality starts as just about any good start (not a knock to anyone, I swear. Baseball has a load of statistics, and even I don't understand each and every one), let me give the specifics of what a quality start is. Any time a pitcher pitches six innings of a game and gives up three or less runs, it's considered a "quality" start. There are several holes in this stat, but for the most part, quality starts are pretty crucial to a pitchers stat-line. Going hand in hand with a quality start are the statistics (from ESPN) 'tough loss' and 'cheap win'. A cheap win is whenever a pitcher doesn't have a quality start, but still gets credited with a win, and a tough loss is the exact opposite. That takes place when a pitcher throws a quality start, but still gets a loss.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

In 2012, R.A. Dickey and Clayton Kershaw both started 33 games. Gio Gonzalez started 32.

Of his 33, Dickey tossed 27 quality starts, while Kershaw threw 25 of his (good for a Quality Start Percentage of .82 and .76 respectively). Gonzalez threw 22 quality starts, good for .69.

Cheap wins aren't very telling between the three, as Kershaw and Dickey weren't benefited, and Gonzalez only received one, but the difference between the three when it comes to tough losses is pretty damn significant.

Of R.A. Dickey's six losses, three were considered tough losses (so, .50).
Of Gio Gonzalez's eight losses, four were considered tough losses (again, .50).
Of Clayton Kershaw's nine losses, SIX of them tough losses, good for a Tough Loss percentage of .66.

So that means that Clayton Kershaw, on six separate occasions, pitched at least six solid innings, holding the opposition to less than three runs and STILL got a loss for his efforts. A pitchers W/L is co-dependant on the amount of offence a team gives him. Dickey averaged 4.61 in run support each of his starts, Gonzalez received an astounding 5.38 (the second most of any NL pitcher). Kershaw? 3.94. Not terrible, but not great. If that creeps up to even the level that Dickey received, maybe those six tough losses vanish, and all of a sudden we have a 18-5, 19-4 or (dare I dream) maybe even a 20-3 pitcher.

I'll give credit where credit is due. Gio Gonzalez is a hell of a pitcher, and as much as I bashed the notion of W/L being taken too serious, a 21 win season is nothing to scoff at (and I mean, he DID lead the NL in K/9, leading Kershaw by a crazy .30). He's going to bring Washington a LOT of success. And to be honest, I'm not even writing this as a "Kershaw should win the Cy Young" piece. He deserves credit for what he did, and the way we regard a pitchers skill maybe needs certain arguments dropped, but if he loses to a guy like Kimbrel...it will be well deserved. Hell, if he loses to Dickey, I might be able to stomach it. But overlooking an elite pitcher for a great pitcher based on their W/L record?

Insanity.