Tuesday, 30 October 2012

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...

Friday, 5 October 2012

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.