Bright Spots Amid Dodger's Turmoil

While I am fully aware that I have not committed myself fully to writing for this blog I am taking a personal vow to contribute on a more regular basis so I do apologize to our few but loyal readers. That being said, I will apologize up front to the readers for this post as well because it is strictly about the Los Angeles Dodgers, and knowing that this is a Rockies friendly page the Dodgers may or may not have a high priority on every one's list but my family is from Southern California and I was brainwashed at a young age so deal with it.

While most baseball fans are aware of the Dodger's troubles this season both financially and from a fan base standpoint, it is safe to say these negatives are overshadowing three huge bright spots not only for the Dodger organization, but for baseball in general. Among the backlash that the opening day assault of Giant's fan Brian Stow and the financial troubles due to Frank McCourt's divorce, there has been three players that have been able to not only put the drama behind them, but to become young superstars of the game. Andre Ethier, Clayton Kershaw and Matt Kemp have become top tier players in what seems to be over night, and whether it is because they play on the west coast or because of the negative publicity surrounding the franchise it seems they may not be getting the credit they deserve.

Andre Ethier is probably one of the quietest superstars in the league today. The only negative noise we have heard from him came this year when he got frustrated enough by a photographer prior to a game that he gave him a certain hand gesture we are all familiar with, but in my book that seems pretty forgivable considering he immediately apologized. I can't name too many players within the last few years that I would want at the plate with the game on the line more than Ethier. This guy does not have bad at bats. While his fielding struggles some and at times he is slow getting to balls in the gap he has a little leeway because of the way he performs at the plate, and with the consistent numbers he puts up(over the last three seasons his average is close to .300 and he is averaging 25 HR's and close to 90 RBI's) Dodger fans can rest easy knowing that on a daily basis Andre Ethier is going to show up, and that if more people on the team would play at a higher level his numbers are only going to get better. At 29 I think its a given we are looking at a perennial all star and the possibility of a batting title or two.

Moving the focus to one glimmer of hope in the pitching staff, Clayton Kershaw at 23 has the potential and work ethic to be the best pitcher in the game by 25. Tim Kurkjian wrote this piece on ESPN before the beginning of this series between the Dodgers and Rockies,(http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kurkjian_tim&id=6640274) and if you watched the game I think we all saw where this kid is already and how much potential is still to be uncovered. Kershaw is humble and coachable, and at 23 has already added two pitches to his arsenal. He throws 95-96 mph on a consistent basis and has one of the meanest hooks in all of baseball, but it wasn't enough. This offseason Kershaw focused on perfecting his change up while also adding a slider that runs between 88-90 mph on the gun. The two things that worry me most are his size and stamina. Countless pitchers in the league of his size and stature end up with some sort of health problem, usually their arm, strictly because it is very hard to keep your mechanics when there is that much body in motion. He seems to have had good luck so far and hopefully that continues in the future. Stamina is another factor and we saw a prime example of this Thursday against the Rockies. He went through five innings where he was absolutely unhittable, then in the 6th the Rockies hitters started getting to him. If he wants to be considered a top guy he needs to be able to consistently get to the 7th inning and not allow teams to time his fastball up, but this is another guy that Dodger fans can hang their hat on for the future.

The last of the trio of young superstars is Matt Kemp. If you haven't seen him play, especially this season, you are missing out on one of the best all around players the league has to offer. This guy is going to make some serious noise in the MVP race, especially if the Dodgers as a team start winning. There are few center fielders in the game right now that have his ability to cover ground, make plays in the gaps and towards the wall, throw runners out and hit for average and power. The five tool player is not often seen in today's game but Matt Kemp is a coach's dream. In the last three years he has played 155, 159 and 162 games and averaged 30 stolen bases. He's big at 6' 3", 215 lbs, and has a rare combination of power and speed. He has taken this team on his back this season in the middle of all the turmoil. While I'm not petitioning that these players don't make enough money, there has been points during this season that Dodgers players didn't know if their next pay check was coming or not, and that can be stressful no matter how much you make. In the midst of all that Kemp has put up this line, (.332 avg., 19HR's, 54RBI's, 30 Walks, 14 SB's) and that's in 64 games. Not only is this kid the Dodgers MVP and currently keeping the team afloat, he needs to be seriously considered for NL MVP if he stays at this pace, and it will be a true shame if he isn't starting in center field for the All Star Game. He hit a ball last night against the Rockies that prompted fellow contributor Hayden to text me today, "Dude Kemp's home run last night was dumb. I haven't seen one that long in Coors since the Blake Street Bomber days." His combination of power and speed along with fielding ability doesn't come around too often, and he plays nearly every day so if you're late getting on the Matt Kemp bandwagon you are going to catch him in his prime this year and I have a feeling if he keeps his head on straight and stays healthy we could see some monster numbers for years to come.

Piggybacking: "The Cult of the Status Quo"

This post inspired by Bill Simmons's article on Grantland.com (more on that site later), where he embraces his own role as a bandwagon hockey fan. In it, he refers to hockey fans who were there all along who do not want new fans:

"Look, I totally get the Cult of the Status Quo, which afflicts MMA fans, hockey fans and American soccer fans in particular — they all have a chip on their shoulder because they're still in that "we're all rooting for a local music band and we don't want it to go mainstream" stage, so they unabashedly drive away anyone late to the party."

He then points out to those hockey fans that the arrival of people like him helps the sport. And to me this is always the point with "bandwagon" fans. When the Rockies made their famed 2007 Rocktober run, many were upset, almost offended, at the number of people who packed Coors Field who were nowhere to be seen in the skinny years prior. But wasn't it great to see the stadium full to the point of standing room only, and wasn't it great to hear the eruption when Matt Holliday hit that inexplicable triple? It's nothing but good for the Rockies, even if some of those fans bought a shiny new hat that day.

There are such better areas to expend one's "fan energy" than worrying about who was there first. And you do not enjoy your team's success any less than you would anyway. So let it go. Like Simmons, the way I see it, the more fans the better.

At this point I am going to insert a rare inside joke and see if any of my certain readers notice. "Bro, I don't even like Weezer anymore. I pretty much discovered them, but now that everybody likes them it's kind of like 'whatever.'"

***

About Grantland: at one time I wanted nothing more than to be a sportswriter. I later decided that the grind of journalism was not for me; I just don't have the personality for it. However, I always said there is still a certain type of writing about sports that I am drawn to. I never totally knew how to describe it, and I always tried to avoid describing it as "more literary" because that sounds uppity and obnoxious. So what kind of writing would I want to do? The kind on Grantland.com. It's exactly the sports writing that I love. It's me.

Recently, my good friend Lindsey Costley (you know her as The Clean Freak) posted about her discovery of the site Autostraddle, and how badly she wants to write for them. Which I think she will, by the way. (And I'm trying to help...you laugh...). Just days later, I feel the same way about Grantland. 

To be clear, that is a lofty goal, seeing as Simmons surrounded himself with some New York Times bestselling authors (Dave Eggers - heard of him?). Nevertheless, I absolutely love what they are doing on Grantland and would love to be a part of something like it. As if they need my help, I absolutely recommend that everybody go check it out.

Follow up: what the Rockies need to do

It's things like this that make Jim Tracy appear too heavy handed. Carlos Gonzalez batted lead-off last night, with Tracy saying that he hoped it would help CarGo hone his strike zone. It didn't, and that logic is difficult to follow. CarGo has earned the right to work through slumps in the same spot in the order, and if he does break out for a huge game, you want him doing it from the 3 hole.

After the game, Tracy said: "I guarantee you this: this is a very good ballclub. And the best of it has not even come close to showing up. If I have to keep doing different things to get that out, I will."

That's what I'm afraid of, Jim.

Footnote: As Troy Renck points out, Charlie Blackmon has played right field almost exclusively for the Colorado Springs Sky Sox this year. Therefore, it makes sense to let him settle into the same spot with the big club with CarGo shifting his gold glove to center field.

What the Rockies need to do in the coming weeks

Hit better.

What you've come to expect. Groudbreaking analysis! Thank you, thank you. Applause, applause!

The Rockies still have enough games left to emerge as an elite team and call the current swoon an aberration. As Troy Renck points out in the Denver Post, the pitching is good enough. More than good enough, in fact: they surrendered only six runs over the entire Giants series this weekend (which they lost).

Fans overreact. That's what we do. People call for the firing of the hitting coach, the firing of the manager, and the demotion or release of any and all underachieving players. For good reasons, Rockies management does not listen to fans.

The Rockies organization has made its name with patience. When it works they are praised for building the franchise the "right way," and when it doesn't they are criticized for not making the big splash move they needed.

Management does not overreact or make hasty moves; Jim Tracy needs to do the same with his lineup. When he keyed the team's turnaround in 2009, he cited the need for players to know what their role was every day. He said once players did not question where they stood, they could settle in and just play ball.

Of course a manager will tinker when his team hits as poorly as the Rockies have this year. But I would like to see Jim Tracy pick a lineup, stick with it for a significant stretch of time, and make changes a bit more gradually than he has so far in 2011. Here is what he should do:

• Stop platooning Seth Smith. Make Ryan Spilborghs a pinch hitter, and stop playing him by default against any left handed pitcher.
• Pick a 3rd baseman and play him every day. I would like to see Chris Nelson, with Ty Wigginton making spot starts at each corner to spell Nelson and Todd Helton. People like Wigginton's bat, but he was not signed to play every day.
• Call up Charlie Blackmon and insert him in the lineup. Some think that this move would force Carlos Gonzalez back to center field. Blackmon came up through the system playing CF; why not start him there and use Dexter Fowler as a defensive replacement in late innings?
• Pick a 2nd baseman between Jonathan Herrera and Eric Young, Jr. Use the other as your utility player and spot starter. If you start Young, insert Herrera for late inning defense.

Lineup stability was Jim Tracy's calling card when he won Manager of the Year. I believe he needs to return to that strategy rather than tinkering with the lineup each time the hitters falter. If he does so and the lineup is ineffective for a long stretch, then move the pieces. The length of baseball's season lends itself to gradual rather than kneejerk changes. Management gets that. Jim Tracy used to, and we need him to return to that philosophy.

Do not mistake my intentions here. I do not blame Jim Tracy for the team's struggles. I blame the players for ineffective approaches at the plate. If Tracy does move to a more stable lineup, the onus is still on the players to strike out less, take good situational at-bats and make pitchers pay for mistakes.

Why some writers should avoid baseball

Mark Kiszla tries too hard to be controversial, and tends to really miss the boat with his Rockies opinions. One is left with the feeling that he just does not watch that many games. He wrote today that Dan O'Dowd is a mediocre general manager. Nobody will claim that O'Dowd is always great, but when you hear any actual baseball experts (such as MLB Network's Jon Hart) talk about the Rockies, they say that the organization is following something like the Minnesota Twins model and building the right way in a middle sized market. Once again, the pay-off in baseball is gradual, something that does not suit a writer as desperate for controversy as Kiszla.

He points to specific players to argue O'Dowd's ineffectiveness. Most baseball fans and analysts understand how shortsighted this is; you do not argue that O'Dowd is absolutely awful because of Ian Stewart any more than you argue he is executive of the decade because of Ubaldo Jimenez or Troy Tulowitzki. He points out O'Dowd's overall win-loss record is not overly successful. Unfortunately this chooses to overlook O'Dowd's philosophical change in the 2000's and the fact that the team is trending the right direction in the big picture, even with its recent disappointments.

With the exception of the huge markets out on the east coast, championship baseball teams are built over years, not weeks or months. Therefore, any decision on whether or not a general manager is successful is deferred again and again. It might be frustrating, but it's the nature of the game.

This week

Hopefully lineup stability is part of a long term answer. In the short term, just win a series. Two of three from the Padres and three of four from the Dodgers. It sounds so simple, but a week like that against teams in the division goes a long way for a team as dreadful as this one has been.

Win how? Beat the mediocre pitchers, such as Clayton Richard and Tim Stauffer of the Padres, by making them pay for mistakes and not helping them out with wild swings. That takes the pressure off of a bad match-up such as Clayton Kershaw on Thursday night.

To me the Padres series is especially important. Why? If the Rockies lose it, they will have sole possession of last place. It would still be too early to panic, but to have them in last place would just be icky.

Other Rockies links

Troy Renck comments on the Giants and their whining problem (a great read) http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_18208679?source=commented-rockies

Thomas Harding and Nick Kosmider check in with Charlie Blackmon http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110605&content_id=20082796&notebook_id=20082798&vkey=notebook_col&c_id=col

Follow up 2.0: catchers blocking the plate

Brian Sabean contributed a collection of absolutely idiotic comments to an already tense situation.

The San Francisco Giants GM called Scott Cousins's play "malicous" and said: "If I never hear from Cousins again or he never plays another game in the big leagues, I think we'll all be happy." He continued on that: "He chose to be a hero, in my mind, and if that's his flash of fame, that's as good as it's going to get, pal."

This is the same man who accused the Rockies of cheating last year with their use of the humidor. No need to go into detail here, but it would have been pretty impressive for the Rockies to cheat, seeing as the umpire would have been complicit. Nevertheless, it is inexcusable for a management figure to have this utter lack of a filter. It's good for the Giants that he is so good at his job, otherwise these types of nasty, uncalled for and unfounded comments would not stand.

The first thing Scott Cousins did after that play was check on Buster Posey. He called Posey to apologize and was in tears. Common sense, which is clearly something Sabean sorely lacks, tells us that if he indeed acted with malicous intentions, he would be celebrating the results of the collision instead of trying to apologize.

Cousins is already getting death threats from overreacting fans. Sabean's role as an executive was to bring this situation into perspective and alleviate that type of violence. Instead he has thrown fuel on the fire.

Shame on him.

Follow up: catchers blocking the plate

The columnists for MLB.com were very active in discussing these issues.

Terrence Moore urges baseball not to overreact. At one point he claims that runners are left with no other choice when the catcher blocks the plate, sarcastically asking if runners are supposed to try and slide around him. Let me emphasize this point again: plays at the plate are never that tidy. If the catcher is actually perfectly in position, you're out anyway. But he almost never is, so react to where the play has taken him and slide accordingly. He also cites Bobby Valentine and addresses the "macho" mentality of catchers. I certainly don't think any of my friends, family, or teammates would ever use that word to describe me. Ever.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110601&content_id=19867218&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Alden Gonzalez notes the continued specialization of catchers, ultimately wondering about the extinction of a true "two way" catcher. Unless there's a rule change about collisions, of course.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110602&content_id=19918098&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Mike Bauman points out how impossible it would be to enforce a rule that bans running over the catcher. His article emphasizes the fact that if these collisions are going to disappear, the change will come from the baserunners and not the league or the umpires.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110601&content_id=19882160&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Why baserunners should not run over the catcher

I was a freshman in high school. I received the peg from my teammate and positioned myself in front of home plate, slightly up the third baseline. Once it became clear that the runner had no intention of sliding, I braced for contact. I held the tag for the third out of the inning. As the rowdy crowd of 12 fans expressed their jubilation, I performed the following sequence: retrieved my catcher's mask, made eye contact with the runner, winked, and flipped the ball to the mound. For that moment, I was one bad dude.

In the days following Buster Posey's season ending injury, writers and fans alike considered the issue of collisions at home plate. Some defended the play, adament that it is just "part of the game." Others feel that it should be removed to protect teams from losing star players such as Posey. I do not want baseball to introduce a rule that bans running over the catcher. I want runners to stop doing it for a different reason.

It does not work.

What about plays where the catcher does drop the ball? Watch those plays again. In the majority of them, the catcher never caught the ball anyway. The runner was safe regardless, and he would have gotten there faster with a slide. If you beat the throw, why choose to collide with a guy wearing gear? Check the Buster Posey play again. Scott Cousins was safe no matter what; that does not constitute a "successful" collision play at the plate.

When a catcher does have the ball in enough time that running him over is a good play, does he ever drop it? Think of your prototypical catcher: a big block of a guy. Runners should save themselves the sore muscles because they will not jar that ball loose.

What should runners do instead? Slide feet first every time. Slide by almost every time. Read where the throw is, slide to the other side of the plate, and slap it with your hand on your way by. In all the bang-bang plays where colliding with the catcher "works," a slide works just as effectively. Think of a catcher, in gear, with a catcher's glove, receiving a throw and reaching to the opposite side of the plate to make a tag. It does not happen very often; it's a clumsy play to make, and in their haste to make a quick tag a catcher often drops the ball or just misses the runner completely.

Runners who slide feet first will also stay the course to the plate. The most nonsensical plays at the plate involve runners who are so busy blasting the catcher they have to go back and touch the plate (if they are not already out).

People argue: "If he's in the way, then he deserves to get run over." How often are plays at the plate that tidy? How often does the catcher have the ball, in perfect position to block the plate, and the runner has no choice but to run him over? Not very often, unless we are talking about the climactic scene (3:10 of video) of A League of Their Own.

If the catcher has the time to catch the ball, get up the third baseline, and dig in for a collision, what should the runner do instead of colliding with him? Juke him. That is not a joke. Fake right, dive left. Juke left, slide right. Remember your image of a typical catcher. Is he more likely to drop the ball or whiff on a juking runner? Some may find this idea silly, but it is probably just as likely to be successful as running over a catcher who has already secured the throw. Spin move? You bet. If the throw beats you by that much, either of these options is a concession that you are most likely going to be out.

Here is one example for Rockies fans: Matt Holliday's run to win the play-in game against the Padres. Drew Goodman, the current play-by-play announcer on Root Sports, argued that Holliday should have run Michael Barrett over. Yes, he would have been safe if he had done that because Michael Barrett never had the ball (which we should always point out to bitter Padres fans). Like so many times where it "works," the catcher was never going to have the throw in time to make a tag anyway. In his haste, Barrett rushed and never caught the ball; he was going to either tag with an empty glove or whiff completely. If Holliday veers off to the right, slides by Barrett, and slaps the plate with his left hand, he can pop up and celebrate with his boys instead of lying on the ground with a headache trying to remember what day of the week it was. We also would have avoided the whole "he never touched the plate" controversy.

If ineffectiveness is the first reason to avoid colliding with the catcher, ego preservation is the second. When a catcher does hold on, he gets a rare "in your face!" moment as he stares you down and flips the ball out to the mound (assuming it's the 3rd out). All the while, you're pretending it did not hurt to run over one of the beefiest guys on the field while he was wearing hard plastic shin guards. I had one "badass" moment in my whole career, and it was when I held onto the third out after a collision. Still relishing that one.

I was run over exactly four times as a catcher; I held onto the tag all four times. I cannot remember a single time I recorded an out at the plate when the runner slid to avoid me. I struggled way too much to find runners behind me or reach quickly enough to tag them. Why invite a tag by running into the catcher when he is more likely to miss you than drop the ball?

As a coach, I would tell my runners that they are absolutely not allowed to run over the catcher. Partially for the safety of the players, but the much larger reason would be because I believe it gave my team the best chance to score more runs.