Bill Plaschke Thinks The Dodgers Should Imitate The Angels; I Just Think He's A Moron

My soul weeps every time Bill Plaschke writes a Dodger related article.

"Dodgers need to play the Angels' brand of ball

Scioscia, the former Dodgers catcher, is the model manager who has created an atmosphere of winning."

Good start, Bill. You begin by claiming something that is completely immeasurable and subjective. Somehow I bet that if the Angels lose 7 of the next 8, and the Dodgers win 13 in a row, I will find you writing about how the Angels need to imitate the "winning environment" that Joe Torre has created. That, of course, would also be full of shit, but that's just how you seem to like it anyway.

"Torre sits on a throne of cardboard, deserving of instant respect but admittedly receiving little from a crowd much more amateur than those professional New York Yankees.

His young players still don't listen. When they should be looking at the scoreboard, they are looking in the mirror. When they should be moving the runner from first, they are often only interested in advancing themselves."

This is now twice in the past week that some douche bag sportswriter from the Los Angeles Times has claimed that the Dodgers' young players don't listen to or respect Torre. It might be completely true, but I find it hilarious that none of these writers, who also happen to have the most access, can provide any semblance of evidence. The most they can come up with is a few cliched quotes from Torre about trying to teach young players to evolve. Not exactly convincing.

Besides, how exactly does Plaschke think the players treat Torre?

"Okay Andre, we need you to put the ball in play in this situation, it's a runner on third and one out."

"No Joe, fuck you, i'll strike out if I want to, okay? Who the fuck are you anyway? I don't give a fuck, i'm selfish and i'm an asshole."

I imagine that conversation is close to what guys like Simers and Plaschke think is happening whenever a young player makes a dumb mistake or doesn't come through in the "clutch". Basically, they are both saying that because a young player doesn't do well in a situation, they fucking hate Joe Torre.

As you can see, the amount that the young players hate Joe Torre is the independent variable, because their increase in hatred for him is what makes them play crappier. It's all so obvious now.

"McCourt may have some of the right kids, but not all of the right kids. They all might eventually be All-Stars, but it's clearly not going to happen for all of them here."

Uh, why not? The Dodgers' problem over the past two decades has been giving up on these young talents before they develop. The franchise has become impatient, and it has lead to trades that allow Dodger prospects to become stars for other teams. Bill exhibits the same attitude that lead to trades like Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields.

"Hey guys, Paul Konerko hit like shit in the 151 at-bats we gave him, fuck he sucks so much! Let's trade him away for some medicore piece of shit, Paul will never amount to much anyway!"

Sounds good!

"While waiting for some of these players to figure it out, McCourt needs to figure them out.

Who is a ballplayer? Who is not? Who can continue to grow here? Who will not?

Blake DeWitt, he's a ballplayer.

How do they find a bunch of other guys who play the game the right way like he does?"

Before I start this section, let me just say that I like Blake DeWitt and think he potentially has a future with the Dodgers. With that out of the way, why does Plaschke think DeWitt plays the right way and others don't? What does he do better than the rest of the young players? Seriously, I don't understand Bill's love affair with him. You could even argue that the team's offensive woes are partly Blake's fault, especially when you consider that he's been hitting like absolute ass since May.

But who cares, right? Bill wants to keep DeWitt and get rid of the rest of them because he's a "ballplayer" and rest aren't. Who cares that he's hitting under .200 since the start of June? Who cares that his minor league track record indicates that his current level of production is much more realistic than the hot start he got off to? Hey, scoring runs definitely doesn't help the team win, but being a "ballplayer" does. God, I wish Bill could be the Dodger GM.

"Some of their other youngsters have much more talent, but, having been coddled since double A, they might never become ballplayers here.

It may be time to trade some of that flashy talent for somebody who understands the fundamentals. And, yes, once again, Matt Kemp's name is being whispered through Dodgers offices."

Coddled? Seriously?! Blake DeWitt is a fucking first round draft pick that signed for 1.2 million dollars out of high school. Let me repeat that, HE'S A FIRST ROUND FUCKING DRAFT PICK, BILL. But you're still arguing that he's not coddled but the other guys are? The only reason DeWitt wasn't "coddled" at AA is because he put up an OPS of .462 there in 2006 and was asked to repeat A+ ball again in 2007.

Once again, I like DeWitt and think he'll develop into a better player eventually, but Bill's suggesting that it's okay to dump Matt Kemp but keep DeWitt because one player "understands the fundamentals" and one doesn't. Kemp would have to get picked off first like 30 times a season to come close to bringing himself down to DeWitt's levels of production.

"Players like Kemp and Andre Ethier and James Loney have been more highly touted than guys like Casey Kotchman, Maicer Izturis and Erick Aybar.

But it is those Angels who have a better understanding of winning."

They're more highly touted because they're better.

2008 Season Statistics

James Loney

OPS-.802
VORP-16.1
WARP1-2.4

Matt Kemp

OPS-.772
VORP-14.4
WARP1-3.0

Andre Ethier

OPS-.774
VORP-8.7
WARP1-1.4

Casey Kotchman

OPS-.775
VORP-13.7
WARP1-2.1

Maicer Izturis

OPS-.674
VORP-4.9
WARP1-1.7

Erick Aybar

OPS-.682
VORP-5.1
WARP1-1.7

And none of those stats even account for the fact that the Dodgers' guys have higher projections, better career statistics, and are younger. But hey, the Angels' young guys have a "better understanding of winning", so they're obviously more valuable to a team. It must be Bill's outstanding logic that wins him all those writing awards.

Seriously though, does he actually think the Angels would turn down a swap of their 3 guys for the Dodgers' 3 guys? If so there's this bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you, Bill, I hear it's great...

"Before Thursday, the Dodgers had a better team batting average and on-base percentage than the Angels, while scoring only 10 fewer runs.

Yet the Angels had won 11 more games.

Why?"

I don't know, tell me!

"The Angels have a culture that believes in winning over statistics, winning over awards, winning over everything.

It's a culture where the Angels have committed seven fewer errors, grounded into eight fewer double plays, and do all the little things that are hidden beneath the numbers.

Then there's the statistic that shows a team's ability to win close games while manufacturing runs.

The Dodgers 1-31 when they score two runs or fewer, while the Angels are 8-13."

Wow! Holy shit! 7 fewer errors over 84 games?! 8 fewer double plays?! Little things?! Well shit, that sounds like enough to account for the difference in 11 wins for the teams.

The sad thing is that even when he uses statistics, he doesn't use them correctly. The team's ability to win close games isn't shown by the statistic he uses. No, the statistic he uses just shows the Dodgers' amazing ability to either score a very little amount of runs or a lot of runs.

And don't let Bill know, but the Dodgers and Angels have the same amount of comeback wins, the same amount of blown leads, and the same amount of walk-off wins, but the Dodgers have 3 less walk-off losses than the Angels. But hey, he shouldn't let those things rain on his "Angels win because they have a winning atmosphere created by a winning manager that creates winning players" parade.

"Colletti will be fired for not imitating the Angels way.

Because, doggone it, it used to be the Dodgers way."

No, Colletti will be fired because he's incompetent and concentrates too much on what you are advocating, Bill. He will be fired for doing things like paying hardworking "gamers" like Juan Pierre 44 million dollars over 5 years.

In a way though, Bill is completely right because the Angels and the Dodgers do have very similar statistics. The Angels have 353 runs, the Dodgers have 343 runs. The Angels have allowed 341 runs, the Dodgers have allowed 339 runs. In essense, Bill's article has proved that the Dodgers are slightly underachiving and that the Angels are one of the most overachiving teams in the league.

The Dodgers still aren't good, but given their production, they are 2.4 wins below the level they should be at. On the other hand, while the Angels aren't very good either, they are an MLB high 7.2 wins above their production.

Sure, I suppose somebody could credit that difference to the Angels' mystical intangibles and "winning environment", but i'm personally more partial to objectivity and decades of statistics. And hey, at least Bill's proven one thing by writing this, he's proven that the Angels aren't as good as he thinks they are.