On Saturday, I just had to ask him.

Vicente Padilla?

“Yes” Torre said.

“C’mon,” I said.

Wow. even his real-life conversations are arranged into annoying fragments.

You would hope that the Dodgers would feel that Clayton Kershaw was ready to be the ace. After all, Torre gave him the ball at Dodger Stadium to start last year's NLCS. Why not give him the ball now?

Good question, really.

Torre said it wasn't his age (22) or his 9.45 ERA in the NLCS, but that they wanted to give him something even more special than opening day.

"We wanted to schedule it so he can start the home opener," Torre said. "I like the home opener a lot more than the season opener, there's a lot more flavor to it."

As was speculated, but I hadn't seen Torre state it before...

Perhaps, but what if the Dodgers return to Dodger Stadium with a losing record after their first six road games? The banners aren't as colorful. The band doesn't sound as loud.

Oh, jeez. Which will do what? Make Kershaw depressed so he has a bad year? What are we even talking about at this point?

Asked Saturday whether his team had enough starting pitching, General Manager Ned Colletti said the strangest thing. He said nothing. For the longest time, he stared out at an empty Camelback Ranch field after the Dodgers had climbed aboard Charlie Haeger's knuckleball for a 3-1 exhibition victory over the Seattle Mariners. (Yes, the Dodgers' fifth starter could be a junk-ball pitcher, don't get me started.)

Strike my earlier compliment; you're a complete idiot.

"We wanted to schedule it so he can start the home opener," Torre said. "I like the home opener a lot more than the season opener, there's a lot more flavor to it."

This sounds like managerial BS, meant to soothe any ego issues Kershaw might be having with the situation. If Torre really thought Kershaw was as good as or better than Padilla, why would he postpone Kershaw's first start by a week?

This sounds like managerial BS, meant to soothe any ego issues Kershaw might be having with the situation. If Torre really thought Kershaw was as good as or better than Padilla, why would he postpone Kershaw's first start by a week?

The home opener will probably be Kershaw's second start.

By a week? No, Kershaw will pitch in the opening series @ PIT. Just not on Opening Day.

I must have missed something with regard to the Dodgers off-season. Who of real importance left? Orlando Hudson?! Juan Pierre?! Why are people down on them going into this season?

They had a fairly young team last year, better than average starting pitching, extremely good bull-pen, an average defense, the best offensive club in the NL, they won 95 games and their adjusted record was 99.2-62.8, second best in all of major league baseball.

Yet they are 15:1 (in a 30 team field) to win the World Series and their over/under is just 84.5 games. I can see some regression, as you might expect from any club with an adjusted (3rd degree) record of 99-63. So they "just" win 94 or 95 games this year. They should easily make the playoffs. I wish my team, the A's, had half the chance the Dodgers have of being great.

Randy Wolf left, too.
Not that this would explain the low expectations.

They lost Randy Wolf who had a very nice year for them last year.

EDIT: apparently I'm a little slow on the draw.

Wolf was good last year. I forgot about that. Milwaukee is paying him a whole lot. Yet I wonder if his 2009 campaign was not just a flukey thing. Look at his ERA+ each year for the last 5 seasons:

2005 - 101
2006 - 85
2007 - 94
2008 - 92
2009 - 122

Based on such a strong 2009, the Brewers gave him 3 years, ~$30 million and a fourth year with a club option for another $10 million. My guess is they end up buying out that last year ($1.5 million) when Wolf is 36.

They lost Wolf and Hudson and replaced them with nobody. And though Manny finished with pretty good numbers they were inflated by his uber pre-suspension stats. They also got better years than could be expected from Casey Blake, Juan Pierre, and everybody on the bench. They also got a worse season than could be expected from Martin.

The Dodgers certainly played better than the 95 wins that they got. (I think at one point they lost 8 straight 1 run games even) But they also got quite a bit worse over the offseason. I'll be rooting for the Dodgers but even I have to admit that the Rockies are the favorite in the NL West at this point.

Looks like DeWitt is replacing Hudson. Won't play as well as the O-Dawg did on average, but we'll see how great the decline is. I expect more from Billingsley, which will partially replace Wolf. Add in more from Martin and Furcal, and the Dodgers should be okay, even with some declines elsewhere. In terms of Manny - I don't expect him to hit as well as he did prior to the HBP - but I also don't expect any extended stretches like after the HBP either. Of course, they won't have Ethier having as many walk offs either. I still expect in the 90s for wins, barring more injuries than are to be expected given the roster.

re 3 and 4: thanks for the clarification.

RE: Comments 6 and 9: These really don't go together the way you seem to want them to. In 6, you ask who the Dodgers lost. In 9, you agree that they lost Wolf, but then argue that his 2009 was flukey. OK, I'll concede that for the sake of argument. But still, they lost the 2009 Wolf. Analysts are dropping their predictions for the Dodgers because of that. You can argue that even if they had kept Wolf they would not have had the 2009 version of Wolf, and you may well be right, but that doesn't change the loss or the prediction. In other words, whether or not 2009 was flukey for Wolf does not change the fact that the Dodgers lost the 2009 Wolf, a 122 ERA+ starter, and have replaced him with nothing that I know of. Their predictions ought to go down.

They still have group of good to great core players, but they are a lot thinner than you would like a contender to be. They're scraping just to put together a respectable Opening Day 25-man; if anybody important goes down, it could cause real problems for the Dodgers.

RE: Comments 6 and 9: These really don't go together the way you seem to want them to. In 6, you ask who the Dodgers lost. In 9, you agree that they lost Wolf, but then argue that his 2009 was flukey. OK, I'll concede that for the sake of argument. But still, they lost the 2009 Wolf. Analysts are dropping their predictions for the Dodgers because of that. You can argue that even if they had kept Wolf they would not have had the 2009 version of Wolf, and you may well be right, but that doesn't change the loss or the prediction. In other words, whether or not 2009 was flukey for Wolf does not change the fact that the Dodgers lost the 2009 Wolf, a 122 ERA+ starter, and have replaced him with nothing that I know of. Their predictions ought to go down.

On the plus side though, I would expect the group of Martin, Ethier, Kemp, and Billingsly to improve. And a full season of Manny can't be a bad thing either.

If the Dodgers end up 10 games worse, who in the NL West gets better and by how much (projected to be better that is)?

According to that betting site Rich linked, it's a combination of a big improvement by the Diamondbacks (70 wins last year, O/U of 82.5) and the division as a whole getting weaker - last year the division won 420 games, those O/Us sum to 405.5 wins for the NL West this year. They basically think anyone except the Padres can win the division, and so all the other teams have an O/U in the low 80s.

I buy the division being weaker - I think the Giants were a lot of smoke and mirrors, they'll be a stronger team this year but will probably get a worse record, I think the Padres will continue to suck (and will sell at the deadline which will depress their record more). I don't see the snakes being in contention though.

Yes, I think the Dodgers have problems, including the ownership situation which could hurt their opportunities to trade. But I definitely like the over on them - and the Rockies. Obviously not a lot of Rockies fans around here, but I'd say they're favourites for the division, or second behind the Dodgers... they're returning a stronger team than last year, but they're given an O/U of 84.5.

Follow-up: BPro and CHONE projections!

BPro projection first, then CHONE, I'll just put the wins as losses is implied :)

Rockies - 86 ... 78
Snakes - 83 ... 79
Dodgers - 82 ... 82
Giants - 81 ... 77
Padres - 73 ... 80

I like BPro's projections a lot better than CHONE's - which don't seem to make much sense. It does have to be said BPro and Vegas's predictions tally very well. If you feel lucky, Rich, put your money where your mouth is!

I'd be happy if the Giants had a great season, but a terrible season would be good too. I think if the Giants miss the playoffs and especially if they go under .500, Sabean and Bochy are gone.

BPro and CHONE projections!

FWIW Zips loooves the 2010 Dodgers.

FWIW Zips loooves the 2010 Dodgers.

I'm sure Plaschke would love to talk about ZiPS.


On Saturday, I just had to ask him.

Vicente Padilla?

“Yes” Torre said.

“C’mon,” I said.

I really have no great love for Torre, but if he had ripped Plaschke a new one after he was such a dick, it would have made my year.

I know Dan's done the individual teams in isolation, but has he run projections for the standings using ZiPS? That would be a good addition to the conversation.

I know Dan's done the individual teams in isolation, but has he run projections for the standings using ZiPS?

AFAIK Dan dosn't do individual playing time projections for MLB only. IOW if someone is projected to get 600 PA, those may come with none, all, ore partially at the MLB level. And without those playing time projections for the MLB level, you can't projected standings.

well, some guys HATE Torre and would use this as yet another examople of his idiocy.

Nobody mentioned Loney at all in this thread. He's a guy who I think could be a big contributer, if only he could remember what he did in 2007 rather than be the below average player he's been the last two years.

Loney is what he is. I'd hope for better, too, but aside from the BA-fueled small-sample-size blip in 2007, he's never demonstrated anything more.

BPro projection first, then CHONE, I'll just put the wins as losses is implied :)

Rockies - 86 ... 78
Snakes - 83 ... 79
Dodgers - 82 ... 82
Giants - 81 ... 77
Padres - 73 ... 80

So it seems that BPro is saying that the sum win rate for the NL West is exacly .500 ball.

Mediocrity for the division as a whole.

Outside of the Phillies and the Cards, who will finish above .500 in the NL this year?
Given that the Nats and Pirates will lose 90+, somebody has to win 95 or 100 games.

On the plus side though, I would expect the group of Martin, Ethier, Kemp, and Billingsly to improve.

I wouldn't be surprised if Martin is more or less done. He got worked awfully hard as a young catcher. He reminds me of Randy Hundley.

Putting "Vincente Padilla" through the babelfish (Spanish ---> English) yields "David Wells". Same talent, (apparently) same demons. Of course, Wells never walked batters, while the free pass is a big problem for Padilla. If Torre thinks that Padilla is on the straight and narrow, he is not crazy for picking Padilla for opening day.

RIFKIN: "I must have missed something with regard to the Dodgers off-season. Who of real importance left? ..."

GOLD: "Randy Wolf left."

RIFKIN: "Wolf was good last year. I forgot about that."

BJ w/o the BEAR: "RE: Comments 6 and 9: These really don't go together the way you seem to want them to. In 6, you ask who the Dodgers lost. In 9, you agree that they lost Wolf, but then argue that his 2009 was flukey. ... Analysts are dropping their predictions for the Dodgers because of that."

I did not say that because Wolf's 2009 season was flukey the Dodgers should be just as good without him. I was thinking the Dodgers should be damn good because all I thought they lost were Pierre (2.1 WAR) and Hudson (2.9). I noted in #9 that I forgot that the Dodgers lost Wolf. As such, your contempt seems off-point. I agree that without Wolf's 2009 performance -- which whether they kept him or not was unlikely to be repeated -- they lose something real, but maybe not quite as much as his 122 ERA+ suggests.

Here is my quick and dirty WAR analysis which (for convenience) presumes everyone else, due to changes in the league and regression to the mean adds up to -4.0 wins:

*Wolf's WAR in 2009 was 3.0. Say his starts go to Padilla, and Padilla has a WAR in 2010 of 1.8. That is a net -1.2 wins.
*A full-season of Man-Ram in left should be no worse by WAR than what they had last year with Pierre-Ramirez. Net 0.
*Say the DeWitt/Belliard combo at 2B is worth 2.1 WAR. That would represent a net -0.8

Adding those numbers up, starting with 99.2 adjusted wins -- yeah, yeah, that's not kosher -- I get 93 wins for the Dodgers in 2010: 99.2 - 4.0 - 1.2 + 0.0 -0.8 = 93.2.

It seems to me 93 wins is a lot more than most people think the Dodgers will win. FWIW, I did place a $25 bet on Bodog for that over. I also bet the under $25 on the Astros (74.5). I don't think Houston sniffs 70 wins this year. It would not shock me if they lose 100 games. ... A bet I did not place was on the A's. Their o/u is 79.5. I really think they should win 84 or more games in 2010, as long as Sheets and Duchscherer both don't break down. But I fear that Oakland might get off to a slow start and sell off parts at mid-season and wind up with around 75-79 wins. And they are my team, so betting on them adds the risk of a double-loss, money and emotion.

I really have no great love for Torre, but if he had ripped Plaschke a new one after he was such a dick, it would have made my year.

I'd be willing to bet that the actual conversation included at least 50 times as many words as Plaschke seems to remember.

On the plus side though, I would expect the group of Martin, Ethier, Kemp, and Billingsly to improve. And a full season of Manny can't be a bad thing either.

Billingsley sure.
Martin maybe.
Ethier no way he improves. No reason to expect him to decline either.

And Mr. Kemp. For his career, he is 397/638 on-contact. Last year he was 385/636. The BA isn't getting any better (obviously a fluke season is possible) and the SLG has been consistent through his career so far. Obviously he could add power as he ages -- ZiPS basically projects the same BA and OBP with a 20 point bump in SLG over his career numbers. Again, clearly no reason to think he'll get worse but no good reason to think he'll be substantially better either. The point is, he doesn't really have much room to grow -- he might see a moderate jump in power, a moderate jump in walk rate or a moderate drop in K-rate (without losing anything) and only the first one might be "expected."

Kemp will get a little better as he enters his prime but probably not to the extent that it really makes a difference.

Kemp's performance will depend on whether Rihanna is a good thing for him, now that he's moving into her mansion.

Rich Rifkin says (comment #30), "As such, your contempt seems off-point."

Oh, dear! I had NO intention of coming across as having contempt. I am REALLY sorry it read that way. It's absolutely not what I meant.

And your analysis in comment 30 looks pretty good to me right off hand. When you're starting with a base of almost 100 wins, dropping to 93 is a huge drop, and is very very unlikely to come from losing one starting pitcher, even if he were Walter Johnson, much less Randy Wolf.

Again sorry. I try really hard not to go ad hominem, ever. Sorry I failed this time.

- Brock Hanke

Ethier no way he improves. No reason to expect him to decline either.

Ethier's potential improvement is in the fielding department. He had a -17.7 UZR/150 in RF last year, over 10 worse than in 2008. No obiously 1 year UZR data is not gospel, but I would still expect a vastly better performance on defense than that in 2010.

Kemp with more reps in CF certainly could improve somethat too. I'm not saying anything massive, but combined with a slight improvement at the plate, I would expect maybe half a win.

The point is, when you have 5 players who could realistically improve (I forgot to mention Loney*), you don't need each of them to have a massive improvement...

*Again, he doesn't have to do anything major, his 115 ZIPS OPS+ would be more than enough...