"I KNOW there have to be some JP supporters out there somewhere, people who actually like his game. "

Yeah, you, Bill Plaschke, and the guy who gave him $44 million dollars.

The only thing Pierre brings to the lineup is more outs. Pierre is the epitome of "easy out."

Tony mentioned in the last post that the Marlins would the WS with Pierre and Castillo at the top. But he failed to mentioned that the 2003 Pierre put up a good .361 OBP. The 2005-07 Pierre has been terrible in that regard.

*won the WS

There's nothing wrong with Pierre, it's just that Eithier is a better all around player. Unless the Dodgers figure this out they won't be putting their best on the field.

I'm not following your logic:

-Juan Pierre is not a better player than Andre Ethier
-Juan Pierre is better for the Dodgers lineup than Andre Ethier

Isn't the better baseball player the better fit for the lineup? Yes, Juan Pierre does things that Ethier doesn't, namely runs fast. But if Ethier's skills are more valuable than Pierre's overall, how is Pierre the better option for the lineup? By definition, the best hitter is the best fit for the lineup. All things being equal, if you have two players, one of whom is clearly superior offensively, the better player will contribute more to the lineup, regardless of the makeup of his game. This isn't a philosophical debate; it's a mathematical one.

The projected difference between Ethier and Pierre this season is three wins. THREE WINS, in perhaps the most hotly contested division in baseball. Last year, three wins was the difference between first and fourth. The Padres finished third and were just a game and a half back.

Yes, the Marlins won the World Series with Pierre in the lineup -- they won only 91 games, finished 10 back of the Braves, snuck in as the wildcard, and lucked their way through a few series, beating a clearly superior Yankees team. You can win in spite of a player -- hell, the Dodgers won in 1988 with Alfredo Griffin and Jeff Hamilton forming the left side of their infield. This is not the argument to make in favor of Pierre. The better player will make your team more likely to win, period. If you win despite making the worse choice, good for you. You either got lucky, or the rest of your team was good enough to overcome your self-sabotage.

I understand your feelings about this debate, and your comparison to partisan politics. I also know you're not filling out the lineup card, so in the end, it really doesn't matter what you or I or any of us think. But there is no rational reason to favor Pierre over Ethier other than genuinely feeling sorry for him (I do -- he's such a nice guy and I don't WANT to say bad things about him) or being an apologist for Ned Colletti's horrible mistake of giving this guy such an albatross of a contract when everyone knew what a strong CF class was hitting free agency the following year.

I like and respect Juan Pierre as a person and a professional. But I don't want him starting for my favorite team when he is unequivocally the fourth-best option on this team, probably the fifth.

"There's nothing wrong with Pierre"

Sure there is -- he doesn't get on base enough, has zero power and a terrible arm. Other than that, well, he hits singles and steals bases. Doesn't excite me.

Wouldn't it be nice if just one mainstream writer flat-out admitted that Pierre should not be a starting outfielder? It seems that this large group of old-schoolers are clinging to their archaic notions and try to find as many ridiculous defenses for guys like Pierre as possible. Shouldn't it be some sort of sign that a guy with similar skills (Corey Patterson) just had to settle for a minor league contract?

The only skills that Patterson has in common with Pierre is that he can't walk and he's fast. Pierre will probably hit around .290 which will keep his on base percentage in the acceptable .330 range (.338 is average for a center fielder). Patterson strikes out too much (prior to last year) to come with a guarantee of a decent on base percentage, so he can be a completely useless offensive player. The two aren't comparable.

Pierre must be a great guy. No one in the media will ever state what is apparent to most baseball fans: Juan Pierre is not among the three best Dodger outfielders.

Imagine a scenario where the Dodgers had Dave Roberts - another great guy with comparable skills - instead of Pierre. No one would argue that Roberts should start. Is it because Roberts earns a third of Pierre’s salary?

I would be happy to let Juan Pierre baby sit my kids. I just don’t want him starting for the Dodgers.

That aside, I truly enjoy Tony Jackson’s Dodger coverage. Don’t take the buyout.

I think the key thing to remember in the Pierre debate is this guy is a Dodger and depending how you look at it fortunately or unfortunately he is not going anywhere.
He is clearly Joe Torre's choice to be the everyday LF so everyone needs to accept that and support the guy. The guy works his butt off and always gives 110% to be bashed like he has been isn't fair. Pierre is the same player he has always been. If anyone wants to place blame then place it squarely on the shoulders of Ned Coletti! I actually believe Eithier would be more productive as the everyday LF for the dodgers this year but Juan is the guy the coaching staff is going with so everyone needs to just support him and hopefully the Pierre bashers end up with egg on their face.
The more important battle to me is the 3b job which I think clearly should go to LaRoche but looks like Nomar will be getting the nod.

I will accept Tony's desire to change the subject here - a lot of other people including Jon and Nate have already articulated it better than I could have - and I am by no means a "Pierre basher". If we're stuck with him as our leftfielder for the season (sigh) it won't do the team much good if he doesn't contribute much. But there's no reason other than contract size that Pierre should be starting over Ethier. There, I'm done.

Now since it was brought up above, what do you think about the third base battle, Tony? Do you think it's already a done deal, or does LaRoche still have a shot to earn the opening day start? While a platoon of the two of them isn't the worst thing in the world, it seems clear to me that LaRoche will be more reliable there defensively and will show more power, something LA really needs. But right now it's hard to tell who's got the lead...

thanks as always,
cp

The reason Democrats and Republicans should still talk to each other is that, in theory, and assuming the particular Democrats and Republicans doing the talking operate in good faith, the weakest arguments for each side would be abandoned for more defensible ones.

So, taking this blog for example, if, instead of ignoring the commenters you decided to keep engaging with them, you might eventually have to define this peculiar synergism you see with Pierre and the Dodgers' lineup, whereby the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Instead of just continuing to posit its existence.

But good luck with that!

Ethier is a better player. Period.

His extra 30+ points of OBP and the 15-20 homers he'll have over a course of a full season more than outweigh anything Pierre can do between the basepaths. Ethier is also better on defense.

Tony, you're doing a great job this season. The Daily News is providing consistently better Dodgers coverage than the Times. Kudos.

Still, you're being silly on this point.

JP is the LF because he played well in the 2003 World Series(It is now 2008)

JP is the LF because "he works hard" and is a "nice guy"

Now that the Dodgers have better players JP will be better.

I could go on and on.

LOL Tony. Good call on not debating this story any more.

Tony, I love your coverage but I agree that you're being silly here. Pierre doesn't deserve to start, period. I went into last season prepared to be convinced of his abilities, and I was continually dumbfounded by his weaknesses. I had no idea before last year how very bad his arm actually is. Runners regularly tagged up on him and scored on very shallow flies, and that will continue in left field. He also makes outs at a higher rate than anyone in the lineup.

Your point in this original post - that Pierre doesn't walk because of the way he's pitched to. Yes, that's the same reason Derek Lowe and Mark Hendrickson didn't walk very often. Pitchers can groove strikes to them because they have no fear that they can do any damage with the bat. That's Juan Pierre's problem in a nutshell.

Thank you, Craig, for changing the subject. And while I think Nomar has a clear advantage in the 3B race, I think the Dodgers will be better with LaRoche as their everyday 3B. I also think one of the reasons they're leaning toward Nomar is that there are concerns about how he will adjust to being a bench player. To me, that is the wrong reason to give him the starting job. (Now, by all means, would someone PLEASE turn this back into a Pierre-bashing thread, before we get too far off topic)

Tony, when are you and Juan Pierre getting married?

How is it that we can make posts about how Pierre is this and that without ever pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of his competition. It seems a "debate" would have both sides in the writing other than "JP runs fast, trys hard, won a WS 5 years ago, I like him"

I agree with Andrew Shimmin.

Many of us aren't "bashing" Pierre. We're simply pointing out that Ethier is the better ballplayer.

Why not focus on Ethier's upside? He probably hasn't reached is peak yet.

Given a full-time spot, he could hit .300 with 20-25 homers and a lot of walks. It's not inconceivable.

Thank you Tony - and I agree with you (yay!) I think Nomar has the inside track right now, but could see that changing right quick. I really do like Nomar, I just don't think he has the ability to start every day, especially at the hot corner. He can be a valuable supersub. He seems like a stand up guy so I'm surprised to hear he may grumble about not starting every day. Guess we'll see. Thanks again for the forum.

Just to clarify -- I don't necessarily think Nomar will grumble. He's not the grumbling sort. But I do think he is so routine-oriented and ritualistic that he'll have a tough time adjusting to a whole different routine that comes with being a role player

Tony, it's not "bashing" Pierre. I genuinely like him. I'm not trying to put him down and if he were truly our best option, we could do a lot worse. He's above replacement level, brings a great energy and work ethic and yes, is valuable on the basepaths. He's even a good hitter when his average happens to be high.

If we're bashing anyone, it's Colletti and Torre for going with an inferior player. I mean no personal disrespect to Pierre, but it's hard to discuss something like this without being negative.

I wish you wouldn't abandon the discussion, but I also know people are set in their beliefs about what makes a good player and a good lineup. There was a time when I would have thought Pierre was the better player as well, but Moneyball and particularly Paul DePodesta changed my opinions over a period of several years, when I finally conceded I was wrong about player evaluation. As a gainfully employed research analyst, I realized it was silly for me to cling to my emotional love for smallball and embrace modern analysis.

At any rate, I do love your blog. It's on my bookmark toolbar and I check it several times a day. I appreciate the great insight you give us into the inner workings of the team, and I respect your coverage more than any other. When Tony Jackson says something is going to happen, I take it essentially as fact, because you're almost always right and you know things before practically anyone else. Please keep up the great coverage. I only hope that over time, you'll come around to seeing this debate from the other side, but lord knows everything that can be said has already been said.

I know I said I wanted to change the subject, too, but
think y'all should just read this post because it says it so well. And then nothing more needs to be said, really.
http://www.sportshubla.com/2008/03/05/these-truths-are-self-evident-juan-pierre-shouldnt-start-for-the-dodgers/#more-424

Now I promise I'll move on! Sorry. How about that Clayton Kershaw, eh? He's something.

I think this is premature. There will be plenty of time to rally around all of the starters come opening day.

Alex Cora has a World Series ring. Should we want him to start at SS because of it? Juan Encarnacion got one with the Marlins and Cardinals. Should he have been brought in last year and handed a job?

Tony - You hit the nail on the head here on three points:

Juan Pierre is the most polarizing player in Dodgers history.

Juan Pierre will be the everyday CF.

Juan Pierre has shortcomings (a lot of them).

Hey, if we get the September Juan Pierre, then I'll probably have to agree with you that the Dodgers are better with him in the lineup. However, defense is important, and while Pierre's girly arm may be less of a liability in LF than CF, it's still a liability. Remember watching Luis Gonzalez's "throws" to 3B and home last year? More bounces there than you see on "Baywatch".

Pierre's only redeeming quality is his speed. Zero power, subpar on-base skills, and yet the Dodgers are better? I don't follow and never will. Let's just hope Torre wises up. There's still time.

He who has the best OBP leads off.

And who would I want to come off the bench, down one, in the 9th to run for Loney? JP hands down. If I need a saf bunt - JP. He is one demension but it is a handy one to have off the bench.

Hey, if a WS ring is more important than actual talent, let's get these world series winners back right now:

Kevin Brown
Julio Lugo
JD Drew