Will there be too many Boston fans at Anaheim Stadium tomorrow?
It’s a pretty safe bet that there will be more than zero, so the answer is yes. These people are awfully good at just blending in during the average day. Then as soon as the Red Sox are in town, the a-hole quotient rises exponentially. The air becomes even more unclean. You go home and you feel like you need to take a shower. Such is the affect of Red Sox Nation (chief exports: hot air and bandwagons).
How bad is it that Lackey/Santana got shelled last week?
I think it’s bad, but not terrible. I don’t think you ever want to get hit around like that, and especially not before your biggest start of the season. These guys are professional pitchers and they’ve experienced stuff like this before, but it could still be a hit to their confidence. I think it will definitely affect Lackey more than Santana. Lackey tends to get pretty emotional. The first two innings are going to be the key. If Lackey can get through those having given up only a single or two, I think he’ll forget about last Friday awfully quickly. If he gets roughed up a little bit, I think his confidence will be shaken and he’ll start nibbling – which is NOT the pitcher we want Lackey to be. He needs to be aggressive with his fastball and feel comfortable throwing his slurve for strikes. Santana, on the other hand, isn’t as emotional. I think he’ll be able to put it aside better than Lackey will.
How will Teixeira do in his first playoff experience?
I think he’ll be fine. He doesn’t strike me as the type of guy who gets too nervous (although his Angels debut wasn’t great and he said he had butterflies). True, he’s never really been in any pressure-packed games with the Rangers or the Braves, and you can’t really say that any of the Angels’ games were meaningful, since they had a 55 game lead in August. Still, he’s shown a tendency to get better as the season goes on, and he doesn’t seem to care whether he’s facing the Rangers’ fifth starter or Josh Beckett – the dude just rakes. He was hitting late inning go ahead grand slams in Yankee Stadium a couple games after he joined the team. He also came in second in the league in WPA* which is incredible, considering he was only in the AL for 54 games.
*WPA means Win Probability Added. Basically, it’s a measurement of how a player’s at bats either added or subtracted to his team’s chances to win games. The higher the number, the better chance of wining your at bats gave your team (conversely, a negative number means your at bats actually made your team more likely to lose). So in aggregate, Tex’s at bats had a better positive effect on his team than everyone in the AL but Joe Mauer. That’s a pretty good indication this guy can perform in the clutch.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Is Vlad a Different Hitter in the Postseason?
It’s certainly possible. There’s a lot of statistical analysis out there about how there really isn’t a “clutch” ability. It’s very hard to demonstrate that someone consistently hits better when games are on the line. Conversely, I haven’t seen much of anything about whether or not guys choke in those situations. A-Rod has been getting ragged for years about this, but remember, he was actually pretty darned good in the playoffs with the Mariners. He actually wasn’t bad his first two series with the Yankees either. Buster Olney wrote a piece the other day about how David Wright gets a little too jacked up in pressure situations and it affects his hitting.
So does this happen with Vlad? Well, the numbers aren’t pretty: .183/.258/.233 in the playoffs. One extra base hit in 16 games (a grand slam to tie game 3 against Boston in 2004). In the 2005 ALCS against the White Sox he went 1 for 20. Yuck. To be somewhat fair, the Angels on the whole have been really bad on offense during that period, so part of it is that they’ve just run up against some good pitchers. But that happens in the playoffs and you’d hope your best hitters would be able to generate something.
Vlad seems like a guy who does put more pressure on himself. I watch a lot of Angels games and there are times when it looks like he presses a bit; especially when the Angels go through slumps, Vlad looks like he tries to put the team on his shoulders, and it doesn’t always work. He expands his strike zone even more (how this is possible, I don’t know) and winds up weakly hitting a lot of bad pitches. Vlad’s a freak of nature, don’t get me wrong. This man can hit a garbage pitch farther than a lot of guys can hit a meatball right down the middle. But when he tries to hit everything a mile, he winds up twisting himself in knots. He has had a history of carrying the Angels at certain points, so this isn’t eminently true. But he does look like he presses in the playoffs.
So will it be different this postseason? I think it will. For one thing, Vlad’s as healthy as he’s been in awhile. He was really struggling with knee issues in 2005 and 2007, plus shoulder issues in 2007 as well. He’s had some knee issues this year, but clinching early allowed him to take two weeks off and get the knee as healthy as possible. He had a very good September, although he’s had good Septembers in the past.
The main thing, though, is that this year he’s got someone to help carry the load. He’s never had a Mark Teixeira in the lineup with him. In 2004, the Angels had Jose Guillen, but he threw a tantrum before the playoffs and got left off of the roster. They also had Troy Glaus, but Glaus had been hurt a lot of the year. In 2005 and 2007, Garret Anderson has really been the only one there to take the pressure off of Vladdy. As much as I like Garret, he’s just not nearly as scary as a guy like Tex. I think Teixeira could wind up being the thing Vlad needs to get him to loosen up in the postseason. He knows it’s not do-or-die every time he steps to the plate now. That could be huge, and I think it will be.
So does this happen with Vlad? Well, the numbers aren’t pretty: .183/.258/.233 in the playoffs. One extra base hit in 16 games (a grand slam to tie game 3 against Boston in 2004). In the 2005 ALCS against the White Sox he went 1 for 20. Yuck. To be somewhat fair, the Angels on the whole have been really bad on offense during that period, so part of it is that they’ve just run up against some good pitchers. But that happens in the playoffs and you’d hope your best hitters would be able to generate something.
Vlad seems like a guy who does put more pressure on himself. I watch a lot of Angels games and there are times when it looks like he presses a bit; especially when the Angels go through slumps, Vlad looks like he tries to put the team on his shoulders, and it doesn’t always work. He expands his strike zone even more (how this is possible, I don’t know) and winds up weakly hitting a lot of bad pitches. Vlad’s a freak of nature, don’t get me wrong. This man can hit a garbage pitch farther than a lot of guys can hit a meatball right down the middle. But when he tries to hit everything a mile, he winds up twisting himself in knots. He has had a history of carrying the Angels at certain points, so this isn’t eminently true. But he does look like he presses in the playoffs.
So will it be different this postseason? I think it will. For one thing, Vlad’s as healthy as he’s been in awhile. He was really struggling with knee issues in 2005 and 2007, plus shoulder issues in 2007 as well. He’s had some knee issues this year, but clinching early allowed him to take two weeks off and get the knee as healthy as possible. He had a very good September, although he’s had good Septembers in the past.
The main thing, though, is that this year he’s got someone to help carry the load. He’s never had a Mark Teixeira in the lineup with him. In 2004, the Angels had Jose Guillen, but he threw a tantrum before the playoffs and got left off of the roster. They also had Troy Glaus, but Glaus had been hurt a lot of the year. In 2005 and 2007, Garret Anderson has really been the only one there to take the pressure off of Vladdy. As much as I like Garret, he’s just not nearly as scary as a guy like Tex. I think Teixeira could wind up being the thing Vlad needs to get him to loosen up in the postseason. He knows it’s not do-or-die every time he steps to the plate now. That could be huge, and I think it will be.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Does the Angels poor run differential spell doom for them in the postseason?
No.
First, a disclaimer. The Angels aren’t quite as good as their record indicates. I’m comfortable saying that. They won a lot of shaky one and two run games. They won 100 games in a division that mostly gave up after June (Texas didn’t tell its players that it gave up, but it did). So I don’t think we can look at the Angels as this unstoppable behemoth, drooling and mauling its way around the league, leaving pitching staffs destroyed in its wake.
But do I think the Angels are an 88 win team (which is what the Pythagoras’s Awesome Theorem of Winning and Losing At Baseball – PATOWALAB – says they should have won)? No. I think they’re better than that. A couple of reasons why:
1. Scioscia managed to the score. Especially in September, when he rested a lot of his key guys, he brought bad relievers into games that would normally be blowouts. Those relievers often gave up some runs, hurting the Angels’ expected W-L record, but not their real W-L record. That’s good managing, and because of it, the Angels have arguably the most rested/healthy bullpen in the AL.
2. The Angels team that’s heading into the playoffs is NOT the team that played all year. Lackey missed the first month of the season. Howie Kendrick missed a couple of months. Gary Matthews Jr. was inexplicably in the lineup. Mark Teixeira didn’t join the team until late July. Arredondo didn’t pitch for the team until mid-May. The team they will be sending to the postseason is the best they could field, and that team has not been intact for very long at all this year.
How much better? I don’t know, but I think Scioscia has managed this team for the postseason since the beginning of August, and it may have had an adverse impact on their run differential. For what it’s worth, the Angels severely outscored the AL East during the season and beat Boston 8 out of 9 games. You can cry and scream about sample size all you want, but those things happened, and I’m going to use them as support for my argument. Ha!
Besides that, run differential won’t mean squat in a 5 or 7 game series. The team that moves on is the team that wins more games. Period. And I think the matchups line up in such a way that the Angels could win three before the Boston guys do, Pythagoras notwithstanding. Some of my points stand on shaky ground. I’m okay with that. This is playoff baseball, baby! Anything can happen! So to you Angel fans out there, don’t sweat the run differential.
We have God on our side anyway.
First, a disclaimer. The Angels aren’t quite as good as their record indicates. I’m comfortable saying that. They won a lot of shaky one and two run games. They won 100 games in a division that mostly gave up after June (Texas didn’t tell its players that it gave up, but it did). So I don’t think we can look at the Angels as this unstoppable behemoth, drooling and mauling its way around the league, leaving pitching staffs destroyed in its wake.
But do I think the Angels are an 88 win team (which is what the Pythagoras’s Awesome Theorem of Winning and Losing At Baseball – PATOWALAB – says they should have won)? No. I think they’re better than that. A couple of reasons why:
1. Scioscia managed to the score. Especially in September, when he rested a lot of his key guys, he brought bad relievers into games that would normally be blowouts. Those relievers often gave up some runs, hurting the Angels’ expected W-L record, but not their real W-L record. That’s good managing, and because of it, the Angels have arguably the most rested/healthy bullpen in the AL.
2. The Angels team that’s heading into the playoffs is NOT the team that played all year. Lackey missed the first month of the season. Howie Kendrick missed a couple of months. Gary Matthews Jr. was inexplicably in the lineup. Mark Teixeira didn’t join the team until late July. Arredondo didn’t pitch for the team until mid-May. The team they will be sending to the postseason is the best they could field, and that team has not been intact for very long at all this year.
How much better? I don’t know, but I think Scioscia has managed this team for the postseason since the beginning of August, and it may have had an adverse impact on their run differential. For what it’s worth, the Angels severely outscored the AL East during the season and beat Boston 8 out of 9 games. You can cry and scream about sample size all you want, but those things happened, and I’m going to use them as support for my argument. Ha!
Besides that, run differential won’t mean squat in a 5 or 7 game series. The team that moves on is the team that wins more games. Period. And I think the matchups line up in such a way that the Angels could win three before the Boston guys do, Pythagoras notwithstanding. Some of my points stand on shaky ground. I’m okay with that. This is playoff baseball, baby! Anything can happen! So to you Angel fans out there, don’t sweat the run differential.
We have God on our side anyway.
Angels in the Playoffs
It's that time again. Playoff baseball. Hanging on every pitch in the 5th inning. Cursing the k-zone that you know they tweak so the announcers don't look silly. Pacing around the room when the 5th best reliever in your bullpen gets brought in the game in the 12th inning because there's no one else left. Analyzing every move by the manager (mostly wondering why the *&^$ Jeff Mathis is playing).
I love playoff baseball.
That being said, the Angels have not been successful at playoff baseball since their run to the World Series in 2002. They've lost 3 out of 4 playoff series' and the only one they won is because A-Rod is the chokiest choke to ever choke in the postseason. Most disturbingly, they've lost 6 straight games to the Red Sox in that span.
And here come the Red Sox.
The Angels finished with the best record in baseball. They are the first team to get to 100 wins since 2005. They have a great pitching staff and solid offense. But they didn't destroy teams this year, winning a lot of games by small margins (while losing more than their normal share of blowouts). By and large, people aren't impressed. So the Red Sox are once again the favorites.
Blech.
The Red Sox are a good team, maybe still the best team in baseball. But the Angels have home field advantage. Boston is beat up (Beckett will only start once in this series, Lowell is hurt, Ortiz has some lingering wrist problems, Pedroia is short, Youkilis's face was actually eaten by his goatee, etc.). The Angels are rested, having clinched the division about 3 months ago. And still, a lot of people are picking the Sox.
Fine. We're cool with the underdog thing. We'll play with the chip on our shoulder. We have Mark Teixeira. Bring it on Boston.
Again, I know I've been remiss about posting on here, but I'm going to post a series of short Q&A's with myself. As in, what are some of the questions for the Angels in the postseason and what answers can I make up that will make them look good? First up: Why do sabermetricians enjoy clubbing baby seals? (Subtitle: Can I be a "stat guy" and still like the Angels?)
Monday, September 15, 2008
Garret Anderson and Me
How do you reconcile your like of an individual player versus your desire to see your team do the best it possibly can? What happens when your favorite player just isn’t that effective any more? There are some guys (like Cal Ripken Jr., for example) who are clear Hall of Famers, clear “one team” guys. There was no way in heck the Orioles would ever let him go, no matter how poorly he played. Then you’ve got the guys who are Hall of Famers and are fan favorites, but do something to alienate or turn off the fan base, like Sammy Sosa with the Cubs. Then you’ve got the guys who are clearly NOT Hall of Famers, so it generally doesn’t matter. Some are fan favorites, but you mourn their loss for a few months in the offseason, give them a standing O the first time they come back to play in your ballpark, and then you’re over it.
But then you’ve got the borderline guys. The guys who are very good and have a longstanding relationship with your team, but maybe not quite at Hall of Fame level and clearly declining. Bernie Williams was one of these guys. The Yankees decided to cut him loose (probably one or two years after they should have, speaking in terms of performance) and it was met with a lot of backlash from the fanbase.
I know this guy isn’t as universally loved as Williams was in NY, but Garret Anderson is that player for me. He’s had a great career. With several more good seasons, he could wind up with 3,000 hits. In these days of OBP emphasis – which should only increase in the next 10 years until GA is eligible for Cooperstown – I’m not sure that will be enough for Garret. He’s been allergic to walks since he was a rookie, and that has never changed. At the end of the day, he could wind up with 3,000 hits (impressive), 550 doubles (top 25 all time), 320 homeruns (top 100 all time), and at least one World Series ring (hopefully at least two!).
I’m not going to go into all of the other statistics, but let’s just say they won’t help his case. So let’s call him a borderline Hall of Famer, for our purposes.
I like him. I’ve liked him since he came up for good in 1995 and should have won the Rookie of Year (effing Marty Cordova – where are you now, huh?). He was a line drive hitter who eventually hit some homeruns (even winning the Homerun Derby in 2003!), and then went back to being a line drive hitter. He wasn’t what you would call “gritty” or “hard-nosed,” in fact he has the opposite reputation amongst some fans who think he doesn’t ever hustle, but he always got the job done. He stayed on an even keel, to use another cliché. You never heard him associated with steroids, or contract disputes, or off-field issues or anything like that. He came to the park, played well, and went home to his family. When I finally got an Angels jersey a couple years ago, it was between Garret and Salmon, and I decided to go with Garret. That’s a big decision, because I’m almost definitely not going to buy another jersey any time soon.
So we have this great relationship, Garret and I. We’ve been through one devastating year (1995), a bunch of lean years (1996 – 2001, 2003), several very good years (2004 – present), and one glorious year (2002). Garret never sent me a Christmas card, but I knew we were pals.
That may be coming to an abrupt end this year. The Angels have a team option they can choose to decline. They either pay Garret $3 million to end his contract, or $14 million to keep him around for one more year. Like I said earlier, I’m not going to do any statistical analysis on this. I could probably come up with a few reasons to keep him around (namely, the Angels don’t have a legitimate OF prospect, although Morales could probably play there, and getting rid of him means I would have to see GMJ out there more often – yuck), but $14 million is a lot of money for GA’s level of production.
I’m putting aside all of that and saying I want him to stay, regardless. Sign him for 4 more years. If he has a shot at 3,000 hits, I want to see him do it in an Angels uniform. I want to see Garret be the first Angel to hit 300 homeruns with the team. If the Angels win more World Series’, I want Garret to be there. I want him to retire as an Angel. If he has a shot at Cooperstown, I want it all to be as an Angel. I don’t want to see him playing for another team. Forget logic, this is all about sentimentality. I watch baseball because I love the sport, and I enjoy watching people who are good at it. Garret Anderson has been good at it for a long time, long enough to make an impact on me. So I’m eschewing reason, statistics, economics, and common sense and saying, in plain English, resign the man. That would mean more to me than seeing the Angels be a win or two better. Plus you never know, there may still be some clutch RBI’s in that bat.
But then you’ve got the borderline guys. The guys who are very good and have a longstanding relationship with your team, but maybe not quite at Hall of Fame level and clearly declining. Bernie Williams was one of these guys. The Yankees decided to cut him loose (probably one or two years after they should have, speaking in terms of performance) and it was met with a lot of backlash from the fanbase.
I know this guy isn’t as universally loved as Williams was in NY, but Garret Anderson is that player for me. He’s had a great career. With several more good seasons, he could wind up with 3,000 hits. In these days of OBP emphasis – which should only increase in the next 10 years until GA is eligible for Cooperstown – I’m not sure that will be enough for Garret. He’s been allergic to walks since he was a rookie, and that has never changed. At the end of the day, he could wind up with 3,000 hits (impressive), 550 doubles (top 25 all time), 320 homeruns (top 100 all time), and at least one World Series ring (hopefully at least two!).
I’m not going to go into all of the other statistics, but let’s just say they won’t help his case. So let’s call him a borderline Hall of Famer, for our purposes.
I like him. I’ve liked him since he came up for good in 1995 and should have won the Rookie of Year (effing Marty Cordova – where are you now, huh?). He was a line drive hitter who eventually hit some homeruns (even winning the Homerun Derby in 2003!), and then went back to being a line drive hitter. He wasn’t what you would call “gritty” or “hard-nosed,” in fact he has the opposite reputation amongst some fans who think he doesn’t ever hustle, but he always got the job done. He stayed on an even keel, to use another cliché. You never heard him associated with steroids, or contract disputes, or off-field issues or anything like that. He came to the park, played well, and went home to his family. When I finally got an Angels jersey a couple years ago, it was between Garret and Salmon, and I decided to go with Garret. That’s a big decision, because I’m almost definitely not going to buy another jersey any time soon.
So we have this great relationship, Garret and I. We’ve been through one devastating year (1995), a bunch of lean years (1996 – 2001, 2003), several very good years (2004 – present), and one glorious year (2002). Garret never sent me a Christmas card, but I knew we were pals.
That may be coming to an abrupt end this year. The Angels have a team option they can choose to decline. They either pay Garret $3 million to end his contract, or $14 million to keep him around for one more year. Like I said earlier, I’m not going to do any statistical analysis on this. I could probably come up with a few reasons to keep him around (namely, the Angels don’t have a legitimate OF prospect, although Morales could probably play there, and getting rid of him means I would have to see GMJ out there more often – yuck), but $14 million is a lot of money for GA’s level of production.
I’m putting aside all of that and saying I want him to stay, regardless. Sign him for 4 more years. If he has a shot at 3,000 hits, I want to see him do it in an Angels uniform. I want to see Garret be the first Angel to hit 300 homeruns with the team. If the Angels win more World Series’, I want Garret to be there. I want him to retire as an Angel. If he has a shot at Cooperstown, I want it all to be as an Angel. I don’t want to see him playing for another team. Forget logic, this is all about sentimentality. I watch baseball because I love the sport, and I enjoy watching people who are good at it. Garret Anderson has been good at it for a long time, long enough to make an impact on me. So I’m eschewing reason, statistics, economics, and common sense and saying, in plain English, resign the man. That would mean more to me than seeing the Angels be a win or two better. Plus you never know, there may still be some clutch RBI’s in that bat.
Ramble On
This post is going to go all over the place, but I need to post something.
The Angels clinched last week, which is great. They now have two weeks to get everyone healthy, set up the rotation exactly the way they want it, try out any young arms or bats, and get the bullpen rested. I don’t think there’s any way they could have done this differently, but it was kind of annoying that they clinched in between games. I was actually there for the Wednesday game with my 2 year old son, but after 3 hours in the hot sun, I couldn’t bring myself to subject my son to waiting around to see if the Rangers would lose and the Angels would officially clinch. In retrospect, it would have been nice to stay, but at the time, my son was looking pretty sleepy, so I made the decision to leave.
We also attended the Thursday night game, but of course they had already clinched. I’ll send a thank you to Scioscia, though, for putting Speier into a game the Angels were leading 7 – 0, ensuring that K-Rod would be able to get in there for a save. That was exciting.
One thing I noticed is that even though the crowds for both games were big, neither was particularly loud and boisterous. This is something the Angels’ fans get criticized for all the time by other fans. We’re too laid back apparently. There’s also the distinct possibility that the Angels could play the Red Sox in the playoffs. When that happens, Angel Stadium seems to turn into Fenway West. It’s gotten better in recent years, but I worked at the stadium in the late ‘90’s and I don’t remember Sox fans coming out in droves (nothing like Yankee fans, who probably made up 75% of the crowd for Angels – Yankees games back then, and that’s not an exaggeration). But now it seems like Sox fans are all OVER the place when they play the Angels, even for playoff games.
How does this happen? It’s true that there are a number of immigrant Bostonians in the Orange County/ LA area, so that makes up part of it. But how do they all get tickets? Are they the ones buying every single available ticket from Stub Hub and Ebay and the like? I suppose when you only get to go to one or two games a year, it makes sense that they can blow their baseball budget on playoff tickets and outspend everyone else.
Should Angels fans let this happen? Shouldn’t season ticket holders try to sell to Angels fans or go themselves? That’s a tough one. Even though they’re expensive, I’d love to go to at least one playoff game. There’s really nothing like the atmosphere for playoff games, even in laid back SoCal. I was at game 5 of the ALDS against the Yankees in 2005, and that place rocked. So not all of the criticism I mentioned earlier is deserved. So let’s say I buy a couple playoff tickets, say for $40 a piece. If I can get $200 for those tickets, should I sell them? I love the Angels, but a $120 profit is a pretty nice deal for my family. I would have to at least think about it, especially when I can just watch the game from the comfort of my own home. I think enough people feel this is worth it that you wind up with a ton of Sox fans at the games. And that hurts the atmosphere.
I’m still rambling, so I have to share this one. We went early to the game on Thursday and my son and I were able to procure a batting practice ground rule double that one of the attendants gave us. I was so excited! It’s just a ball, but there’s something about major league baseballs that make them so cool. I don’t know what it is; it’s not like they’re all that rare. It’s just that the ball was handled by major leaguers, hit by major leaguers and now my son can play with that little piece of the major leagues. I know there are people who say that adults who bring gloves to the game are a little bit off…but I still do, just in case. When I was younger, it was so I would have that souvenir on my mantle. Now, it’s so I can give them to my children, which is an even better feeling.
My wife and I were at the game with our 2 year old, Ben, and 8 month old, Micah, and we had a very good time. Micah fell asleep in the 4th inning, but Ben stayed up and enjoyed most of the game. I’m really hoping he turns into as much of a baseball fan as I am; I look forward to going to games with him for years to come. So far he’s on the right track, and getting that baseball can only help.
The next two weeks will be like the calm before the storm for the Angels. I’ll be gearing up for playoff season. I’ll be trying to post more regularly on here with some different things. Stay tuned.
The Angels clinched last week, which is great. They now have two weeks to get everyone healthy, set up the rotation exactly the way they want it, try out any young arms or bats, and get the bullpen rested. I don’t think there’s any way they could have done this differently, but it was kind of annoying that they clinched in between games. I was actually there for the Wednesday game with my 2 year old son, but after 3 hours in the hot sun, I couldn’t bring myself to subject my son to waiting around to see if the Rangers would lose and the Angels would officially clinch. In retrospect, it would have been nice to stay, but at the time, my son was looking pretty sleepy, so I made the decision to leave.
We also attended the Thursday night game, but of course they had already clinched. I’ll send a thank you to Scioscia, though, for putting Speier into a game the Angels were leading 7 – 0, ensuring that K-Rod would be able to get in there for a save. That was exciting.
One thing I noticed is that even though the crowds for both games were big, neither was particularly loud and boisterous. This is something the Angels’ fans get criticized for all the time by other fans. We’re too laid back apparently. There’s also the distinct possibility that the Angels could play the Red Sox in the playoffs. When that happens, Angel Stadium seems to turn into Fenway West. It’s gotten better in recent years, but I worked at the stadium in the late ‘90’s and I don’t remember Sox fans coming out in droves (nothing like Yankee fans, who probably made up 75% of the crowd for Angels – Yankees games back then, and that’s not an exaggeration). But now it seems like Sox fans are all OVER the place when they play the Angels, even for playoff games.
How does this happen? It’s true that there are a number of immigrant Bostonians in the Orange County/ LA area, so that makes up part of it. But how do they all get tickets? Are they the ones buying every single available ticket from Stub Hub and Ebay and the like? I suppose when you only get to go to one or two games a year, it makes sense that they can blow their baseball budget on playoff tickets and outspend everyone else.
Should Angels fans let this happen? Shouldn’t season ticket holders try to sell to Angels fans or go themselves? That’s a tough one. Even though they’re expensive, I’d love to go to at least one playoff game. There’s really nothing like the atmosphere for playoff games, even in laid back SoCal. I was at game 5 of the ALDS against the Yankees in 2005, and that place rocked. So not all of the criticism I mentioned earlier is deserved. So let’s say I buy a couple playoff tickets, say for $40 a piece. If I can get $200 for those tickets, should I sell them? I love the Angels, but a $120 profit is a pretty nice deal for my family. I would have to at least think about it, especially when I can just watch the game from the comfort of my own home. I think enough people feel this is worth it that you wind up with a ton of Sox fans at the games. And that hurts the atmosphere.
I’m still rambling, so I have to share this one. We went early to the game on Thursday and my son and I were able to procure a batting practice ground rule double that one of the attendants gave us. I was so excited! It’s just a ball, but there’s something about major league baseballs that make them so cool. I don’t know what it is; it’s not like they’re all that rare. It’s just that the ball was handled by major leaguers, hit by major leaguers and now my son can play with that little piece of the major leagues. I know there are people who say that adults who bring gloves to the game are a little bit off…but I still do, just in case. When I was younger, it was so I would have that souvenir on my mantle. Now, it’s so I can give them to my children, which is an even better feeling.
My wife and I were at the game with our 2 year old, Ben, and 8 month old, Micah, and we had a very good time. Micah fell asleep in the 4th inning, but Ben stayed up and enjoyed most of the game. I’m really hoping he turns into as much of a baseball fan as I am; I look forward to going to games with him for years to come. So far he’s on the right track, and getting that baseball can only help.
The next two weeks will be like the calm before the storm for the Angels. I’ll be gearing up for playoff season. I’ll be trying to post more regularly on here with some different things. Stay tuned.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Defending the Indefensible
Much venom is spewed in these parts about the performance relative to contract ratio of Gary Matthews Jr. No one liked the contract when it was signed, and even fewer people like it now (yeah, that’s negative people – we’re through the looking glass here folks). Rob Neyer commented on a piece that rated Matthews as the least valuable player in the majors. Neyer basically agrees.
You will never see me defend this contract outright. I didn’t like it when it was signed either. And that was before I found out how much it was worth. But at the risk of being pelted with Rally Monkeys for my impetuousness, let me try to play devil’s advocate. I’m not sure where this is going to go, since I haven’t thought it all through yet, but here goes nothing.
The Angels needed a CF after the 2006 season. Erstad was getting old and rickety, Garret Anderson was clearly in no shape to play center, and the only internal option was Reggie Willits, who had just posted an .874 OPS (mostly OBP) in 97 AAA games. The free agent options were slim to none. The best were Matthews Jr. (coming off that career year in Texas of .313/.371/.495), Jim Edmonds (coming off of a down, injury-plagued season), JD Drew (actually coming off of his most healthy season in awhile, but a little down offensively), and Juan Pierre (blech). Those were, literally, the BEST candidates for a starting center field position.
The Angels main problem was power, as in, they had none other than Vlad. Juan Rivera was coming off of a promising season and then promptly broke his leg. So the Angels are looking for a guy with decent pop who can play a good centerfield. Let’s break down the candidates:
Erstad – The Angels could have brought him back at a reduced salary (Erstad was willing to do that apparently), but after such an awful year, this was hardly an appealing option.
Willits – A 26-year old “prospect” with zero power. With guys like Figgins and Izturis already in the lineup, they didn’t want another guy with absolutely no pop out there. Understandable.
Jim Edmonds – it never seemed like he seriously considered signing anywhere other than St. Louis, plus he was hurt, plus it wasn’t like he left the Angels under the best of circumstances the last time he was with them.
Juan Pierre – He got his own awful contract from the Dodgers. He was Reggie Willits, except a little fast, older, and much more expensive.
Drew – His big knock was that he couldn’t stay healthy. Well, he did that in 2006. He has moderate, not great power, but certainly more than what any of the other options was offering. Great at getting on base. He also had a reputation as a loafer and hadn’t played a lot of CF in a few years.
GMJ – He had a career season at the exact wrong time (for the Angels). He made some flashy plays in center, but mostly because he didn’t get good jumps on balls (and there was that one admittedly amazing play robbing a home run). He did hit for decent power, and his power had been trending upward the last few years.
In retrospect, the obvious decision would have been to sign Erstad to a one-year contract or let Willits play center until Torii Hunter or Andruw Jones became free agents (thank God they didn’t sign Jones!), but of course how would the Angels have any assurance that those guys wouldn’t resign with their current clubs? That would have been a gamble.
Drew would have been the next best choice, but again, he’s not REALLY a CF, and the Angels were loaded at the corners. Whether for good or bad, they also didn’t seem like they would have been a good fit organizationally for Drew. So I can’t blame them for not signing him.
I have to say that the next best choice would be GMJ, from a pure performance perspective. This is a team who wanted to win – they didn’t want to wait until 2008, and money wasn’t really an issue. So they threw a ton of money at him.
I think the only problem with this contract is the years. I don’t know where the other bids were, but the Angels are on the hook for another $33 million for this guy over the next 3 years. That’s a lot of salary to cut loose. But it’s quite possible that’s what it was going to take to sign what they thought was a decent centerfielder.
So that’s as close as I can come to defending that signing. Bottom line is they never should have given Matthews more than 2 years. Anything above that and they should have just said, “No thank you,” especially when they did have Reggie Willits as an option in the minors, even if it wasn’t a very attractive option. They could have always kept Figgins out there and found someone else for 3B. (To be fair, they did go hard after Aramis Ramirez to play 3B.) It’s just that plan B wasn’t very attractive.
You will never see me defend this contract outright. I didn’t like it when it was signed either. And that was before I found out how much it was worth. But at the risk of being pelted with Rally Monkeys for my impetuousness, let me try to play devil’s advocate. I’m not sure where this is going to go, since I haven’t thought it all through yet, but here goes nothing.
The Angels needed a CF after the 2006 season. Erstad was getting old and rickety, Garret Anderson was clearly in no shape to play center, and the only internal option was Reggie Willits, who had just posted an .874 OPS (mostly OBP) in 97 AAA games. The free agent options were slim to none. The best were Matthews Jr. (coming off that career year in Texas of .313/.371/.495), Jim Edmonds (coming off of a down, injury-plagued season), JD Drew (actually coming off of his most healthy season in awhile, but a little down offensively), and Juan Pierre (blech). Those were, literally, the BEST candidates for a starting center field position.
The Angels main problem was power, as in, they had none other than Vlad. Juan Rivera was coming off of a promising season and then promptly broke his leg. So the Angels are looking for a guy with decent pop who can play a good centerfield. Let’s break down the candidates:
Erstad – The Angels could have brought him back at a reduced salary (Erstad was willing to do that apparently), but after such an awful year, this was hardly an appealing option.
Willits – A 26-year old “prospect” with zero power. With guys like Figgins and Izturis already in the lineup, they didn’t want another guy with absolutely no pop out there. Understandable.
Jim Edmonds – it never seemed like he seriously considered signing anywhere other than St. Louis, plus he was hurt, plus it wasn’t like he left the Angels under the best of circumstances the last time he was with them.
Juan Pierre – He got his own awful contract from the Dodgers. He was Reggie Willits, except a little fast, older, and much more expensive.
Drew – His big knock was that he couldn’t stay healthy. Well, he did that in 2006. He has moderate, not great power, but certainly more than what any of the other options was offering. Great at getting on base. He also had a reputation as a loafer and hadn’t played a lot of CF in a few years.
GMJ – He had a career season at the exact wrong time (for the Angels). He made some flashy plays in center, but mostly because he didn’t get good jumps on balls (and there was that one admittedly amazing play robbing a home run). He did hit for decent power, and his power had been trending upward the last few years.
In retrospect, the obvious decision would have been to sign Erstad to a one-year contract or let Willits play center until Torii Hunter or Andruw Jones became free agents (thank God they didn’t sign Jones!), but of course how would the Angels have any assurance that those guys wouldn’t resign with their current clubs? That would have been a gamble.
Drew would have been the next best choice, but again, he’s not REALLY a CF, and the Angels were loaded at the corners. Whether for good or bad, they also didn’t seem like they would have been a good fit organizationally for Drew. So I can’t blame them for not signing him.
I have to say that the next best choice would be GMJ, from a pure performance perspective. This is a team who wanted to win – they didn’t want to wait until 2008, and money wasn’t really an issue. So they threw a ton of money at him.
I think the only problem with this contract is the years. I don’t know where the other bids were, but the Angels are on the hook for another $33 million for this guy over the next 3 years. That’s a lot of salary to cut loose. But it’s quite possible that’s what it was going to take to sign what they thought was a decent centerfielder.
So that’s as close as I can come to defending that signing. Bottom line is they never should have given Matthews more than 2 years. Anything above that and they should have just said, “No thank you,” especially when they did have Reggie Willits as an option in the minors, even if it wasn’t a very attractive option. They could have always kept Figgins out there and found someone else for 3B. (To be fair, they did go hard after Aramis Ramirez to play 3B.) It’s just that plan B wasn’t very attractive.
Meaningless Games Update
So how’s it going? For any one of a number of reasons, Scioscia is using some of the playing time strategies I've talked about before. Most likely it’s because those were pretty much his only options, since it’s not like I suggested anything radical. Either way, I feel smart, so let’s take a look at how guys are doing, roughly halfway through that four week period of the games not meaning much, before the Angels want to start getting guys back in the swing of things for the playoffs.
Let’s look at the bullpen first:
Speier: Can we just move on? He's bad. This wasn’t a huge gamble on my part, but I have several witnesses who will testify that when Speier came in the game on Saturday in the 15th, the first thing I said was, “I guarantee he gives up a home run this inning.” Sure enough, one batter later, Jim Thome hit a shot that might still be going. Speier has had some home run trouble in the past, but this year has been his worst year in that regard. I don’t know if his stuff got that much worse compared to last year, but man is he getting hit hard. This is especially puzzling considering that last year was arguably his best year as a reliever. There’s no sense in benching him entirely for the next 3 weeks, but I think Scioscia needs to take a long, hard look at some of the young arms the Angels called up, to see if there’s a more reliable 3rd or 4th option (VERY small sample size, but man did Bulger look good in his 3 innings on Saturday night).
K-Rod: I had a very, umm, “spirited” discussion with some folks over at haloheaven who were upset about someone’s statistical analysis of Frankie’s season. The conclusion of the analysis? That this is Frankie’s worst year, despite the fact that he now has 55 saves. I agreed with the analysis, mainly because while saves are nice (I don’t agree with the vitriol employed by a lot of stat people when talking about saves), they don’t really tell us much about how Frankie actually pitched. And his stats are significantly down this year, in almost every way. He’s giving up more hits, walking more guys, striking out less guys (this has been the most alarming decrease), and, furthermore, his velocity on his fastball and the break on his slider are both down, according to pitchfx data. Frankie is definitely still very good, but he’s vulnerable. Throwing aside stats for a minute, he really looks uncomfortable out there a lot of the time, like he’s afraid to use some of his weapons because they might backfire. He’s nibbling a LOT, and this is causing walks. It almost seems like he’s afraid of his fastball, which is allowing guys to sit on his changeup. He blew another save Saturday night, which led to the Speier incident, and I have to admit I’m worried. But at his best, K-Rod is still K-Rod, and if I’m Scioscia, I don’t change how I use him, at least not until the playoffs, when I use him for multiple innings, until he looks tired.
Okay, let’s look at the other guys now:
Wood/Rodriguez: Well…other than Wood’s clutch homerun to put the Angels up by one in the ninth inning Saturday, neither one of these guys has been worth a pile of baseballs. Wood at least looks like he can be dangerous, so I’m still optimistic he can string together a few good weeks. Time is running out, though. Rodriguez is lost. We need Kendrick or Aybar to get this guy out of the lineup. He looks like an 8-year old playing in a league of 14-year olds. He misses pitches by miles, which brings me to…
Jeff Mathis: Ugh. Obviously, you keep playing him every third day for the next couple of weeks to keep Napoli fresh, and hope against every shred of hope that he figures out what’s going on with his swing, but Mathis is bad. He’s been in the league for a few years now, and his swing looks worse than Rodriguez’s. Unless Napoli’s arms fall off in the next few weeks, I don’t see Mathis getting any starts behind the plate in October. His defense is not good enough to make up for the difference. Heck, it’s not like Napoli is Mike Piazza or anything, but Mathis really is that bad.
Those are really the major issues I see. Saunders had a nice outing on Sunday, so hopefully he’s back on track. Lackey’s had a few problems recently, but I’m not that worried. Santana has been very, very good, and I’m excited to see him strike out 10 guys in a playoff game. I see Garland as the odd man out of the rotation at this point once the playoffs get here. As for other hitters, Gary Matthews is still bad, but again, I don’t see him getting anything other than defensive replacement duties in October. We’ll keep plugging along and get another update right about the time Scioscia will start making decisions on how the roster/lineup will be set for the games that matter.
Let’s look at the bullpen first:
Speier: Can we just move on? He's bad. This wasn’t a huge gamble on my part, but I have several witnesses who will testify that when Speier came in the game on Saturday in the 15th, the first thing I said was, “I guarantee he gives up a home run this inning.” Sure enough, one batter later, Jim Thome hit a shot that might still be going. Speier has had some home run trouble in the past, but this year has been his worst year in that regard. I don’t know if his stuff got that much worse compared to last year, but man is he getting hit hard. This is especially puzzling considering that last year was arguably his best year as a reliever. There’s no sense in benching him entirely for the next 3 weeks, but I think Scioscia needs to take a long, hard look at some of the young arms the Angels called up, to see if there’s a more reliable 3rd or 4th option (VERY small sample size, but man did Bulger look good in his 3 innings on Saturday night).
K-Rod: I had a very, umm, “spirited” discussion with some folks over at haloheaven who were upset about someone’s statistical analysis of Frankie’s season. The conclusion of the analysis? That this is Frankie’s worst year, despite the fact that he now has 55 saves. I agreed with the analysis, mainly because while saves are nice (I don’t agree with the vitriol employed by a lot of stat people when talking about saves), they don’t really tell us much about how Frankie actually pitched. And his stats are significantly down this year, in almost every way. He’s giving up more hits, walking more guys, striking out less guys (this has been the most alarming decrease), and, furthermore, his velocity on his fastball and the break on his slider are both down, according to pitchfx data. Frankie is definitely still very good, but he’s vulnerable. Throwing aside stats for a minute, he really looks uncomfortable out there a lot of the time, like he’s afraid to use some of his weapons because they might backfire. He’s nibbling a LOT, and this is causing walks. It almost seems like he’s afraid of his fastball, which is allowing guys to sit on his changeup. He blew another save Saturday night, which led to the Speier incident, and I have to admit I’m worried. But at his best, K-Rod is still K-Rod, and if I’m Scioscia, I don’t change how I use him, at least not until the playoffs, when I use him for multiple innings, until he looks tired.
Okay, let’s look at the other guys now:
Wood/Rodriguez: Well…other than Wood’s clutch homerun to put the Angels up by one in the ninth inning Saturday, neither one of these guys has been worth a pile of baseballs. Wood at least looks like he can be dangerous, so I’m still optimistic he can string together a few good weeks. Time is running out, though. Rodriguez is lost. We need Kendrick or Aybar to get this guy out of the lineup. He looks like an 8-year old playing in a league of 14-year olds. He misses pitches by miles, which brings me to…
Jeff Mathis: Ugh. Obviously, you keep playing him every third day for the next couple of weeks to keep Napoli fresh, and hope against every shred of hope that he figures out what’s going on with his swing, but Mathis is bad. He’s been in the league for a few years now, and his swing looks worse than Rodriguez’s. Unless Napoli’s arms fall off in the next few weeks, I don’t see Mathis getting any starts behind the plate in October. His defense is not good enough to make up for the difference. Heck, it’s not like Napoli is Mike Piazza or anything, but Mathis really is that bad.
Those are really the major issues I see. Saunders had a nice outing on Sunday, so hopefully he’s back on track. Lackey’s had a few problems recently, but I’m not that worried. Santana has been very, very good, and I’m excited to see him strike out 10 guys in a playoff game. I see Garland as the odd man out of the rotation at this point once the playoffs get here. As for other hitters, Gary Matthews is still bad, but again, I don’t see him getting anything other than defensive replacement duties in October. We’ll keep plugging along and get another update right about the time Scioscia will start making decisions on how the roster/lineup will be set for the games that matter.
Monday, September 1, 2008
What is small ball?
And are the Angels it?
Small Ball (per the baseball announcer vernacular): the ability of a team to grind out runs; a style of play involving bunting, stealing, and hit and run plays; often best played by "gritty" players (see Erstad, Darin); also known as "get em on, get em over, get em in" or the "National League brand of baseball"
Well, the Angels seem to be this type of team on the surface. Despite Vladdy (and the recent additional of Teixeira), they don't hit many homeruns, or extra base hits period. Scioscia is known as a small ball manager. They win a lot of one run ballgames. They've had their fair share of "gritty" players, going back to Eckstein and Erstad, to today's Izturis and Willits.
Small ball is still held in some reverence by many of the old guard announcers. It's considered by them to be smart baseball - the way the game was meant to be played. Conversely, most people who have caught on to the recent statistical revolution use small ball as a derogatory term. It ignores important things like power and walking, over-emphasizes the ability not to strike out, and gives away too many outs.
I generally find myself siding with the statheads, but this one is tricky. I think the Angels do exhibit many of the characteristics of a small ball team. They go first to third more than any team in the league. They're 4th best in the AL at NOT striking out. They don't hit a lot of home runs. They steal a lot.
But they also don't sacrifice THAT much. They are middle of the pack in sacrifice hits in the AL, and have been since 2005. Everybody thinks of the Angels and assumes they'll bunt with a guy on first every time. They don't.
I don't mind the use of the term small ball to describe the Angels. I think it fits in most ways. Just don't use it as a way of insulting their game, because I think the Halos can play small ball in a way that helps them win instead of the other way around.
Small Ball (per the baseball announcer vernacular): the ability of a team to grind out runs; a style of play involving bunting, stealing, and hit and run plays; often best played by "gritty" players (see Erstad, Darin); also known as "get em on, get em over, get em in" or the "National League brand of baseball"
Well, the Angels seem to be this type of team on the surface. Despite Vladdy (and the recent additional of Teixeira), they don't hit many homeruns, or extra base hits period. Scioscia is known as a small ball manager. They win a lot of one run ballgames. They've had their fair share of "gritty" players, going back to Eckstein and Erstad, to today's Izturis and Willits.
Small ball is still held in some reverence by many of the old guard announcers. It's considered by them to be smart baseball - the way the game was meant to be played. Conversely, most people who have caught on to the recent statistical revolution use small ball as a derogatory term. It ignores important things like power and walking, over-emphasizes the ability not to strike out, and gives away too many outs.
I generally find myself siding with the statheads, but this one is tricky. I think the Angels do exhibit many of the characteristics of a small ball team. They go first to third more than any team in the league. They're 4th best in the AL at NOT striking out. They don't hit a lot of home runs. They steal a lot.
But they also don't sacrifice THAT much. They are middle of the pack in sacrifice hits in the AL, and have been since 2005. Everybody thinks of the Angels and assumes they'll bunt with a guy on first every time. They don't.
I don't mind the use of the term small ball to describe the Angels. I think it fits in most ways. Just don't use it as a way of insulting their game, because I think the Halos can play small ball in a way that helps them win instead of the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
