Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006 |
The Hole At The Bottom Of The C
Much of the offseason cringing for the Angels has been reserved for the pitching rotation, and justifiably so. No matter how bad Jarrod Washburn was going to be in 2007, getting similar kinds of numbers from a starter was going to be tough, especially over a full season, and losing Paul Byrd didn't help. Yesterday, Joe Sheehan took a look around the majors at clubs with gaping holes in their lineups, and saw something I haven't seen much discussed around the Halosphere: the hole at catcher.
The one that really jumps out at me is the Angels’ catching situation. With Bengie Molina presumably gone as a free agent--he’s yet to sign, so he could conceivably head back to Anaheim on May 1--the Angels head into the season apparenly intending to let Jeff Mathis take the job, with Jose Molina reprising his role as a backup.It is worrisome that Mathis' performance fell apart in the Texas League two years ago. Bill Stoneman has clearly pasted him in as a key component of the 2006 squad; if he turns out to be even worse than Jose Molina offensively, it could easily be a disaster for the Angels.Two years ago, Mathis was one of the game’s top prospects, coming off of a big year at Rancho Cucamonga as a 20-year-old, and a decent showing in a month at Double-A Arkansas. He had a lousy ’04, hitting .223/.308/.392 at Double-A, a performance that you could arguably discount because of his age. Promoted to Triple-A last season, he hit .276/.340/.499 for Salt Lake, a line that looks good for a 22-year-old catcher, but is considerably inflated by the offensive environment. Mathis’ strikeout rate and strikeout-to-walk ratios have remained essentially unchanged for three years, as has his power production. Mathis is basically the same player he was three years ago.
He did throw out one in three basestealers last year, an acceptable percentage, and Baseball America was enthusiastic about his defensive reputation. Still, I see a player who doesn’t have great power, hasn’t hit for high averages, with marginal plate discipline. PECOTA doesn’t agree, pegging Mathis at .241/.302/.403 for a .245 EqA, which would be acceptable for the minimum salary. I don’t see Mathis retaining even that much batting average or power in the majors, and expect the Angels to have a real problem on their hands when he doesn’t.
Update: There's a point that needs clarifying here, apparently, and that is that by itself this is not a disaster for the Angels, but in combination with the lack of depth in the rotation, the team's got much worse issues to deal with. Sure, the rotation 1-5 looks okay, but assume the Angels lose a month or more of Bartolo Colón. Will Hector Carrasco make up for that? I don't think so, and that's why I'm nervous. The team's offensive holes has simply moved from centerfield to the catcher position, and while that's not surprising, the mettle of Casey Kotchman and Dallas McPherson has yet to be tested over 162 games.
In the comments, Seitz makes the point that "[Joe] Saunders is another year along", and, well, so what? He hasn't exactly been dominating at any level. Despite a recent Baseball America plug as a potential number three guy, it doesn't seem to me that he's shown the kind of numbers needed to even make it that far. Kevin Gregg is depth long before Joe Saunders, and that should be terrifying.
Finally, thanks to David Pinto for the linky today.
Comments:
Don't you think "disaster" is a bit harsh. Is it really that big of a deal to go from "not particularly good offensively" (Jose) to "possibly a little bit worse than not particularly good" (Mathis, maybe)? I mean, we aren't talking about the difference between Piazza in his prime and Brad Ausmus circa 2001. We're talking about the difference between Brad Ausmus 2002 (which still sucked) and Brad Ausmus 2001.
The Angels have decided that they're probably not going to get much, if any, offense from the catcher spot this year. Would it really be a disaster if they got a little less than the virtually nothing they expect?
Now, it would be a disaster if he not only sucks out loud at the plate, but also can't make the throw to second, can't handle pitchers, and can't actually catch the baseball. But since I don't see all of those things happening, I don't see what the big deal is.
The Angels have decided that they're probably not going to get much, if any, offense from the catcher spot this year. Would it really be a disaster if they got a little less than the virtually nothing they expect?
Now, it would be a disaster if he not only sucks out loud at the plate, but also can't make the throw to second, can't handle pitchers, and can't actually catch the baseball. But since I don't see all of those things happening, I don't see what the big deal is.
In combination with all the other holes the Angels have or potentially have this season -- at third base, at first, on the mound -- the 2006 squad could be a third-place team.
I agree with Mr. Seitz. Besides, it is apparent that the Angels are trying a rebuild on-the-fly right now. I mean, they are going to have three bats in the everyday lineup plus at least one starter with less than one season of major league experience. This year is an evaluation year for the first round of kids coming up to the majors.
Well, that's great, but that's not what you said. Do you really think that they're a first place team, but that the lack of offense at catcher will expose all of the other weaknesses and make them a third place team?
I mean, feel free to get upset about the other holes, but I don't think the difference between Jose and a slightly worse Jose is going to cost the team all that much.
I mean, feel free to get upset about the other holes, but I don't think the difference between Jose and a slightly worse Jose is going to cost the team all that much.
The Angels look to have a tough time hanging with the A's this year, but it'll be fun to see how well the rookies (and near-rookies) can play.
I suspect the Angel plan (after Konerko bailed) is to save $$ now and try to build a WS winner two or three years down the road that will include the young guys plus a couple of Vlad/Bartolo free agents.
It's not a bad plan, if that's what they're trying to do.
I suspect the Angel plan (after Konerko bailed) is to save $$ now and try to build a WS winner two or three years down the road that will include the young guys plus a couple of Vlad/Bartolo free agents.
It's not a bad plan, if that's what they're trying to do.
# posted by 
: 2/07/2006 01:33:00 PM
: 2/07/2006 01:33:00 PM
I don't see what the big deal is. The Pecota seems pretty reasonable, and it shows he's not going to be much of a hitter. Thats about what his MLE was for last year.
How bad does Joe think he's going to be? a .180 hitter with 2 homers? Sure, it could happen. One of the biggest sluggers in the game could hit .200 with 5 homers (think of an injury prone Thome). Mathis could also hit .275 with 20 homers and win rookie of the year.
The Pecota, or zips, or monkeyprojection, is a reasonable over/under for what he'll do. I don't see any reason to bet on the under. Molina is not a good bet to repeat his career year either, or to top a .320 OBP, so its not a huge downgrade.
Mathis can't be any worse than Molina was in 2002, and that didn't stop the team. I'm more worried about the other pieces coming together, and getting Weaver (according to Halofan's blog).
How bad does Joe think he's going to be? a .180 hitter with 2 homers? Sure, it could happen. One of the biggest sluggers in the game could hit .200 with 5 homers (think of an injury prone Thome). Mathis could also hit .275 with 20 homers and win rookie of the year.
The Pecota, or zips, or monkeyprojection, is a reasonable over/under for what he'll do. I don't see any reason to bet on the under. Molina is not a good bet to repeat his career year either, or to top a .320 OBP, so its not a huge downgrade.
Mathis can't be any worse than Molina was in 2002, and that didn't stop the team. I'm more worried about the other pieces coming together, and getting Weaver (according to Halofan's blog).
# posted by : 2/07/2006 01:38:00 PM
: 2/07/2006 01:38:00 PM
The naysayers are already out in force . . .
At espn.com, writer Sean McAdam lists the ANGELS, Cardinals, Orioles, Padres, and Phillies as the teams most likely to disappoint this year.
Here's the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2317993
At espn.com, writer Sean McAdam lists the ANGELS, Cardinals, Orioles, Padres, and Phillies as the teams most likely to disappoint this year.
Here's the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2317993
# posted by : 2/07/2006 01:56:00 PM
: 2/07/2006 01:56:00 PM
Well, that's great, but that's not what you said. Do you really think that they're a first place team, but that the lack of offense at catcher will expose all of the other weaknesses and make them a third place team?
Seitz, this team had a hole at centerfield last year, but the pitching saved them. They don't have the depth in the rotation they had last year, and between those two things, they're in trouble.
Daniel -- I agree, Kotchman and McPherson are the two real keys to the season.
Chone -- still waiting on some confirmation on the alleged Weaver deal. And it's now Tuesday, so say the Gregorians.
Matt -- I distrust Jose's lefty-mashing simply because the sample size is so small.
Year SLG/AB
=============
2005 .548/62
2004 .525/59
2003 .280/50
2002 .100/20
Not so sure I like those numbers outside the last couple years.
Seitz, this team had a hole at centerfield last year, but the pitching saved them. They don't have the depth in the rotation they had last year, and between those two things, they're in trouble.
Daniel -- I agree, Kotchman and McPherson are the two real keys to the season.
Chone -- still waiting on some confirmation on the alleged Weaver deal. And it's now Tuesday, so say the Gregorians.
Matt -- I distrust Jose's lefty-mashing simply because the sample size is so small.
Year SLG/AB
=============
2005 .548/62
2004 .525/59
2003 .280/50
2002 .100/20
Not so sure I like those numbers outside the last couple years.
Seitz, this team had a hole at centerfield last year, but the pitching saved them. They don't have the depth in the rotation they had last year, and between those two things, they're in trouble.
Well, again, that's the comment I was trying to get at in the original post. You said that if Mathis disappointed, it would be a disaster. If all of their other holes are such a big deal, then it really won't matter how bad Mathis is.
But moving on, barring unforseen injuries, is the rotation really that much worse? Colon, Lackey, and Santana are holdovers. I expect Colon to regress a bit, but I can't see why would shouldn't expect some more progress from Lackey (a whole season like his last five months is better than last season), and possibly a big improvement from Santana. Escobar returns and replaces Washburn, which I think is a step up. So basically we have three spots that are improved, and one that should still be good, though not as good as last year. The fifth spot is still a question mark depending on the Weaver thing, and we don't really know what to expect from Carrasco. Let's say they don't sign Weaver and Carrasco is a little worse than Byrd. I can see the rotation being as good as last year without much of a stretch.
So where are all of these holes? In case of injury, Saunders is another year along. If they sign Weaver, it strengthens the pen, and Carrasco can also start in case of injury. I just don't see all the reason for pessism.
Well, again, that's the comment I was trying to get at in the original post. You said that if Mathis disappointed, it would be a disaster. If all of their other holes are such a big deal, then it really won't matter how bad Mathis is.
But moving on, barring unforseen injuries, is the rotation really that much worse? Colon, Lackey, and Santana are holdovers. I expect Colon to regress a bit, but I can't see why would shouldn't expect some more progress from Lackey (a whole season like his last five months is better than last season), and possibly a big improvement from Santana. Escobar returns and replaces Washburn, which I think is a step up. So basically we have three spots that are improved, and one that should still be good, though not as good as last year. The fifth spot is still a question mark depending on the Weaver thing, and we don't really know what to expect from Carrasco. Let's say they don't sign Weaver and Carrasco is a little worse than Byrd. I can see the rotation being as good as last year without much of a stretch.
So where are all of these holes? In case of injury, Saunders is another year along. If they sign Weaver, it strengthens the pen, and Carrasco can also start in case of injury. I just don't see all the reason for pessism.
If Scioscia was clever, he'd use a platoon (Jose mashes lefties).
The problem with that is Jose is a career backup, and Mathis is your future. No doubt Mathis, being a righty, is going to hit better against lefties.
I would not want to sit him in the games he's most likely to succeed, I would prefer to build up his confidence as much as possible.
The problem with that is Jose is a career backup, and Mathis is your future. No doubt Mathis, being a righty, is going to hit better against lefties.
I would not want to sit him in the games he's most likely to succeed, I would prefer to build up his confidence as much as possible.
# posted by : 2/07/2006 05:50:00 PM
: 2/07/2006 05:50:00 PM
On Saunders, I don't know why he can't be a decent back of the rotation guy. He's making improvement, the Minor League Baseball Analyst has his MLE at 4.00 last year, down from an abyssmal 6.66 the year before. He's got as much stuff as Washburn, an 87-92 FB, cutter, and above avg changeup.
# posted by : 2/07/2006 05:55:00 PM
: 2/07/2006 05:55:00 PM
Jose crushes lefties
C'mon, Matt. You know better than that. There is no true platoon split greater than league average for right handed batters. Or rather, all right handed batters have the same platoon split.
See this thread, or what's left of it.
C'mon, Matt. You know better than that. There is no true platoon split greater than league average for right handed batters. Or rather, all right handed batters have the same platoon split.
See this thread, or what's left of it.
Also, I should amend the post above. Instead of saying "I see no reason for pessimism", it should read "I see no reason for pessimism right now, but rest assured, as soon as the Angels lose a game or two, I'll be off the bandwagon."
You have to wonder about the resident neurotics who always assume things will go awful for the Angels but nothing ever goes wrong for the A's. Yep, those A's are going to have everyone healthy for 162 games, all their prospects will vie for Rookie of the Year if not MVP, they'll never ever lose a game and we might as well give them the World Series trophy right now.
Spare me.
Spare me.
# posted by : 2/07/2006 08:16:00 PM
: 2/07/2006 08:16:00 PM
You have to wonder about the resident neurotics who always assume things will go awful for the Angels but nothing ever goes wrong for the A's.
Part of this, I think, is due to the fact that the A's tend to make moves that align well with Accepted Sabermetric Principles, while the Angels don't. See Matt's essay in the 2006 Hardball Times annual for more.
Part of this, I think, is due to the fact that the A's tend to make moves that align well with Accepted Sabermetric Principles, while the Angels don't. See Matt's essay in the 2006 Hardball Times annual for more.
Steve: Repko-enablers? Who do you see on the Angels as being even remotely comparable to Jason Repko? He's a terrible fielder, he can't hit -- at least the Angels make a solid requirement that their players have to hit for high average and not strike out much, unless they hit for decent power. Repko struck out in about 30% of his at bats. He can't -- or didn't -- steal bases. I don't see how he fits the Angels cast at all.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.