Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Sunday, June 11, 2006 |
Management By Beating Dead Horses: Mariners 6, Angels 2
Jeff Weaver got testy after his three-error fifth inning; thanks to kindly scoring, the Angels' starter was only charged for two errors, but in fact he should have been charged with three.
*About which, Jeff: (1) I found the eval copy, and (2) review to be posted shortly. Sorry for the delay.
- He should have caught the Rene Rivera squib that was right at him; instead, he deflected it to Orlando Cabrera, who had to change directions to field the ball and couldn't make a clean play.
- Then, Yuniesky Betancourt hit a sac bunt that Weaver picked up and — as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up — allowed to roll off his back. Everyone safe, bases loaded.
- Then, to add to the humiliation, Weaver botched fielding an Ichiro swinging bunt, driving in Jeremy Reed.
Weaver managed a pair of outs in the next frame, but then Scioscia pulled him with one out remaining in the sixth, relying on the motley likes of J.C. Romero, Hector Carrasco, and the far less motley Scot Shields, to finish a game long since lost. Mostly that was because Felix Hernandez was getting the Angels to flail weakly at pretty much everything he slung to the plate; Dallas McPherson predictably struck out twice, as did Juan Rivera and Chone Figgins; Jose Molina only struck out once, but that was because he didn't have a third chance to prove himself unable to adequately judge the strike zone.
And that inadequacy has bitten the team repeatedly this year. Jeff Angus was kind enough to send me a review copy of his new book, Management By Baseball*, which contains the following interview quote from Mike Scioscia (echoing this original post at the Management By Baseball blog, but rephrased a little):
We hit few home runs, our slugging percentage is down near the bottom of the league. Our on-base is like .325, so how can we compete with a team that has an on-base of .350? Some of those teams that have OB of .350 or .360, they can let on-base die on the vine because it's going to be there again. We've got to score runs by maximizing the on-base percentage we have. Ours is only going to be there, .325, and we'd better grasp the opportunity when we can or there's going to be stagnation.See, this is what burns me up about the Angels: there seems to be some kind of tacit understanding that high-OBP guys will never end up in an Angel uniform. With all this blather about the importance of RISP and RISP2 hitting — which is essentially voodoo — the Angels have hoodwinked themselves into the belief that somehow these traits, while useful, somehow outweigh the benefits of getting guys on base and the three-run jack. In particular, I want to address one particular sentence from the last MBB link:
The Angels prove you don't need the best strategy to get into the playoffs (or win a World Series), just a viable one with great execution and delivery.Ah, the World Series exception (bold emphasis mine). It's beginning to occur to me that the Angels' 2002 title, and their subsequent 2005 division title, have become a kind of validation for things actually wrong with the organization, in a way similar to that which the Dodgers 1988 victory blinded them to their own shortcomings. Over the 2002 regular season, the Angels had a collective .282/.341/.433, but over the 2002 postseason, they had a .310/.364/.512 line. That is to say, the Angels' ISO (isolated power, the result of SLG-Avg) increased by 50 points from their regular season to their postseason. To their credit, the Angels recognized the absence of power in the 2004 offseason and signed a pair of hard-hitting outfielders, the fiery Jose Guillen, and Vlad Guerrero. Letting Guillen go at the end of the 2004 season, the Angels won again in 2005, not based on their middle-of-the-pack offense (sixth in the AL by runs scored), but based on their stellar pitching (second in the AL by runs allowed). If World Series titles are the metric of success, the Angels have clearly learned the wrong lesson from it; they need more power, a lot more, not to mention more OBP. If Mickey Hatcher is happy with Figgins' strikeouts because it means he's taking more pitches, perhaps it's a good thing; but maybe it's just a different way to spin plate impatience.
*About which, Jeff: (1) I found the eval copy, and (2) review to be posted shortly. Sorry for the delay.
Comments:
though oddly they're sixth in DER, which says that maybe their errors are in some wise a function of team speed.
I don't think it says that at all. You certainly wouldn't think that watching them play. What I think it says is that they have excellent range to make a lot of plays that maybe an average defense wouldn't, but they make up for it by dropping and botching a ton of easy plays. It seems like a lot of their errors have been of the little league variety. I don't think they're getting charged with a lot of errors on balls they barely get to, then screw up. They're screwing up on a lot of balls hit right at them.
I don't think it says that at all. You certainly wouldn't think that watching them play. What I think it says is that they have excellent range to make a lot of plays that maybe an average defense wouldn't, but they make up for it by dropping and botching a ton of easy plays. It seems like a lot of their errors have been of the little league variety. I don't think they're getting charged with a lot of errors on balls they barely get to, then screw up. They're screwing up on a lot of balls hit right at them.
What I think it says is that they have excellent range
We're saying the same thing here. The Angels are getting to balls well, but screwing up beyond that part.
We're saying the same thing here. The Angels are getting to balls well, but screwing up beyond that part.
Thomas, that may well be the case. Stoneman doesn't seem to be particularly interested in dealing with Anderson's situation, though; Erstad's gone after this year, and in any event, is worse than anyone they could bring up from the minors.
The highlight of the season, than, will be that game in September when #s 15, 16 and 17 are in the lineup for one final game - perhaps even in the field!
# posted by 
: 6/11/2006 08:03:00 PM
: 6/11/2006 08:03:00 PM
Great commentary regarding the OBP, Rob.
I find the Angels hitting approach to be so disheartening.
I find the Angels hitting approach to be so disheartening.
# posted by : 6/12/2006 05:53:00 AM
: 6/12/2006 05:53:00 AM
Do you think there is any possible way Stoneman can justify bringing up Erstad at this point, as bad as he is hitting at AAA? I know Mike has a fetish for giving him as many ab's as possible, but my little sister could tell you the guy is toast.
# posted by : 6/12/2006 07:16:00 AM
: 6/12/2006 07:16:00 AM
Er, I guess I spoke too soon. From today's LA Times:
Darin Erstad could start in center field for the Angels tonight, no matter how poor the statistics from his minor league rehabilitation assignment.
Erstad is batting .091 in eight games, with three hits — all singles — in 33 at-bats.
Manager Mike Scioscia said there was "definitely a chance" Erstad would be activated today. According to reports from Salt Lake Manager Brian Harper, Scioscia said, Erstad is running well, playing superior defense and displaying good bat speed.
And those statistics?
"I don't think that's a gauge," Scioscia said. "I don't think it's a gauge to say, hey, a guy is ready because he's gone 10 for 20 in his rehab. You're evaluating, but you're evaluating things besides statistics at this juncture."
Erstad has not played for the Angels since April 30 because of irritation in his right ankle.
Ugh. Erstad hasn't displayed good bat speed since 2000.
Darin Erstad could start in center field for the Angels tonight, no matter how poor the statistics from his minor league rehabilitation assignment.
Erstad is batting .091 in eight games, with three hits — all singles — in 33 at-bats.
Manager Mike Scioscia said there was "definitely a chance" Erstad would be activated today. According to reports from Salt Lake Manager Brian Harper, Scioscia said, Erstad is running well, playing superior defense and displaying good bat speed.
And those statistics?
"I don't think that's a gauge," Scioscia said. "I don't think it's a gauge to say, hey, a guy is ready because he's gone 10 for 20 in his rehab. You're evaluating, but you're evaluating things besides statistics at this juncture."
Erstad has not played for the Angels since April 30 because of irritation in his right ankle.
Ugh. Erstad hasn't displayed good bat speed since 2000.
# posted by : 6/12/2006 07:25:00 AM
: 6/12/2006 07:25:00 AM
We're saying the same thing here. The Angels are getting to balls well, but screwing up beyond that part.
That's not exactly the same as saying the errors are a function of team speed. That implies that they get to balls that others wouldn't, then screw up. From what I've seen, that's not the case. Their errors tend to be completely independent of team speed. They make a ton of errors on balls that any major league player could get to. Their errors are more a function of lack of concentration. Their team speed just makes up for it a bit.
That's not exactly the same as saying the errors are a function of team speed. That implies that they get to balls that others wouldn't, then screw up. From what I've seen, that's not the case. Their errors tend to be completely independent of team speed. They make a ton of errors on balls that any major league player could get to. Their errors are more a function of lack of concentration. Their team speed just makes up for it a bit.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.