6-4-2 — an Angels/Dodgers double play blog

Sadly, the list of players that other teams won't touch (Erstad, Weaver, etc.) might be longer than the untouchable list.
 

I still can't believe that Stoneman can't find a taker for WTE, even if the Angels absorb all but the prorated minimum salary. There are so many teams desperate for pitching. He's healthy, as far as we know, and could probably be a lot more effective for a National League team. Indeed, considering how bad he was earlier in the year, the law of averages almost dictates that he'll be a ML-average starter going forward. Even if he can't land a major-league bat, surely the Angels could find a toolsy OF prospect on a Class-A team whom they could pry loose.

I'm a bit surprised that Escobar isn't on the untradeable list; I thought that his new contract extension precludes a trade. But maybe it doesn't, because the extension doesn't kick in until next year.

Lackey's contract extension went into effect this year, making him untradeable. But it also shows just how much the Angels think of him. I hardly ever read Lackey's name in discussions of the league's best starters, but I'd have a hard time coming up with 10 better starting pitchers right now.
 

Mike Scioscia, still not getting it:

What exactly is he not getting? He's essentially describing the offense that won the AL West for the past two seasons. And he's absolutely right. You can absorb that stuff if you're getting runners into scoring position and knocking them in. He's not saying it's an optimal strategy.
 

In other words, if you ignore his advice in the first place, thus leading me to believe that RISP and RISP2 hitting is nothing more than an intellectual rathole to chase down, to no end.
 

Alright, well, you're missing some words, or punctuation there, so I have no idea what you're saying. But regardless, what did Scioscia say that's incorrect? As the coach, he isn't the one making trades or setting the 25 man roster. He can only work with what he has. And he's absolutely right.

IF you get a high percentage of the guys you get on base into scoring position, and IF you drive a high percentage of those runners in, you can make up for a lack of power and on base percentage. Are you claiming that's untrue? Did he not win two straight division titles with a similar strategy (note the difference between winning with that strategy and winning because of it).

"Not getting it" would be something akin to saying "we're telling guys specifically not to take walks and hit homers because we think a 'get them over, get them in' strategy is much more productive." Of course, that's not what he's saying.
 

Don't forget that CH Park's All Star appearance also yielded a memorable home run - to Cal Ripken, Jr. in his last ASG.
 

Seitz, I'm saying that RISP and RISP2 hitting are no substitutes for OBP and SLG, period, and the Angels' emphasis of the former two numbers at the expense of the latter is plain foolishness. Obviously, you don't want to be in the situation the A's find themselves in, where they get guys on but never collect them (last time I checked, they were the only team worse than the Angels in RISP hitting), but first things first: just get on base.
 

Rob, I tend to agree with Seitz here, that you're reading something into Scioscia's comments that simply isn't there. Now, it may be true that the team values RISP and RISP2 more than OBP and SLG. And I don't really think there's much debate that, generally speaking, OBP and SLG are more important and more predictable in terms of scoring runs. But it is also undeniably true that you can cover up some OBP and SLG deficiencies if you're extremely proficient at RISP and RISP2. And, as Seitz observes, the Angels have done just that the past two years - they've made the most of their limited opportunities. This year, they haven't been doing that.

There is a difference between saying that they don't need OBP and SLG because they have RISP, and saying that they need RISP hitting because they don't have OBP and SLG.

This is a separate issue from whether the team's offensive philosophy is based on RISP (and whether that is a sound strategy). But you can't really argue that if you don't have OBP and SLG, then you must do well at RISP in order to score runs...and that doing particularly well at RISP hitting can alleviate an OBP/SLG deficiency.

I hope this makes some sense. I understand what I'm trying to say, but I'm not sure it reads that way...
 

".....Our problem is, we're really, really soft in too many areas."
- Scioscia

mike gets it.
 

Brian: that's what I mean.

To me, the quote indicates that Scioscia understands that you can't be weak in all of those categories and win.
 

Seitz, I'm saying that RISP and RISP2 hitting are no substitutes for OBP and SLG, period, and the Angels' emphasis of the former two numbers at the expense of the latter is plain foolishness.

Well, when it comes to a tasty meal, white bread and water is no substitute for a glass of wine and a juicy steak. But if the cupboard's bare and you're really hungry, you make do with what you have. Where exactly does Scioscia imply that that RISP and RISP2 are substitutes?
 

Where exactly does Scioscia imply that that RISP and RISP2 are substitutes?

When he said that they were more important stats than anything else. Presumably at the time he was aware of OBP and SLG.
 

Care to point out where in that article he said they're more important?
 

I mean, if you have a quote from another interview where he makes that claim, then fine. Quote that as an example of him "not getting it". But the quote you copied in this post certainly doesn't show that. In fact, I'd say that his quote acknowledges the importance of OBP and slugging more than discounts it.
 

Right here, Seitz. I'll keep beating that same ol' drum.
 

Seitz: I agree.

However, I know that I've previously read a comment from Scioscia along the lines of, "It's not how many you get on, it's how many you get in." And in a sense, it's true, because you'll lose every game even if you get a dozen baserunners, but none of them scores. Scoring runs is the bottom line.

But the part that Rob decries, and I agree with him on this, is the theory that "getting them in" is actually a skill that can be taught or developed, as opposed to a result of the application of some other skill. That's the part that the Angels' brain trust appears to misunderstand, perhaps.

So, I think Rob is reading those prior statements and comments into this particular quote, and I'm not really sure that is fair. Because I'm sure I've read quotes from Scioscia & co. saying that they'd like to to a better job getting on and hitting for power, but they don't have that kind of personnel, so they've got to do it this way. The problem is if they are specifically trying to build a team based on the "just get 'em in" concept. But I don't read that in the particular quote at issue.
 

I don't see the Scioscia quotes in your link, Rob, but I did find this excerpt notable:

Scioscia, as it turns out, loves on-base percentage. It's just that he doesn't have it on his roster. The Angels don't reject on-base average as something valuable. They just don't have an abundance of it, and therefore try to distill and preserve every iota of value out of the amount they do have of it. The theory being that if you can get a runner on first in any manner, get the runner into scoring position in any manner, optimal or not. Get runners moving with run-and-hit, steal bases, shake up the defense.

In other words, they're not against it. They just don't have it, though, so they've got to do something else.
 

From that link:

Scioscia, as it turns out, loves on-base percentage. It's just that he doesn't have it on his roster. The Angels don't reject on-base average as something valuable. They just don't have an abundance of it, and therefore try to distill and preserve every iota of value out of the amount they do have of it.

Sounds like a guy who really doesn't get it.
 

Yeah, but... the development thereof. Geesh.
 

Mattew beat me to it.
 

Alot of people defend the Angels' style of offense by pointing out that its won them a division title the last two years, but it hasn't. Their run prevention, which the Angles have been among the best at before this year, earned those division crowns. They won in spite of their pitiful offense.
 

Alot of people defend the Angels' style of offense by pointing out that its won them a division title the last two years, but it hasn't.

Really? Who? Certainly no one here has said that. As noted below, there's a distinction to be made between winning with that offense and winning because of it. No one I've ever talked to or read has claimed the Angels won their division titles because of their particular offensive strategy. But it's undisputed that they've won the last two division titles with that offensive strategy.
 

It's more accurate to say the Angels won their 2005 division title despite their offense.
 

I wouldn't argue with that. I was trying to distinguish between a fact and a value judgment.
 

Regardless of the hairsplitting, the Angels pay lip service to OBP while chasing fairytales about RISP hitting. You can see it in their lineups and in the players they develop. Kendry Morales exemplifies the problems with that philosophy; he has few strikeouts, almost no walks, but he doesn't get on base because he chases garbage pitches and makes outs by the bushel basketful. Now, that's not to say that he won't get better, but this is a fairly common thread through the Angels' players who've come up recently; everything is predicated on batting average. In retrospect, a player like Mike Napoli who strikes out a good bit but walks a lot more than the average Angel had more success (so far, anyway) was entirely predictable.
 

Well, here's what you said, seitz:

What exactly is he not getting? He's essentially describing the offense that won the AL West for the past two seasons. And he's absolutely right.

Maybe its not what you meant, but that's how it came across.
 

Whatever. That's the offense that was good enough to win the AL West. Is that better? Or maybe, that's the offense that was used by the team that won the AL West.
 

The offense was mediocre at best. And saying it was "good enough" amounts to resting on your laurels. Matthew upthread said something to the effect that the Angels would like to do better; well, fine, you can't go to the free agent store and stock up on every guy who gets on base. But you sure as hell can teach plate discipline in your minors. Why aren't the Angels doing that?
 

We just need more good hitters. Period.

Our current hitters simply aren't good enough. Garret is old and injured, Rivera is a fourth outfielder, Kennedy is slumping, and Izturis is a nifty backup, but not a starter. Throw in J-Mo, and that's half the lineup of bad hitters.

Oakland supposedly emphasizes plate discipline. Maybe the Angels do; maybe they don't. I really don't care. I think it's much ado about nothing.

Bottom line right now:
Team/Runs scored/rank
Angels/350 runs/11th in AL
A's/349 runs/12th in AL

There is no "style." BOTH teams need BETTER HITTERS!

The good hitters for the Angels? They're either here (Vlad and Cabrera), hurt (Kotchman and McPherson), learning (Morales, he of 41 AAA games), or they are on their way...within two years, the Angel offense will be severely outscoring the A's...we need a tad of patience.

A lineup of Vlad, Cabrera, Kotchman, Napoli, Kendrick, Wood, Morales, McPherson, et al, will score runs, eventually (and plenty of them), regardless of emphasis or style. They're just good hitters...
 

First, comments on the Dodger story. I think that it makes excellent points about the purpose of scouting, the experience and daring of the development system and the commitment by many people who may or may not agree with each other to build the organization. That said, it really doesn't explore why or how the Dodgers were able to do such a thing and also doesn't emphasize why the Dodgers didn't produce despite having some well regarded players such Hiram Bocachica and Luke Prokopec. It isn't the players but the process of production. Despite the hit and miss nature of the draft, the Dodger staff, even when Ed Creech was conducting drafts for them, embraced it. Jason Repko was a Creecher and so is current major leaguer and ex-dodger Shane Victorino who got most of his developmental success in the Dodger organization especially when they shoved him in Triple A one year and allowed him to struggle but emphasized the right things. Logan built on this, not just picking the best available player but not be shy on picking the player they liked the best not caring if they could wait because he wasn't highly regarded or there are issues with him. Signability does not scare the Dodgers and I feel they have been one of the examples of rich teams being unafraid to pick talent over unknowns although the Angels are certainly a great leader in taking chances. It's also being enigmatic, a skill that goes beyond just the scouting department's philosophies of strong aggressive pitchers and athletic confident hitters. Remember Loney was ranked highly by BA-as a pitcher, Greg Miller and Matt Kemp were all but unheard of until they became young phenoms and Chad Billingsley and Scott Elbert are from non-traditional sources of first round talent. Trusting an area scout is one thing but the Dodgers have put down some serious dough for people who did not have the pedigrees that other prospects seemingly had. Even Joel Hanrahan, Creech's selection out of Iowa is a good example, although his comeback is still premature.
As for the development angle, the Dodgers once produced people whose either had no power or did nothing but try to hit homers. They had sinker slider pitchers that were so similar that BA used to com close to saying see above in their prospect descriptions. The emphasis has changed. Terry Collins and his staff don't get enough credit. This system has made plenty of mistakes and have learned and corrected them instead of adhering to some rigid philosophy of player development. They challenge players but held back Andy Laroche, Matt Kemp and Joel Guzman to work on specific skills like pitch selection not just to produce better statistics.
 

While I don't always agree with Rob on analysis and the perception of players(I disagree with his summary on Jim Edmonds for example), I do think that the Angels' organization is suffering from adherence to a philosophy which has ceased functioning. Rob in this space has showing collective evidence from various sources throughout this year and last year that Scioscia, Hatcher and Angels' management are both aware that they lag behind other teams in OBP and Slugging and that the answer is to execute with men on base and to drive in runs with men in scoring position. The RISP and RISP2 emphasis is starting to sound like Orwellian speak for the managerial adage "We have to execute". Rob has posted quotes such as the Scioscia quote that since the Angels don't get on base as much as other teams(and this was an analysis of last year's team) their avenue for improvement is to do well in RISP and RISP2. This is no different than saying move runners up and drive them in or start getting hits when you get men on base.

My problem is simple, this philosophy does not address the club's problems. If you are having trouble getting on base, stress things that get you on base. If you are good at RISP and RISP2, that's fine, whatever skills you are teaching to improve that should be kept. But if this philosophy is incompatible with consciously trying to get men on base, then what is the point? The Angels seem to regard getting aboard safely without getting a hit as being based on probability the way some sabermetricists regard clutch hitting. That drawing walks and gettign hit by pitches are like throwing errors, they just happen. There is a level of uncertainty and fortune in it but no more than in hitting where weak loopers fall for hits and hard liners meet leather. The point is that the angels are assuming that players can't increase their levels of OBP and slugging through approach or refining of technique while it is possible to do so for general hitting and hitting with men on. This makes no sense. As players age, they lose bat speed, explosiveness and even coordinative acuity. That diminishes your ability to work counts, hit for power and to cover the plate effectively. But it also retards your ability to get hits and in turn get hits with men on. If you recognize that there are skills independent of physical limitations that allow you to hit in the clutch than what is the harm in believing in pitch recognition, pitch selection and bat control. Not only do these skills improve the ability to take walks, get good pitches to hit and hit them as hard as your swing will allow, it also allows you to get more hits and as a result, get more hits with men on base. Scioscia and Hatcher's comments indicate that the Angels can't increase their OBPs and slugging through instruction, that the players are unable to do so and that instruction can boost their effectiveness at clutch hitting. And that is the problem, you can see it in the Angels farm, you can see it in the players they give the majority of at bats to. Instead of talking about how Mike Napoli is using his skills to get on base and that it should be emphasized to the the younger angels, they talk about his grit and they way he handles himself. I'm all for that but when you're team is struggling and he is one of your few bright spots, don't you automatically wonder what he is doing right instead of assuming that these abilities were built in?
Pardon my ramblings, I am not an Angels fan and Scioscia will neve wipe my memories of his performance against the Mets in 1988 or his ability on and off the field. But I just think the Angels have dug themselves in a hole and their refusal to switch gears no matter how painful it is, is part of the problem.