Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Sunday, July 08, 2007 |
Ervin Santana To AAA, Part ∞: Yankees 12, Angels 0
I guarantee we will hear some BS in the papers about how Santana is doing exactly the same thing on the road he's doing at home. I just don't care anymore. He's getting worse on the road and at home. The Angels have shown him way too much patience.
Update: The team's worst shutout loss in 20 years, the worst since a 14-0 shellacking on August 7, 1987 at the hands of the Mariners in the Kingdome. Even Chris Resop left the game early thanks to elbow problems.
The good news, such as there is, is the Angels plan on skipping a few starts for Colon, who won't make his first second-half start until July 18. As usual, the excuses continue for the Angels' obese win-sucker 2005 Cy Young winner, as they do for Santana as well.
Update 2: Shut up, Ervin:
"I'm normal," said Santana, who has a 10-19 career record and 7.05 ERA on the road. "The only thing I can control is throwing strikes. Everything is fine physically, I'm throwing hard. I just have to locate my pitches and keep the ball down."Well, duh.
* Yes, Matt, you're right about his age. I was relying on The Baseball Cube for the respective birthdays of Ramon Ortiz and Ervin Santana, and the Cube had Ramon's pre-Agegate birthday. So, no, not comparable agewise. And, yes, also tied for the worst shutout loss of the last 20 years with the 12-0 May 24 blowout against the Tigers.
But it still doesn't change the fact that Santana is just plain awful on the road, and that he's getting worse at home, with a 3.42 ERA at home, and a 8.59 ERA on the road.
Labels: angels, recaps, yankees
Comments:
First place is driving this complacency with Ramon, err i mean Ervin. if we were 5 back right now, Saunders and Ervin would be swapping places.
Management HAS acknowledged the issue and has been trying things. they'll be trying the SLC option soon i'm sure. my guess is by the end of July, Ervin will have visited AAA.
we don't talk much about us missing Bud Black - Ervin's 2007 is the most compelling evidence that Bud is missed.
Management HAS acknowledged the issue and has been trying things. they'll be trying the SLC option soon i'm sure. my guess is by the end of July, Ervin will have visited AAA.
we don't talk much about us missing Bud Black - Ervin's 2007 is the most compelling evidence that Bud is missed.
I doubt they send him down. Bart is worse and much, much older. There's only one Joe Saunders to go around, and two slots where the Angels could conceivably use him.
Colon - It seems to be a physical issue. It's either his weight or his arm (shoulder), or both. At his age, and since he seems to be in denial that there's an issue, it's going to be up to the team to make a move.
Ervin - His issue is between the ears. That might be "harder" to fix, but it can be done. I again advocate a sports psychologist to get him some mental toughness. At least if he's in AAA he won't pitch at the Big A, so all his starts will be road starts.
Ervin - His issue is between the ears. That might be "harder" to fix, but it can be done. I again advocate a sports psychologist to get him some mental toughness. At least if he's in AAA he won't pitch at the Big A, so all his starts will be road starts.
Thomas above hits the reasons why it'll be Ervin that Saunders replaces i think - basically, it's mental and maybe a demotion will get him straight.
and you mention Bart will be skipped too
and you mention Bart will be skipped too
Wrong about what? That he's not comparable to Ramon Ortiz? Well, he's not comparable to Ramon Ortiz. Unless the bar on "comparable" has been lowered to mean "had a bad half-season, just like that other guy did."
And you may not "give a damn" about facts, but that doesn't mean they magically go away when you get mad.
It's funny; you get really hung up players' ages when that helps you argue that someone is NOT a prospect, but when someone points out that there's a sizable gulf between a 24-year-old with 33 wins and someone who didn't pitch in the big leagues before age 26, why, you just don't give a damn! Meanwhile, you'll continue harping on the home-road differential even though there is no case in MLB history of a guy having a road ERA twice as high than as home.
I guess a belated welcome to Bill James' fog is in order, though I would note that even in his growing appreciation for mystery, he doesn't abandon the Scientific Method just because his team had a bad day.
(p.s., I think Santana should be sent down.)
And you may not "give a damn" about facts, but that doesn't mean they magically go away when you get mad.
It's funny; you get really hung up players' ages when that helps you argue that someone is NOT a prospect, but when someone points out that there's a sizable gulf between a 24-year-old with 33 wins and someone who didn't pitch in the big leagues before age 26, why, you just don't give a damn! Meanwhile, you'll continue harping on the home-road differential even though there is no case in MLB history of a guy having a road ERA twice as high than as home.
I guess a belated welcome to Bill James' fog is in order, though I would note that even in his growing appreciation for mystery, he doesn't abandon the Scientific Method just because his team had a bad day.
(p.s., I think Santana should be sent down.)
Matt, what is this nonsense about them being so different in age? Ortiz was pitching in the Show at 23, Santana at 22.
Further: just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it isn't happening now. Argue what you want, the numbers don't lie.
It's a little bit of "nonsense" called Baseball Reference. I'm pretty sure you've heard of it.
just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it isn't happening now. Argue what you want, the numbers don't lie.
The point of small sample sizes is that just because something is happening now doesn't mean it accurately measures a skill set or (more importantly) has anything useful to tell us about what will happen in the future.
Believing in a massive road/home ERA skill is worse than the Scioscia/Stoneman RISP voodoo, by orders of magnitude. You are asserting a phenomenon that has never previously existed, instead of emphasizing a strategy that has sporadic success.
As has been pointed out several times before, Lackey used to have a big split, but that evened out after the sample size got bigger. And no, "numbers don't lie," but the way you get them on the way there is to use them selectively (by not "giving a damn" when they're inconvenient to your thesis), and extrapolating huge trends from small samples.
just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it isn't happening now. Argue what you want, the numbers don't lie.
The point of small sample sizes is that just because something is happening now doesn't mean it accurately measures a skill set or (more importantly) has anything useful to tell us about what will happen in the future.
Believing in a massive road/home ERA skill is worse than the Scioscia/Stoneman RISP voodoo, by orders of magnitude. You are asserting a phenomenon that has never previously existed, instead of emphasizing a strategy that has sporadic success.
As has been pointed out several times before, Lackey used to have a big split, but that evened out after the sample size got bigger. And no, "numbers don't lie," but the way you get them on the way there is to use them selectively (by not "giving a damn" when they're inconvenient to your thesis), and extrapolating huge trends from small samples.
And you need to stop claiming that Ortiz was 23 when he made his debut. It was thought at the time that he was 23, but he was, in fact, 26. This has been mentioned in the comments here before, you can check baseball reference for his birth date, and it was a big deal when it was found out. Santana has his own problems, but that doesn't make him Ramon Ortiz, just like Jered Weaver's problems don't make him his brother.
the worst shutout loss in 20 years?
the Times points out Ervin lost by that same score earlier this year. Looking it up, it was May 24th of this year at Detroit to Bonderman.
He's going to AAA by the end of the month. enough.
the Times points out Ervin lost by that same score earlier this year. Looking it up, it was May 24th of this year at Detroit to Bonderman.
He's going to AAA by the end of the month. enough.
Santana's obviously having some serious issues and growing pains. Assuming he is healthy, it's 100% mental, because the ability is there. The stuff is there. Stuff that Ramon Ortiz only dreamed of having, since you're into that comparison. And again, Ervin's freakin' 24 years old. He probably could use some straightening out at SLC, but he'll be back. He's Cy Young when he's on (take a look again at those home stats).
Maybe Butcher hasn't figured out yet how to get through to him, although Butch has certainly done a commendable job with the rest of the staff.
Rob, weren't you beating the "Scot Shields as we knew him is gone forever" drum about a month ago? Haven't heard much of that since he hasn't been scored upon in his last 17 appearances, with his ERA now below 2.00.
I thought I was the most pessimistic guy around here, but I've got nothing on you.
I hope this doesn't come off sounding snide, because that's not the intent. I'm merely suggesting a bit of perspective.
I'm out of patience with Santana, and Colon for that matter (and don't get me started on that guy's state of mind; he's got some sort of machismo thing that compels him to simply throw fastball after fastball when the going gets rough, refusing to give hitters a different look).
Maybe Butcher hasn't figured out yet how to get through to him, although Butch has certainly done a commendable job with the rest of the staff.
Rob, weren't you beating the "Scot Shields as we knew him is gone forever" drum about a month ago? Haven't heard much of that since he hasn't been scored upon in his last 17 appearances, with his ERA now below 2.00.
I thought I was the most pessimistic guy around here, but I've got nothing on you.
I hope this doesn't come off sounding snide, because that's not the intent. I'm merely suggesting a bit of perspective.
I'm out of patience with Santana, and Colon for that matter (and don't get me started on that guy's state of mind; he's got some sort of machismo thing that compels him to simply throw fastball after fastball when the going gets rough, refusing to give hitters a different look).
"Shut up Ervin"? Really?
The hell you expect him to say? "My problem is that I'm basically Ramon Ortiz II, and my home/road splits indicate a heretofore never-been-demonstrated malady, and therefore I should be sent to the minors"?
Seeing as how it's their job to play, not talk, it strikes me that stubbornly hopeful comments about their own performance are basically the last thing in the world deserving of censure, especially since a hopeful person is more likely to perform well than someone who's as profoundly pessimistic about Ervin's future as you are.
Besides, it's not like he got Ramon Ortiz's age wrong twice or anything....
The hell you expect him to say? "My problem is that I'm basically Ramon Ortiz II, and my home/road splits indicate a heretofore never-been-demonstrated malady, and therefore I should be sent to the minors"?
Seeing as how it's their job to play, not talk, it strikes me that stubbornly hopeful comments about their own performance are basically the last thing in the world deserving of censure, especially since a hopeful person is more likely to perform well than someone who's as profoundly pessimistic about Ervin's future as you are.
Besides, it's not like he got Ramon Ortiz's age wrong twice or anything....
How much faith do y'all have in the pythagorean expectation? Because it says we're going to get screwed.
And since he can't play, I damn well expect him to say nothing.
And, yeah, the Angels are about to get screwed. Thank you, Ervin.
And, yeah, the Angels are about to get screwed. Thank you, Ervin.
So now it's Santana's fault that, uh, the Angels are allegedly going to "get screwed" in the second half because their Pythag number suggests they've been playing over their heads?
You've really topped 'em all with this thread, Rob.
BTW, if Pythagoras played games instead of teams, the Angels' lead would be bigger by a half game.
You've really topped 'em all with this thread, Rob.
BTW, if Pythagoras played games instead of teams, the Angels' lead would be bigger by a half game.
In case you hadn't noticed, Matt, he's one of the reasons the Angels have a negative discrepancy between runs scored and runs allowed. You're amazing.
And also, in case you haven't noticed, the Angels seem inclined to do exactly nothing about either of their problems at the back of the rotation. Yeah, Santana is part of the problem.
In case you hadn't noticed, Matt, he's one of the reasons the Angels have a negative discrepancy between runs scored and runs allowed. You're amazing.
No, I noticed that straight away, Rob. If you lose a lot of blowouts, your Pythag will look worse than your record. Which is why pre-emptively blaming Ervin for the presumed second-half bursting of the Pythag bubble MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
If Santana continues to lose a handful of 12-0 games, but the team otherwise plays its usual .6oo-plus ball, it will ONCE AGAIN overshoot Pythag projections. Ergo, we won't "get screwed" by a mathematical formula that, as pointed out previously, actually projects us having a bigger lead than we do now.
And also, in case you haven't noticed, the Angels seem inclined to do exactly nothing about either of their problems at the back of the rotation.
Wrong again! -- How much longer can the Angels stick with Santana, especially with Saunders, who is 3-0 with a 2.97 ERA in five big league starts this season, ready at triple-A Salt Lake?
"Our confidence is still strong with Ervin, but the bottom line is we need production from our rotation, and that's something we'll look at," Scioscia said.
No, I noticed that straight away, Rob. If you lose a lot of blowouts, your Pythag will look worse than your record. Which is why pre-emptively blaming Ervin for the presumed second-half bursting of the Pythag bubble MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
If Santana continues to lose a handful of 12-0 games, but the team otherwise plays its usual .6oo-plus ball, it will ONCE AGAIN overshoot Pythag projections. Ergo, we won't "get screwed" by a mathematical formula that, as pointed out previously, actually projects us having a bigger lead than we do now.
And also, in case you haven't noticed, the Angels seem inclined to do exactly nothing about either of their problems at the back of the rotation.
Wrong again! -- How much longer can the Angels stick with Santana, especially with Saunders, who is 3-0 with a 2.97 ERA in five big league starts this season, ready at triple-A Salt Lake?
"Our confidence is still strong with Ervin, but the bottom line is we need production from our rotation, and that's something we'll look at," Scioscia said.
This is fun!!
Ervin needs to be sent to AAA. Not because he "sucks" - he just needs a little seasoning. Plus - we have options (Saunders, Moseley). If we were the NYY, we might have no other choice but to keep running him out there. But we DO have choices. Organizational depth is the Halos' strength. Now is the time to take advantage of it.
Ervin needs to be sent to AAA. Not because he "sucks" - he just needs a little seasoning. Plus - we have options (Saunders, Moseley). If we were the NYY, we might have no other choice but to keep running him out there. But we DO have choices. Organizational depth is the Halos' strength. Now is the time to take advantage of it.
Seasoning... pepper, paprika, salt? Whatever they elect to use, more time in the majors sure hasn't done it. He needs to go down and get his head on straight. He needs a clear signal that management's blather about the American League not being a developmental league is a real possibility. What he's learning is that he can continue to fail with impunity.
By the way, Matt, you'll notice they've done exactly nothing with Santana. He is, last I checked, still in the Angels' rotation.
By the way, Rob, verbs have different tenses for a reason.
"seem inclined to do exactly nothing" does not in any way = "have done nothing."
You are, once again, moving the goalposts when faced with facts inconvenient to your pessimistic thesis.
"seem inclined to do exactly nothing" does not in any way = "have done nothing."
You are, once again, moving the goalposts when faced with facts inconvenient to your pessimistic thesis.
Ooh, goody, we can have pedantic arguments over tenses now.
And still Santana stubbornly remains in the rotation.
And still Santana stubbornly remains in the rotation.
Let's summarize:
You said Ervin Santana was comparable to Ramon Ortiz. You were wrong, because of the significant discrepancy of age.
You said I was "wrong" by pointing that out. Again, you were wrong.
You then stated that Ramon Ortiz was 23 when he debuted, and that my insistence otherwise was "nonsense." Again, you were wrong (at least this time you copped to it).
You also said the 12-0 loss was the "worst shutout loss in 20 years." You were wrong about that, too.
You then predicted that the Angels were about to "get screwed," thanks to Ervin's contributions to a Pythagorean discrepancy between run differential and wins. You were wrong about that on two counts -- 1) if Pythag was king, we'd have a bigger lead; and 2) Ervin's contributions are what create the discrepancy in the first place, so there's no logical reason a "correction" would take place.
You then said the Angels don't "seem inclined to do" anything about the rotation, even though Scioscia just intimated that if Santana doesn't shape up, he'll go to AAA. So, wrong about that, too.
And how do you behave when confronted with your serial, hilarious, multiple wrongness? You call me "amazing," accuse me of spreading "nonsense," shift the goalposts over and over, and end with an "oh, goody."
Is this fun for you or something?
You said Ervin Santana was comparable to Ramon Ortiz. You were wrong, because of the significant discrepancy of age.
You said I was "wrong" by pointing that out. Again, you were wrong.
You then stated that Ramon Ortiz was 23 when he debuted, and that my insistence otherwise was "nonsense." Again, you were wrong (at least this time you copped to it).
You also said the 12-0 loss was the "worst shutout loss in 20 years." You were wrong about that, too.
You then predicted that the Angels were about to "get screwed," thanks to Ervin's contributions to a Pythagorean discrepancy between run differential and wins. You were wrong about that on two counts -- 1) if Pythag was king, we'd have a bigger lead; and 2) Ervin's contributions are what create the discrepancy in the first place, so there's no logical reason a "correction" would take place.
You then said the Angels don't "seem inclined to do" anything about the rotation, even though Scioscia just intimated that if Santana doesn't shape up, he'll go to AAA. So, wrong about that, too.
And how do you behave when confronted with your serial, hilarious, multiple wrongness? You call me "amazing," accuse me of spreading "nonsense," shift the goalposts over and over, and end with an "oh, goody."
Is this fun for you or something?
Yes, Matt, I was wrong, because I was using Baseball Cube as the basis of my statement, something I subsequently retracted. Just to make that clearer, I've changed the text above. I also overstepped when I said it was the worst shutout loss; corrections applied above.
But all that said, management still shows no signs of sending him back to AAA, where he clearly belongs.
But all that said, management still shows no signs of sending him back to AAA, where he clearly belongs.
Matt, you can say whatever you want to about the Angels management, and pretend that Scioscia's empty promissory notes amount to anything but gas, but they've consistently kept sending him out there. In fact, their post-break scheduling proves they every intention of letting him continue to fail, in that they have Santana starting in yet another road game, when they had the option of starting him at home in the short three-game homestand following the ASG.
Scioscia's statements about wanting production out of the rotation are meaningless until they actually yank some of the nonproducers.
Scioscia's statements about wanting production out of the rotation are meaningless until they actually yank some of the nonproducers.
And let's get back to that Pythagorean case: that's at least partly on the offense, but however you want to assign blame, the Angels are headed in the wrong direction. The easy thing to do, and for once the right thing to do, is to send Santana back to the minors.
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
Seitz, if you come over here to be a troll, you can go straight to oblivion.
Or failing that, apparently my comments can go straight to oblivion.
Seitz, if you come over here to be a troll, you can go straight to oblivion.
Or failing that, apparently my comments can go straight to oblivion.
Scioscia's statements about wanting production out of the rotation are meaningless until they actually yank some of the nonproducers.
No, they're not, and what a ridiculous standard you propose -- words tell us absolutely nothing about a manager's inclination until the moment they're backed by the deed I'm waiting for. Prior to this weekend, Scioscia was *not* chewing on AAA trial balloons for Santana. Now he is. That has "meaning," just like there was meaning when he said that Carrasco needed to shape up not long before he was DFA'd.
In fact, their post-break scheduling proves they every intention of letting him continue to fail, in that they have Santana starting in yet another road game, when they had the option of starting him at home in the short three-game homestand following the ASG.
Maybe it's because they, unlike you, do not believe in the existence of a real 2:1 skill differential between home and road, on account for there NEVER BEING ONE PREVIOUSLY IN MAJOR LEAGUE HISTORY. And let's look at your typically absolutist wording here -- their post-break scheduling proves they [have] every intention of letting him continue to fail. No, it does not "prove" that, not at all. It indicates that they don't believe in the McMillin home/road Santeria, and that Santana is still in the rotation for the moment, and that's it.
And let's get back to that Pythagorean case: that's at least partly on the offense, but however you want to assign blame, the Angels are headed in the wrong direction.
I don't think that's an assertable fact at all. Are the A's headed in the right direction because they clustered their run-scoring in a few huge blowouts, and therefore undershot their Pythag? I don't think so. Teams that are ripe for a Pythag correction are usually those that are disproportionately successful in one-run games. The Angels are .600 in one-run games, which is totally normal (they're only .545 in blowouts, which might just account for the whole stinkin' difference).
But yes, I think Santana should go to the minors.
No, they're not, and what a ridiculous standard you propose -- words tell us absolutely nothing about a manager's inclination until the moment they're backed by the deed I'm waiting for. Prior to this weekend, Scioscia was *not* chewing on AAA trial balloons for Santana. Now he is. That has "meaning," just like there was meaning when he said that Carrasco needed to shape up not long before he was DFA'd.
In fact, their post-break scheduling proves they every intention of letting him continue to fail, in that they have Santana starting in yet another road game, when they had the option of starting him at home in the short three-game homestand following the ASG.
Maybe it's because they, unlike you, do not believe in the existence of a real 2:1 skill differential between home and road, on account for there NEVER BEING ONE PREVIOUSLY IN MAJOR LEAGUE HISTORY. And let's look at your typically absolutist wording here -- their post-break scheduling proves they [have] every intention of letting him continue to fail. No, it does not "prove" that, not at all. It indicates that they don't believe in the McMillin home/road Santeria, and that Santana is still in the rotation for the moment, and that's it.
And let's get back to that Pythagorean case: that's at least partly on the offense, but however you want to assign blame, the Angels are headed in the wrong direction.
I don't think that's an assertable fact at all. Are the A's headed in the right direction because they clustered their run-scoring in a few huge blowouts, and therefore undershot their Pythag? I don't think so. Teams that are ripe for a Pythag correction are usually those that are disproportionately successful in one-run games. The Angels are .600 in one-run games, which is totally normal (they're only .545 in blowouts, which might just account for the whole stinkin' difference).
But yes, I think Santana should go to the minors.
Prior to this weekend, Scioscia was *not* chewing on AAA trial balloons for Santana.
The quote from Mike Scioscia, May 25:
Manager Mike Scioscia said the Angels' goal remains "to fix him." Scioscia did not directly answer the question of whether that might be better accomplished in triple A, but he indicated Santana would not have all summer to work through his struggles.
"This isn't going to be an instructional league for Ervin," he said.
A month goes by, and still no changes.
The quote from Mike Scioscia, May 25:
Manager Mike Scioscia said the Angels' goal remains "to fix him." Scioscia did not directly answer the question of whether that might be better accomplished in triple A, but he indicated Santana would not have all summer to work through his struggles.
"This isn't going to be an instructional league for Ervin," he said.
A month goes by, and still no changes.
I stand corrected.
See? Not so hard.
I still don't think that makes his words "meaningless." His latest quote has much more urgency.
See? Not so hard.
I still don't think that makes his words "meaningless." His latest quote has much more urgency.
Teams that are ripe for a Pythag correction are usually those that are disproportionately successful in one-run games. The Angels are .600 in one-run games, which is totally normal (they're only .545 in blowouts, which might just account for the whole stinkin' difference).
That's extremely comforting. I'll have to include that on my blog.
That's extremely comforting. I'll have to include that on my blog.
For what it's worth, Santana has made 8 starts since that May 24th quote by Scioscia (that was the previous 12-0 game). In the first five, he gave up 13 runs in 33.2 innings (3.48 ERA) and the team was 4-1 in that time (only losing a 2-1 game against the Dodgers). Three of those games were at home, two on the road and he dropped his season ERA from 6.00 to 5.06 (which is where it was immediately before the 12-0 blowout). In the three subsequent games (one at home, two on the road), he has 21 runs (18 earned) in 13.1 innings (12.15 ERA). The Angels have lost each and his ERA has jumped to 5.97. So it is entirely plausible that Scioscia made the comments on May 24, then Santana earned some slack in the first 5 games after, and has subsequently gone back to where he was after the first 12-0 blowout. This does not mean that Scioscia's words carry no weight, it just means that Santana worked himself off of the plane to Salt Lake and has worked himself back. If his next start is as rotten as the last few have been, he will be in Utah before you can say "Jered Weaver is becoming his brother Jeff."
i'm surprised that they've pencilled in Ervin for the Road after the break when they could have easily pitched him against texas at home this weekend.
But it makes sense on one count - a direct make-or-break challenge, Ervin's last stand. if he doesn't pitch a strong game, he's gone.
I have to beleive this is the intention.
But it makes sense on one count - a direct make-or-break challenge, Ervin's last stand. if he doesn't pitch a strong game, he's gone.
I have to beleive this is the intention.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.