
Ah, that picture conjures up awful memories of the 2008 ALDS' failed squeeze play, eh? Remember when
this happened? It was a tough end to a really impressive season, and we've been living with it ever since that warm October 6th evening. As we turn the page and move into a new calendar year, the Orange County Register (OCR) has blessed us with an article from Sam A. Miller that explains what he calls "The Angels' Resolutions for 2009." I just love when websites put out their articles about what the Angels should do, as showcased by the
LSF critique of Angels.com's winter meetings request sheet in December '08. This time around, Miller of the OCR spouts off things that the Angels need to do (or not do) to make 2009 a better season than their 100 win campaign in 2008 (couldn't you have just made it one resolution: win in the playoffs?). Anyway, if you are a faithful reader of the blog, you know that I love to try and blow these "experts" to pieces, so here we go again:
1. Don't play for one run against Boston! I've been wanting to say this for a long time. The problem wasn't just that Erick Aybar missed the suicide squeeze bunt. It's that Mike Scioscia had Howie Kendrick sacrifice Reggie Willits to third base one batter earlier. The Red Sox are too powerful to play for one run against- the Angels should have been playing to put the dagger in after a leadoff double. Indeed, after Kendrick got the bunt down successfully, the Angels chance of winning actually decreased- from 67% to 66%. Aybar has been unfairly maligned.
I guess my version of this resolution would be: Fire Mike "Lorri" Scioscia. He makes bad coaching decision after bad coaching decision, and I for one am sick of it. However, I'll play my own devil's advocate in this one. After Kendry's huge pinch hit double off the monster, we had HK47 (0 for 3 in the game, .118 in the series), Erick Aybar (1 for 4 in the game, .111 in the series), and Chone Figgins (2 for 4 in the game, .333 in the series) due up. When the score is 2-2 in the top of the ninth and it has been close, why wouldn't you play for one run? Shields was on the mound, and hadn't given up an inch to that point in relief. You have two guys coming up, who outside of Aybar's game winner the previous game had done nothing in the series. I know they may have gotten that special hit when it mattered, but looking at the numbers, you were going to be waiting on Chone Figgins to deliver the big one anyway. So, the correct move in the situation would have been to have HK sacrifice Willits (who pinch ran, by the way) over to third (which he did), and then to have Aybar and Figgins both go up swinging away. Of course, Lorri likes to put the run on contact play on with one out and a runner at third anyways, so it may not have mattered even if EA would have grounded one to the infield. Aybar didn't execute, obviously, but the issue was not that the Angels were playing for a single run.
2. Pile on! The 2008 Angels outperformed their run differential in a dozen wins, in large part because of excellent bullpen work in close games. But also because anytime they took a big lead, or fell behind, they started hitting like a team of Neifi Perezes. Anytime the margin of the game was four runs or more, the Angels hit .231/.290/.371. Their pitchers weren't much better, letting opponents hit .280/.340/.450.
This doesn't seem like much more of a resolution than Miller's first, but I wonder why he would even bring this up. Do you think that the Angels weren't trying to add more runs whenever they could? Don't you think that they wanted to increase their run differential? This doesn't have as much to do with something the Angels could have changed, as it does luck. I don't remember the Halos laying down with a 2 run lead during the '08 season. Also, why are you going to hate on Neifi Perez in this resolution? What the hell did the guy do to you? Oh wait, is this supposed to be a joke because Perez didn't play in 2008? If so, that's dumb too. Get this Miller: The Angels are a pitching/defense oriented squad. That is how they win, and winning with a one run lead is just as good as winning with a ten run lead, so what does it matter?
3. Steal smarter! Sure, the Angels steal bases- 129, the second most in the American League. But no big league team with more than 115 steals had such a low stolen base percentage as the Angels. Indeed, the Phillies stoled seven more bases than the Angels and were caught 23 fewer times. It's cool to steal bases, but getting caught is so 1970.
Boy, that last sentence is so funny! My version of this resolution is really just don't steal. The Angels were caught more than all but two other teams in the bigs (48 times, which is actually better than last year's caught stealing by 7), and the teams who stole more than the Halos include such winners as Colorado and the Mets (don't notice the Rays who are stealing not only bases but the Angels botched philosophy and the Phillies who beat the Angels by 7). Now those are big time teams. The only squads to make the playoffs in the top 5 in steals were the Angels, Phillies, and Rays. Other teams that owned the swiping included, the Yanks, the Giants, the Brewers, the Mariners, and the Astros (what a list of winners!). The team that beat us, Boston, was ranked 7th with 120, but that had a lot to do with their new rookies (as they gained almost 30 stolen bases from 2007). Stealing doesn't equal winning. Hitting and running at appropriate times (like to avoid a double play or to get first to third) does equal winning. Sure, stealing builds pressure, but when you are caught more than any team in the bigs, I think you can be sure that they're on to you.
4. Get the leadoff hitter on! The Angels' leadoff hitter did a good job getting on base, except in the first inning. Chone Figgins et al only managed a .321 on base percentage to start off the game. Angels generally struggled leading off any inning, reaching at just a .313 clip. Oddly enough, Figgins and the rest of the leadoff hitters were excellent after that first at bat; they posted a .374 OBP after the first inning. Odd.
Does Miller know anything about baseball? To say that it is odd that hitters get on base more often after seeing the pitcher through the lineup at least once, proves that he doesn't. But seriously, how original does he feel to point out that the Angels have problems with their leadoff hitter? If you read this blog, you know that I've had that problem with the Red Hats for years. Chone Figgins finished #6 in the MLB in leadoff percentage for leadoff hitters in 2008, which was much better than 2007 (somewhere outside the top 11), 2006 (#19), even with 2005 (#6), and better than the Angels 2004 leadoff man (Eckstein) who finished #10 that year. I have long enjoyed pointing out that the Angels have had a problem with Figgins in the leadoff spot, but I was also man enough to point out that he put it together in 2008. Not to mention, Figgins finished with an OBP of .333 in the postseason (beating studs like Jimmy Rollins, Jacoby Ellsbury, Orlando Cabrera, and Alfonso Soriano). Granted, you usually can poke holes in the Angels leadoff hitters, but of all the years in recent memory this is not the year that you would be right. Sorry, Miller.
5. Rake with the bases loaded! The Angels had too many at bats like Vladimir Guerrero's with the bases loaded. As a team, they hit .270/.318/.423 with the bases loaded, worse than the league average in such situations. On the other hand, their pitchers were excellent with the bases loaded. They held batters to .267/.327/.366.
This guy likes to pretend that he is a stat head, doesn't he? But, here with are with another "resolution" that the Angels can't necessarily improve by just deciding to do it. Of course they tried to "rake" with the bases loaded. I know that there were a couple of big times when the Angels would walk away with one or none with the sacks full of Halos, but with every resolution I start to realize that Miller only must have watched the postseason when putting this list together. I guess you can point out the .270 average with the bases loaded and sound like you know how to critique a baseball team, but what if we look at the Angels with runners in scoring position (easily an equally important stat)? The Angels hit .279/.357/.418 with runners in scoring position, which was good enough for #6 in the entire MLB. The average was .266/.354/.413. Whoops! The Angels are good. When you even look closer (runners in scoring position with two outs), the Angels may drop to .245 (#12 in the MLB), but they are still up on the average of .240. Getting hits with the bases loaded isn't some magical stat, it matter what you do with runners in scoring range, and the Angels aren't nearly as below average as Miller makes them sound.
6. Get one or two hits from the pitchers! Sure, their job is to pitch, not to hit. But the Angels' pitchers went 0 for 21 in 2008. They did have a .045 on-base percentage, which is exactly 45 points higher than you or I would have gotten. American League pitchers as a whole hit .114 during interleague play, so the Angels definitely have room to improve.
Miller does two things that I hate in this resolution. First, he came up with a really stupid way for the Angels to improve. This sounds like he was running out of ideas and trying to find areas where the Halos were below average. Have the pitchers get hits? Are you kidding me? The Angels went 10-8 during Interleague play. 10-8! What the hell is wrong with that? Sure you can be better than 10-8, 7 teams did that in the American League, but having your pitchers get more hits is not the answer. Oh yeah, the second thing he did that I hate is to make a comment like, "Which is exactly 45 points higher than you or I would have gotten." This is always an attempt to by humble by people talking about sports, but in reality, when we compare athletes were are talking about a realm where they should be doing as well as their potential would allow. It has nothing to do with us. We don't have to make excuses because we aren't professional athletes. More than that, though, Angels pitchers getting hits has nothing to do with the team's success.
7. Give the kids a real chance! Brandon Wood struggled, to be sure. But he only started three or more consecutive games three times. He may be a bust, he may be the next big thing, but it's difficult to take away all the excuses and see if the kid can hit in the majors. He's hit everywhere else. (Same goes for Kendry Morales and Sean Rodriguez).
If you know me, and read the LSF, you know that I'm not going to argue with Sam A. Miller on this point. I couldn't agree with him more. I only want to point out two things: 1) Why does this guy, who is a professional writer, use so many exclamation points? 2) How about adding some names to the list besides those three, like Jeff Mathis, Matt Brown, and Terry Evans? Not to mention Juan Rivera.
8. Shut down the AL West! The Angels' division rivlas were awful last year, but still the Angels pitchers struggled against the A's, Mariners, and Rangers. Those three teams torched the Angels for a 4.51 ERA, compared to 3.73 against everyone else. The AL West should be more competitive this year, so the Angels need to beat up on their division opponents. And, yes, Dusting Moseley is reacting to a home run by the Mariners in that photo.
I guess without the photo, that last sentence doesn't make sense, but that isn't Miller's fault. This resolution is another huge example of how Miller fails to look further than stats that he thinks prove his point, and that is his fault. What a classic act of deception to paint the picture that the Angels played poorly against the AL West by simply comparing the ERA against the West versus that against everyone else. Too bad he didn't look at the records against the AL West, which finished with the Angels on top 36-21. That is a 63% winning margin against the division, and that isn't bad at all. I think anyone would be happy going 36-21 against your rivals, eh? That record is extra special considering a lowly .231 average against Oakland, but pretty practical when you consider the .296 hitting against Texas and the .298 hitting against the M's. Come on Miller, look a little deeper, you can pitch less effectively is you smash the ball to back your hurlers up.
9. Manage the lineup better! The Angels' least productive spot in the batting order was the ninth spot. So far, so good. The next least productive? Second. Uh oh. Look at it this way: Gary Matthews Jr, Erick Aybar, and the rest of the #2 hitters got 100 more plate appearances than the eighth hitter, who combined for 60 more points of OPS. Lineup construction is an overrate art, but nearly everyone agreed that good hitters should bat more often than bad hitters.
I took special care to point out lineup issues created by Mike "Lorri" Scioscia during the 2008 season, so I get where Miller is coming from with this one. Let's take a look at the #2 hitters that shined for the Angels to present a positive way to move forward, rather than just a sarcastic complaint, eh? Maicer Izturis was DL crazy during the 2008 season, including going down for the season with a torn left thumb ligament on August 15. Izzy was hitting .352 in 18 games as the #2 hitter (that's 71 ABs). Then, as much as I was against it, Garret Anderson ripped at .344 in the 2 hole. I know he's gone, so if you don't like the Ma$e answer, how about plugging in our new everyday first baseman? Kendry Morales hit .333 as the #2 hitter in 2008 (of course, with a small sample size), and could shine as a precursor to Vlad in the order and a power hitting #2 guy who can get on base (see game 4 of the ALDS). Speaking of the #8 guy, Maicer was hitting 1.000 as the #8 hitter in 2008. Face!
10. Trade for Mark Teixeira! OK, so maybe not Teixeira, or even anyone else who can match his .358/.449/.632. But as I noted in an earlier slide show (that's right, this isn't really an article, it's a slide show with Miller's witty comments), the Angels have done a dreadful job addressing holes mid-season. Trading for Teixeira was costly, but it was a desperately needed fix. The Angels should be ready to pull the trigger again. Chipper Jones, anybody?
So many problems with his grand finale. Let's start with what he got right, "Trading for Teixeria was costly." The Angels front office have always promised that they would not trade talented an promising youth for a rental player. They lied. They lied, and any Angels fan who wants to trust what they say again before seeing what they do with their own eyes, is a fool. So, was Teixeria "desperately needed?" Well, the Angels were in first place before they got him. They finished in first place with him. They fell out of the first round playoffs against the Red Sox, just like they did when they didn't have him. Yeah, he hit well, played the field well, and was fun to watch. But, in the end, did he really add anything to our squad? The obvious answer is no, as the Angels could have finished first in the pathetic AL West and then lost in Round 1 of the playoffs without him. The Angels don't need to have their finger on the trigger for a trade. They don't need it. They're going to win the West with what they have right now. Get it? On a similar topic, please don't buy into the hype about the competition in the AL West getting so much better. Yes, the A's got Matt Holiday. Anything else? When it all starts, the Rangers have a weak outfield (Boggs, Hamilton, and Murphy), the M's infield is weaker (Beltre, Betancourt, Lopez, and LaHair), and the A's still feature a mostly nameless rotation (Duchscherer, Eveland, Gallagher, Gonzalez, Braden, or Outman, take your pick). Take a look at the depth charts, and explain to me how the Angels aren't going to walk away with the AL West again. I dare you.
So that's it. That's the latest in LSF vs. posts where we take on other website's articles about our favorite teams. First I beat down the ADC (Angels Dot Com), and now the OCR is my latest victim. Who wants to be next? ESPN? Too easy.
Meanwhile, I posted this while watching the big upset of Slovakia over the US in the World Junior semifinals. It was sad to watch the 3-5 defeat that ended our run, and even more sad to listen to those Eastern Canadians cheering every time things turned for the worse for the Red, White, and Blue. Good luck against Sweden, you Slovak bastards.