Here Come The Angels
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 7:00 AM PDT
in News
21 comments
The Dodgers and Angels have an interesting rivalry. Because the two clubs are in separate leagues, there are several Dodger fans who also root for the Angels, and vice versa. However, there is some animosity there as well.
- The Angels of course have Mike Scioscia, the man who was groomed to be a manager in the Dodger organization after a long Dodger playing career, as their manager. This is a particularly sore point for Dodger fans, especially since Scioscia has led the Halos to five playoff appearances and one World Series win in his nine-year run at the helm.
- Even though they play in Anaheim, their owner Arte Moreno claimed Los Angeles as his own, created the most convoluted team name in professional sports
- Their coaching staff, under former Dodger Scioscia, has three former Dodgers
On the field, the Dodgers have lost 33 of their last 50 encounters with Los Angeles of Anaheim, and haven't won a season series -- they play six times per year -- since 1999. Let's take a look at this year's Angels
| 2009 Angels | |
| Record | 20-19, 2nd, 3 GB |
| Runs Scored/Gm |
4.90 (9th in AL) |
| wOBA | .336 (15th in MLB) |
| OPS+ | 97 |
| Runs Allowed/Gm | 4.92 (9th in AL) |
| FIP | 4.47 (15th in MLB) |
| ERA+ | 102 |
| Pythag Record | 19-20 |
The Angels' starting pitchers, despite missing significant time from Ervin Santana, John Lackey, Kelvim Escobar, and of course the tragic death of Nick Adenhart, have really produced. Angels' starters have a 3.93 ERA, good for third best in MLB.
Their problem has come from the bullpen, which has a 5.92 ERA, among the very worst in baseball. Scioscia met with his bullpen Wednesday, rearranging some roles in an attempt to shake things up. A bright spot for their bullpen has been the strikeouts: Brian Fuentes, Jose Arredondo, Jason Bulger, and Justin Speier are all averaging at least eight strikeouts per nine innings.
The Angel offense has been led by Torri Hunter (.321 EQA) and Mike Napoli, the greatest power-hitting catcher of all-time (!!!). The return of Vladimir Guerrero next week should help the Angels score runs -- they are ninth in the AL averaging 4.90 runs per game -- but that won't happen until after this interleague series. Matt Welch, in a post on Halos Heaven, made a compelling case for slugging minor leaguer Brandon Wood to be added to the fray.
The Dodgers are sending their three best starting pitchers to the mound this weekend, and they will see two of the Angels' best starters:
| Friday | Jered Weaver (3-2, 4.08 FIP) | vs. | Clayton Kershaw (2-3, 3.89 FIP) |
| Saturday | John Lackey (1-0. 5.20) | vs. | Randy Wolf (2-1, 3.73) |
| Sunday | Matt Palmer (5-0, 5.12) | vs. | Chad Billingsley (6-1, 2.97) |
Andre Ethier, currently mired in a six-for-53 slump, has hit .333/.381/.614 with five homers and 15 RBI in 18 career games against the Angels.
Here's recent video of the Angels in action:
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Peavy to White Sox might be near
According to reports, Peavy met with Bud Black last night to approve a trade.
The White Sox system is pretty thin, but they do have a couple of impact guys in SS Gordon Beckham (who can’t be traded until June 9 – he could be a PTBNL) and LHP Aaron Poreda. C Tyler Flowers, whom they got from the Braves in the Vazquez deal, would also be included most likely.
by silverwidow on May 21, 2009 7:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Buster Olney reported Beckham is not part of the deal. He passed along a report than Poreda and Clayton Richard will be part of the deal though.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+++?
Eric,
Do you think OPS+ and ERA+ have any meaning during the season? Do you know how b-r calculates them (even after one game)?
Thanks.
by Paul Scott on May 21, 2009 8:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I suppose with unbalanced schedules
some of the meaning is lost.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you tell me
what are the reasons OPS+ and ERA+ don’t have any meaning during the season? Is it just a sample size issue, or unbalanced schedules, or what?
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a few issues
1. They are park adjusted. But they are not park adjusted on something like a 5-year average, or a regression, they are adjusted to 2009 park effects. You can’t know 2009 park effects until most of 2009 is over.
2. the schedule imbalance adds to the problem above. It also, of course, introduces its own problems that would still exist in just using OPS alone or using OPS/lgOPS (not park adjusted), but I think that is less significant than the former.
Basically, for adjustments – like park adjustments – to have meaning, you need to assume complete randomness in opposition talent. That really doesn’t happen even by season’s end, but at least it is a lot better. So early in the season, something like a park adjustment is really being overwhelmed by the noise. Has, for example, the Dodger opposition been putting up essentially equal pitching and defense when playing at DS and when playing away? Only 40 games into the season – almost certainly not.
Park adjustments are problematic all on their own. Even after a full season has passed. This could be accounted for by extending the adjustment to cover a 3 (or 5 or 10, etc.) year span and by forcing a regression. But it isn’t done. (Of course, with parks changing so frequently these days, even the above is problematic). I agree that some park adjustment is better than none on a season’s worth of data. Even if the error is high, we still know that DS and CF are radically different environments, such that treating them as equal is clearly more wrong than using an adjustment (that shows statistical significance from NH). But right now, at this point in the season, adjusting for park the way it is done is very likely reducing then meaning of OPS and ERA, rather than enhancing it.
I’d suggest just using OPS and ERA raw. Or, if you want to show how a team is doing relative to its league, use something like OPS/lgOPS (not park adjusted) or just use league rankings in OPS and ERA. Better yet, use some sort of LWTS, such as wOBA. But I really think using OPS+ and ERA+ is providing potentially misleading information.
by Paul Scott on May 21, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
Paul, thanks for the in-depth explanation. I added wOBA and FIP to the table above.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andre needs this kind of game
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/LAN/LAN200605190.shtml
It was only his 14th game of his career, one of the best individual performances I’d seen in person from a first year player. He pulled a few wings of the Angels in that game.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on May 21, 2009 8:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ned Colletti
is on the Dan Patrick show right now.
I’ll put up a link to the interview later.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 8:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ned’s son, Lou, is a scout for the Giants. I did not know that.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
I wonder how often that happens. I have no idea if Lou is a great scout or a terrible one or somewhere in between. It is, of course, not all that unexpected. Nepotism happens everywhere and there is some efficiency to be derived from it. I do wonder how prevalent it is in MLB, however.
by Paul Scott on May 21, 2009 9:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The interesting thing is
he was hired as a scout after Colletti left SF. But I’m sure he got his foot in the door because of the name.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
and again, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. So I am not intending to be critical of Lou’s scouting talent. I am just sort of curious how many scouts are “family”.
by Paul Scott on May 21, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw
and I may have mentioned this before, but I really love how this comments section auto-updates and threads. It’s especially nice during game threads.
by Paul Scott on May 21, 2009 9:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The SB Nation tech team
has been wonderful and gives us a ton of support. I love that too, especially during game threads. It makes for a much more convenient flow of commentary.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't we kind of hose Scoiscia?
Didn’t we go with Bill Russell (!) instead of Scoiscia and isn’t that why when the Angels offered him the job he took it?
In that case I don’t know how I’m upset at Scoiscia about this. I’m more upset with the Fox Group (oh that damned FG!) about this.
by Seanny Rotten on May 21, 2009 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's just a general anger
not directed at Scioscia, but rather directed at the Dodgers that he was essentially pushed away.
The kicker is that he’s been successful in the Dodgers’ backyard.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scoiscia
may have had a lot of success, but he also actively talks all the wrong things – manufacturing runs, clutch hitting, etc. He has affirmatively downplayed the importance of walks and OBP. He is the opposite of what we would want in a manager. Torre, for example, has serious problems with BP use and pitching, generally. But his offensive approach is as close to dead on as you could hope. I think we are a lot better off having never had him as a manager. His bad managing combined with almost legend-like popularity would have doomed the Dodgers to decades of small ball.
by Paul Scott on May 21, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scioscia
Not sure how the author of this blog entry can add Scioscia to the list of reasons for animosity between the two clubs’ fans. The Dodgers were the dumbasses who fired Scioscia in the first place. It’s not like the Angels stole him from them.
And for the above poster – Paul – it’s easy to say what you’re saying only because of recent success. The Dodgers would have been much more successful had they taken a Scioscia approach over the last several years. And by the way, while Torre was still with the Yankees, he was regularly outmanaged by Scioscia in the season and playoffs.
Maybe the Dodgers have finally gotten the ship righted, but recent years have featured revolving door for managers and GMs. Scioscia would have put an end to that years ago.
by The Duder on May 21, 2009 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s not that the Dodgers are mad at the Angels because of Scioscia…it’s just that they are mad that Scioscia wasn’t kept as a Dodger.
He’s in the Dodgers’ backyard, and has been successful.
Every time the two teams play, it’s like opening an old wound. Not necessarily animosity toward the Angels, but animosity nonetheless.
by Eric Stephen on May 21, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
Related FanShots on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
