PDA

View Full Version : Why are the Angels so good?



Cedric
07-21-2009, 11:14 PM
Year to year they are arguably the most consistent/best team.

Lackey was hurt and isn't dominating. Escobar is hurt all year. Santana is a mess. Vlad isn't killing the ball and Shields is struggling in the pen. No K-Rod. And yet they are again winning their division and looking like a guarantee playoff team.

Is it all on Scoscia? Is it the style of aggressive baseball that wears other teams down over 162 games? I'm just confused as to why this team consistently wins no matter what they have going wrong.

I tend to think it's the pressure they put on other teams and their usual great bullpen. Their style of hitting seems to force other teams to make mistakes. I also think they way they practice running the bases is a huge component of why they scrap out wins.

Anyone got any ideas that I left out?

RBA
07-21-2009, 11:28 PM
Because they are not the Reds?

M2
07-21-2009, 11:49 PM
A soft division helps, but Scioscia definitely deserves a ton of credit for the job he does. He gets pretty much the best out of everybody who comes through there. The Angels coaching staff does a real nice job of finding whatever it is a player needs to step up his game a level.

Edskin
07-21-2009, 11:54 PM
Good organizations find ways, period. They find the right players to fill gaps, they find the right leaders (manager) to put those players in the best position to succeed. When the pitching stinks on a given night, they win 9-8. When they can't hit, they win 2-1.

Quality leadership filters down from top to bottom.

westofyou
07-21-2009, 11:58 PM
Partly because they play a majority of their games against bad or poor franchises is one reason I think.

36% of their wins were in the division in 2008, 34% IN 2007, 44% IN 2006, 36% IN 2005, 37% in 2004.

Cedric
07-22-2009, 12:07 AM
Partly because they play a majority of their games against bad or poor franchises is one reason I think.

36% of their wins were in the division in 2008, 34% IN 2007, 44% IN 2006, 36% IN 2005, 37% in 2004.

But they seem to own the Yankees. Arguably the best team in baseball. Saying they win because of division alone seems simplistic, IMO.

paintmered
07-22-2009, 12:13 AM
It's all about the monkey.

http://www.monkeymatters.com/trellix/rally_monkey.jpg

That, and they have seven players with an OBP of .350 or better (including four at over .380). They have four guys slugging at over .500. Sure enough, the Angels are 3rd in runs scored so far this year.

Chip R
07-22-2009, 12:14 AM
But they seem to own the Yankees. Arguably the best team in baseball. Saying they win because of division alone seems simplistic, IMO.


Since when have the Yankees been the best team in baseball?

Cedric
07-22-2009, 12:15 AM
Since when have the Yankees been the best team in baseball?

I think they are this year. And they have the second best record in the hardest division.

Chip R
07-22-2009, 12:17 AM
I think they are this year. And they have the second best record in the hardest division.

Even if that's true, they haven't exactly lived up to their hype the last several years.

M2
07-22-2009, 12:40 AM
But they seem to own the Yankees. Arguably the best team in baseball. Saying they win because of division alone seems simplistic, IMO.

They definitely win the division every season because of the division. Put them in the East or Central and they'd be on the outside of the playoff picture as often as not.

Here's where the Angels fall in the AL pythag rankings in recent years:

2009 - T-6th
2008 - 6th
2007 - 4th
2006 - 9th
2005 - T-2nd
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 8th
2002 - 1st

Good team for sure, but it's best years were 2002-2005 (feel free to call them the Darin Erstad Years).

BuckeyeRedleg
07-22-2009, 05:28 AM
I don't know, but it must be nice to only have to worry about three other teams every year.

That gives them decent odds, just right there.

osuceltic
07-22-2009, 09:06 AM
Good defensively, great on the basepaths, execute when they need to execute, traditionally good bullpen. Those, by the way, are common denominators among most of the "why are they so good" teams. It's the stuff that doesn't get noticed unless you watch them every day.

bucksfan2
07-22-2009, 09:09 AM
The Angles will fundamental you to death. They play good defense, run the bases well, have good bats in the lineup, have good pitching depth, and have a good farm system. They really do it without breaking the bank and have done it over the past decade. I think they are very similar to the Twins, just with a little more cash.

RedsManRick
07-22-2009, 09:24 AM
The short answer: No black holes. The only guy they had who was killing them was Howie Kendrick who is now in AAA. The Reds put their black holes at the top of the lineup. It's really hard to overstate how much damage is done by giving regular playing time to sub-replacement players.

That said, they are 4 games over their pythag -- perhaps its just a few big blowouts, but they are unlikely to sustain a .578 pace when playing .533 quality ball.

This helps too:
2009: $113,709,000
2008: $119,216,333
2007: $109,251,333
2006: $103,472,000
2005: $ 97,725,322
2004: $100,534,667
2003: $ 79,031,667
2002: $ 61,721,667
2001: $ 47,735,167
2000: $ 55,800,000

Being able to afford a $10M 4th OF is handy. This is really where the payroll is helpful -- not necessarily in building your core of talent, but being able to smooth over your mistakes.

M2
07-22-2009, 10:40 AM
The Angels actually aren't a great defensive team. Here's their AL DER ranks in recent seasons:

2009 - 11th
2008 - 5th
2007 - 12th
2006 - 6th
2005 - 7th
2004 - 7th
2003 - 5th
2002 - 1st

They've gone from top drawer to average to poor in recent years, but that violates baseball's rules of myth-making. When you win, you play good (possibly great) defense. That double play you turned in the 7th inning becomes emblematic of your excellence at the game's fundamentals. Meanwhile the double play the Royals turned in the 7th inning gets forgotten because KC doesn't have the hitting and pitching you do.

Meanwhile, the errors and baserunning mistakes KC makes become emblematic of their inability to execute, while the errors and baserunning mistakes of a good team get excused because "they make the plays when it counts." It's the silliest rationale in the world, one that filters everything through a W-L filter. A team may not make any more fielding or baserunning plays than its competition, but when it has the hitting and pitching right everyone credits it with impeccable timing.

blumj
07-22-2009, 11:39 AM
The short answer: No black holes. The only guy they had who was killing them was Howie Kendrick who is now in AAA. The Reds put their black holes at the top of the lineup. It's really hard to overstate how much damage is done by giving regular playing time to sub-replacement players.

That said, they are 4 games over their pythag -- perhaps its just a few big blowouts, but they are unlikely to sustain a .578 pace when playing .533 quality ball.

This helps too:
2009: $113,709,000
2008: $119,216,333
2007: $109,251,333
2006: $103,472,000
2005: $ 97,725,322
2004: $100,534,667
2003: $ 79,031,667
2002: $ 61,721,667
2001: $ 47,735,167
2000: $ 55,800,000

Being able to afford a $10M 4th OF is handy. This is really where the payroll is helpful -- not necessarily in building your core of talent, but being able to smooth over your mistakes.
They also almost never do what everyone wants them to do: trade away young players just because they're not using them at the moment, they hoard them until they're needed. So, they have depth, legitimate talent to use when players get injured.

redsfandan
07-24-2009, 07:00 AM
I don't know, but it must be nice to only have to worry about three other teams every year.

That gives them decent odds, just right there.
If only they would fix that...:rant2: