![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Saturday, October 26, 2002
Posted
4:15 PM
by Sean
Incidentally, I really do have a ticket to Game 7. Fortunately, I have a ticket voucher from Southwest Airlines that's good any time, so I didn't have to shell out for a plane ticket without knowing whether the game would be played. I just finished making reservations (which I can cancel at no penalty if there's no Game 7). Thanks to absurd laws governing flights from Love Field, however, my itinerary includes, tomorrow, departing at 9:20 Central Time, flying to Alburquerque, flying to Phoenix, and then flying to Orange County, arriving at 12:50 Pacific Time. My return, on Monday, puts me on a 6:45 a.m. flight out of Orange County, a stop in Phoenix, a plane change in El Paso, and a return to Dallas at 3:25. Needless to say, any updates after Game 7 will be delayed.
Incidentally, I really do have a ticket to Game 7. Fortunately, I have a ticket voucher from Southwest Airlines that's good any time, so I didn't have to shell out for a plane ticket without knowing whether the game would be played. I just finished making reservations (which I can cancel at no penalty if there's no Game 7). Thanks to absurd laws governing flights from Love Field, however, my itinerary includes, tomorrow, departing at 9:20 Central Time, flying to Alburquerque, flying to Phoenix, and then flying to Orange County, arriving at 12:50 Pacific Time. My return, on Monday, puts me on a 6:45 a.m. flight out of Orange County, a stop in Phoenix, a plane change in El Paso, and a return to Dallas at 3:25. Needless to say, any updates after Game 7 will be delayed.
Posted
4:10 PM
by Sean
Tonight, Game 6. Kevin Appier v. Russ Ortiz. Again. The last time this happened, we got an 11-10 slugfest. Tonight, well...
Appier says that he's identified a slight flaw in his mechanics from that 11-10 game, and that's good, I suppose, but I think that at this point just about every starter the Angels have is out of gas. There's really no reason to believe that Appier will be any more crisp this time around, just as there's no reason to believe Ortiz will, either. So this one will likely come down to a battle of the bullpens again, and the Angels can't rely on Weber, who has looked completely cashed in during his last two appearances. They can probably get some work out of Donnelly, Schoeneweis, Rodriguez, and Percival (especially Percival). But the Appier-Ortiz portion of the game could result in a swing of several runs either way. Dice-tossing time.
Tonight, Game 6. Kevin Appier v. Russ Ortiz. Again. The last time this happened, we got an 11-10 slugfest. Tonight, well...
Appier says that he's identified a slight flaw in his mechanics from that 11-10 game, and that's good, I suppose, but I think that at this point just about every starter the Angels have is out of gas. There's really no reason to believe that Appier will be any more crisp this time around, just as there's no reason to believe Ortiz will, either. So this one will likely come down to a battle of the bullpens again, and the Angels can't rely on Weber, who has looked completely cashed in during his last two appearances. They can probably get some work out of Donnelly, Schoeneweis, Rodriguez, and Percival (especially Percival). But the Appier-Ortiz portion of the game could result in a swing of several runs either way. Dice-tossing time.
Posted
3:57 PM
by Sean
Fresh on the heels of scolding Jason Christiansen (see below), Sandy Alderson gets on top of the children in the dugouts issue. Except, of course, he doesn't, not really. Essentially, it boils down to "keep a closer eye on the kids." If I was a Giants fan, I'd be thrilled that my manager is okay with dividing his time that way.
Fresh on the heels of scolding Jason Christiansen (see below), Sandy Alderson gets on top of the children in the dugouts issue. Except, of course, he doesn't, not really. Essentially, it boils down to "keep a closer eye on the kids." If I was a Giants fan, I'd be thrilled that my manager is okay with dividing his time that way.
Friday, October 25, 2002
Posted
4:18 PM
by Sean
Okay, now that all that bile is expelled, I'm going to take Dean Chance's advice and forget about it. Time to kick Russ Ortiz's ass tomorrow night.
Okay, now that all that bile is expelled, I'm going to take Dean Chance's advice and forget about it. Time to kick Russ Ortiz's ass tomorrow night.
Posted
4:15 PM
by Sean
And now, a few words about the dumbest moments of this, or any, World Series. First of all, the entire idea of ranking baseball's most memorable moments is a concept of staggering doltishness to begin with. Why in God's name do we care what most people perceive as "most memorable?" What, exactly, do we do with that information? Is there some point to this, beyond demonstrating to the masses that baseball can put on pre-game festivities that are every bit as turgid and loud as the Super Bowl's?
Then again, judging from the reaction Pete Rose got, I suspect that the masses wouldn't know their asses from a hole in the ground if you gave them a textbook on telling them difference and sent them to an adult-education class. Rose bet on the Reds, a violation that carries an automatic punishment of being declared permanently ineligible, agreed to a settlement in which he agreed not to contest the ban, and is manifestly unrepentant about the whole thing. Nuts to Pete Rose.
And nuts to MLB, too, for delaying the start of this game until after 8:30 Eastern Time for this foolishness. Are they really so irony-impaired that they don't see anything wrong with letting this vapid twaddle ensure that millions of people who don't want to stay up until midnight won't see the end of the game? Better celebrate those memories, pal, 'cause you sure ain't gonna be making any new ones. If kids on the East Coast hadn't already been irretrievably lost to basketball and football, this had to have pushed them over the edge.
Finally, while we're on the subject of children, the daycare that is the Giants' dugout is ridiculous - and dangerous. J.T. Snow shouldn't have to worry about plucking the manager's three-year-old son out of danger as he crosses the plate.
And now, a few words about the dumbest moments of this, or any, World Series. First of all, the entire idea of ranking baseball's most memorable moments is a concept of staggering doltishness to begin with. Why in God's name do we care what most people perceive as "most memorable?" What, exactly, do we do with that information? Is there some point to this, beyond demonstrating to the masses that baseball can put on pre-game festivities that are every bit as turgid and loud as the Super Bowl's?
Then again, judging from the reaction Pete Rose got, I suspect that the masses wouldn't know their asses from a hole in the ground if you gave them a textbook on telling them difference and sent them to an adult-education class. Rose bet on the Reds, a violation that carries an automatic punishment of being declared permanently ineligible, agreed to a settlement in which he agreed not to contest the ban, and is manifestly unrepentant about the whole thing. Nuts to Pete Rose.
And nuts to MLB, too, for delaying the start of this game until after 8:30 Eastern Time for this foolishness. Are they really so irony-impaired that they don't see anything wrong with letting this vapid twaddle ensure that millions of people who don't want to stay up until midnight won't see the end of the game? Better celebrate those memories, pal, 'cause you sure ain't gonna be making any new ones. If kids on the East Coast hadn't already been irretrievably lost to basketball and football, this had to have pushed them over the edge.
Finally, while we're on the subject of children, the daycare that is the Giants' dugout is ridiculous - and dangerous. J.T. Snow shouldn't have to worry about plucking the manager's three-year-old son out of danger as he crosses the plate.
Posted
3:32 PM
by Sean
Ugh. See yesterday's entry.
See also the entry from Game 3, and substitute the word "wrong" for the word "right," and put the word "not" next to every verb.
Ugh. See yesterday's entry.
See also the entry from Game 3, and substitute the word "wrong" for the word "right," and put the word "not" next to every verb.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
Posted
2:37 PM
by Sean
I've actually had this weblog since May, and wrote the occasional piece to post as a kind of experiment - do I want to write about baseball every day, or even every week? I've turned the archives off primarily because the previous postings were so sporadic that they're pretty much worthless - an Angels game here, an outbreak of steroids allegations there. Now, of course, with the Angels in their first-ever World Series, I wish I'd been more diligent about it all.
Right now, however, I'm reminded of one of the major reasons I have a hard time writing daily about this topic. When the Angels lose, it's a lot harder to relive it, drag out the mistakes and look at them in the sunshine (or in the fog, anyway - the weather here sucks right now). I'd really rather wait until there's good news.
Unfortunately, it was Giants 4, Angels 3 last night. This one hurt, for a lot of reasons. Obviously, being up 3-1 is a whole lot better than being tied 2-2, even if two of the last three are at home. And it's never pleasant to lose a three-run lead, even if two of the critical "hits" involved (Rueter and Lofton) were entirely matters of luck. Most frustrating, though, is the knowledge that the Angels shut down Barry Bonds to no avail. Of course, when you're talking about Bonds, "shut down" is a relative term, but in general they got away with walking him when they walked him, and got away with pitching to him when they pitched to him. That may not happen again.
There is one silver lining for me personally in all this - I have a ticket to Game 7. If it goes that far, I'll be flying to Anaheim Sunday to see my first postseason game, and my first game in Anaheim. I'm still rooting for the Angels in six.
I've actually had this weblog since May, and wrote the occasional piece to post as a kind of experiment - do I want to write about baseball every day, or even every week? I've turned the archives off primarily because the previous postings were so sporadic that they're pretty much worthless - an Angels game here, an outbreak of steroids allegations there. Now, of course, with the Angels in their first-ever World Series, I wish I'd been more diligent about it all.
Right now, however, I'm reminded of one of the major reasons I have a hard time writing daily about this topic. When the Angels lose, it's a lot harder to relive it, drag out the mistakes and look at them in the sunshine (or in the fog, anyway - the weather here sucks right now). I'd really rather wait until there's good news.
Unfortunately, it was Giants 4, Angels 3 last night. This one hurt, for a lot of reasons. Obviously, being up 3-1 is a whole lot better than being tied 2-2, even if two of the last three are at home. And it's never pleasant to lose a three-run lead, even if two of the critical "hits" involved (Rueter and Lofton) were entirely matters of luck. Most frustrating, though, is the knowledge that the Angels shut down Barry Bonds to no avail. Of course, when you're talking about Bonds, "shut down" is a relative term, but in general they got away with walking him when they walked him, and got away with pitching to him when they pitched to him. That may not happen again.
There is one silver lining for me personally in all this - I have a ticket to Game 7. If it goes that far, I'll be flying to Anaheim Sunday to see my first postseason game, and my first game in Anaheim. I'm still rooting for the Angels in six.
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
Posted
3:52 PM
by Sean
Tonight, it's John Lackey vs. Kirk Rueter. Lackey was a Godsend for the Angels, coming in around the middle of the year and going 9-4 after Schoeneweis was "demoted" to the bullpen (where he did quite well). He's been very consistent, in that he's never had a nuclear meltdown of a game, and usually works 6 innings or so with 2 or 3 earned runs.
Rueter, meanwhile, has also had a very good year, though he's looked vulnerable in the postseason. He's also the first left-hander the Giants have thrown at the Angels, and the Angels have been hell on lefties this year. The primary question for Scioscia in making out the lineup will be whether or not to replace Adam Kennedy at second base with Benji Gil - the two of them platooned during much of the year, but by the end Kennedy was hitting left-handers so well that he got the occasional start against them. Gil had a pinch-single last night, and I suspect Scioscia will start him, since this will leave him AK as an option in the late innings if Dusty Baker puts in a right-handed reliever (between Kennedy and Fullmer, who will also be on the bench, those are some pretty nice options).
Tonight, it's John Lackey vs. Kirk Rueter. Lackey was a Godsend for the Angels, coming in around the middle of the year and going 9-4 after Schoeneweis was "demoted" to the bullpen (where he did quite well). He's been very consistent, in that he's never had a nuclear meltdown of a game, and usually works 6 innings or so with 2 or 3 earned runs.
Rueter, meanwhile, has also had a very good year, though he's looked vulnerable in the postseason. He's also the first left-hander the Giants have thrown at the Angels, and the Angels have been hell on lefties this year. The primary question for Scioscia in making out the lineup will be whether or not to replace Adam Kennedy at second base with Benji Gil - the two of them platooned during much of the year, but by the end Kennedy was hitting left-handers so well that he got the occasional start against them. Gil had a pinch-single last night, and I suspect Scioscia will start him, since this will leave him AK as an option in the late innings if Dusty Baker puts in a right-handed reliever (between Kennedy and Fullmer, who will also be on the bench, those are some pretty nice options).
Posted
3:38 PM
by Sean
Newhan, incidentally, wrote a surprisingly good book about the Angels' history a couple of years ago. I say surprisingly merely because it's not a fluffy, rah-rah kind of history (then again, how could it be?), but rather a fairly sober assessment of their long and mostly tragic history up through the 1999 season. Newhan has been covering the Angels since their start in 1961, and was actually present for some pretty pivotal events in their history.
Newhan, incidentally, wrote a surprisingly good book about the Angels' history a couple of years ago. I say surprisingly merely because it's not a fluffy, rah-rah kind of history (then again, how could it be?), but rather a fairly sober assessment of their long and mostly tragic history up through the 1999 season. Newhan has been covering the Angels since their start in 1961, and was actually present for some pretty pivotal events in their history.
Posted
3:34 PM
by Sean
Ross Newhan, in the L.A. Times, describes Bonds after last night's game:
"It was much later, as he stood at a locker protected from the media rabble by his black leather lounge chair and personal television, that Bonds was asked if he could take any satisfaction from the home run records he is in the process of setting or tying in this Series and postseason?
"'No,' he responded cryptically, turning then to what has been his mantra: 'I just want to win, I just want a World Series ring.'"
Really, Barry? No satisfaction? Is that why it took you almost as long to get to first base after your dinger as it took Tony Bennett to sing the first two bars of the National Anthem?
After three games, it seems as if the question being settled here is whether or not a group of extremely talented baseball players, playing as a team, can beat another group of talented players plus one superstar who happen to wear the same uniform (Bonds, you'll notice, wouldn't even deign to high-five his teammates during the introductions). Bonds does make a difference - without him in the mix, the Angels would be looking for the sweep tonight - but for all his moon-shot home runs, for all the respect he's given as the most fearsome offensive player of our lifetimes, his feats are merely marvels, not inspirations. Whereas the Angels, who have batted around six times now in twelve playoff games, are feeding off each other.
Ross Newhan, in the L.A. Times, describes Bonds after last night's game:
"It was much later, as he stood at a locker protected from the media rabble by his black leather lounge chair and personal television, that Bonds was asked if he could take any satisfaction from the home run records he is in the process of setting or tying in this Series and postseason?
"'No,' he responded cryptically, turning then to what has been his mantra: 'I just want to win, I just want a World Series ring.'"
Really, Barry? No satisfaction? Is that why it took you almost as long to get to first base after your dinger as it took Tony Bennett to sing the first two bars of the National Anthem?
After three games, it seems as if the question being settled here is whether or not a group of extremely talented baseball players, playing as a team, can beat another group of talented players plus one superstar who happen to wear the same uniform (Bonds, you'll notice, wouldn't even deign to high-five his teammates during the introductions). Bonds does make a difference - without him in the mix, the Angels would be looking for the sweep tonight - but for all his moon-shot home runs, for all the respect he's given as the most fearsome offensive player of our lifetimes, his feats are merely marvels, not inspirations. Whereas the Angels, who have batted around six times now in twelve playoff games, are feeding off each other.
Posted
3:12 PM
by Sean
Giants pitcher Jason Christiansen is in trouble with Major League Baseball for putting Darryl Kile's initials and uniform on his cap during the World Series. Kile, who died suddenly earlier this year and pitched for the St. Louis Cardinals, and Christiansen were teammates and friends. Sandy Alderson, who is MLB's Executive Vice President, and Bob Watson, who is in charge of discipline, went so far as to accost Christeansen in the dugout to tell him he couldn't wear the cap...despite that fact that Christiansen isn't on the World Series roster and won't even be playing.
Technically, of course, MLB is right that this violates the "one team, one uniform" policy. But that doesn't mean this isn't the basest, sorriest, most incompetent decision they could have made. No, you don't want everyone decorating their caps differently, but if a guy in the dugout wants to pay tribute to his dead friend, I think maybe you could have a little compassion and look the other way. I'm not as critical of a lot of MLB's actions as some - stopping the All-Star Game and ending it in a tie was absolutely the right decision, by the way - but they deserve every bit of bad press they're going to get over this.
Giants pitcher Jason Christiansen is in trouble with Major League Baseball for putting Darryl Kile's initials and uniform on his cap during the World Series. Kile, who died suddenly earlier this year and pitched for the St. Louis Cardinals, and Christiansen were teammates and friends. Sandy Alderson, who is MLB's Executive Vice President, and Bob Watson, who is in charge of discipline, went so far as to accost Christeansen in the dugout to tell him he couldn't wear the cap...despite that fact that Christiansen isn't on the World Series roster and won't even be playing.
Technically, of course, MLB is right that this violates the "one team, one uniform" policy. But that doesn't mean this isn't the basest, sorriest, most incompetent decision they could have made. No, you don't want everyone decorating their caps differently, but if a guy in the dugout wants to pay tribute to his dead friend, I think maybe you could have a little compassion and look the other way. I'm not as critical of a lot of MLB's actions as some - stopping the All-Star Game and ending it in a tie was absolutely the right decision, by the way - but they deserve every bit of bad press they're going to get over this.
Posted
2:58 PM
by Sean
Oops. Benito Santiago is only 37. That's younger than Bonds. He just looks ancient.
Oops. Benito Santiago is only 37. That's younger than Bonds. He just looks ancient.
Posted
2:56 PM
by Sean
Angels 10, Giants 4. What can I say, except that the Angels did almost every single thing right last night. That was obviously true on offense - they stayed aggressive on the bases and hit line drives, took advantage of defensive alignments (the Erstad-Salmon double steal was particularly nice), and kept the pressure on until the last out was made. I actually wonder if the double steal was in some way related to Jeter's taking third in the ALDS - maybe Erstad recognized that the situation was similar.
It may be, however, that it was Scott Schoeneweis that gave the Angels the gift that keeps on giving last night. I thought he pitched very well, throwing ball one to a couple of hitters but never falling behind 2-0 or 3-1. In fact, he didn't throw very many pitches to any one batter, retiring six with only 16 pitches and letting Scioscia save Rodriguez, Weber, and Percival for tonight, while still having Schoeneweis himself available to pitch to Bonds in the late innings.
I suppose the bad news, if there is some, is that Lofton, Kent, and Aurilia are showing a little more ability to get on base in front of Bonds. After three games, though, Benito Santiago is 2 for 13 (.154) with two singles. I know he was the NLCS MVP, but he's also about 608 years old, and with the way Bonds is hitting the ball it's making more and more sense to walk Bonds, even with runners on and less than 2 out, and make Santiago try to do the damage.
Angels 10, Giants 4. What can I say, except that the Angels did almost every single thing right last night. That was obviously true on offense - they stayed aggressive on the bases and hit line drives, took advantage of defensive alignments (the Erstad-Salmon double steal was particularly nice), and kept the pressure on until the last out was made. I actually wonder if the double steal was in some way related to Jeter's taking third in the ALDS - maybe Erstad recognized that the situation was similar.
It may be, however, that it was Scott Schoeneweis that gave the Angels the gift that keeps on giving last night. I thought he pitched very well, throwing ball one to a couple of hitters but never falling behind 2-0 or 3-1. In fact, he didn't throw very many pitches to any one batter, retiring six with only 16 pitches and letting Scioscia save Rodriguez, Weber, and Percival for tonight, while still having Schoeneweis himself available to pitch to Bonds in the late innings.
I suppose the bad news, if there is some, is that Lofton, Kent, and Aurilia are showing a little more ability to get on base in front of Bonds. After three games, though, Benito Santiago is 2 for 13 (.154) with two singles. I know he was the NLCS MVP, but he's also about 608 years old, and with the way Bonds is hitting the ball it's making more and more sense to walk Bonds, even with runners on and less than 2 out, and make Santiago try to do the damage.
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Posted
5:05 PM
by Sean
Rob Neyer is annoyed about the "loophole" that allowed Frankie Rodriguez to take a spot on the Angels' playoff roster despite being called up on September 15. Quoth Neyer:
"It might be one thing if Rodriguez was taking the place of, say, Troy Percival or John Lackey. But the intent of the rule is presumably to allow a team to replace a key member of the roster, and Steve Green's major-league experience consists of exactly one game and six innings, on April 7, 2001."
What Neyer ignores is that, prior to his callup, Rodriguez had even less experience than Steve Green - zero innings pitched, in zero games played. That's right, Rodriguez's major league debut occurred on September 18, 2002. So one inexperienced pitcher was replaced by another, who turned out to be fantastic, against all odds. Two words: tough noogies.
Rob Neyer is annoyed about the "loophole" that allowed Frankie Rodriguez to take a spot on the Angels' playoff roster despite being called up on September 15. Quoth Neyer:
"It might be one thing if Rodriguez was taking the place of, say, Troy Percival or John Lackey. But the intent of the rule is presumably to allow a team to replace a key member of the roster, and Steve Green's major-league experience consists of exactly one game and six innings, on April 7, 2001."
What Neyer ignores is that, prior to his callup, Rodriguez had even less experience than Steve Green - zero innings pitched, in zero games played. That's right, Rodriguez's major league debut occurred on September 18, 2002. So one inexperienced pitcher was replaced by another, who turned out to be fantastic, against all odds. Two words: tough noogies.
Posted
2:00 PM
by Sean
Frankie Rodriguez is making Angels fans out of Orange County Hispanics. This is something the Angels have worked on for years, although I've always gotten the sense that they've done so begrudgingly, because they can't woo Dodgers fans away. They've taken some positive steps, like broadcasting all the games in Spanish and providing free transportation to games from Santa Ana, but there's no substitute for a genuine, bona fide playoff hero. Hopefully they'll build on this.
Frankie Rodriguez is making Angels fans out of Orange County Hispanics. This is something the Angels have worked on for years, although I've always gotten the sense that they've done so begrudgingly, because they can't woo Dodgers fans away. They've taken some positive steps, like broadcasting all the games in Spanish and providing free transportation to games from Santa Ana, but there's no substitute for a genuine, bona fide playoff hero. Hopefully they'll build on this.
Posted
1:43 PM
by Sean
This year's series is getting the lowest ratings ever. "While Sunday's game got a 35.1/53 in San Francisco and a 29.8/47 in Los Angeles, it dropped to a 10.9 rating in New York, a 9.1 in Boston and an 8.4 in Philadelphia. It received a 19.3 in Phoenix, a 15.2 in Minneapolis, a 14.9 in St. Louis and a 13.5 in Chicago." I wonder whatever happened to all those "baseball" fans in New York and Boston?
This year's series is getting the lowest ratings ever. "While Sunday's game got a 35.1/53 in San Francisco and a 29.8/47 in Los Angeles, it dropped to a 10.9 rating in New York, a 9.1 in Boston and an 8.4 in Philadelphia. It received a 19.3 in Phoenix, a 15.2 in Minneapolis, a 14.9 in St. Louis and a 13.5 in Chicago." I wonder whatever happened to all those "baseball" fans in New York and Boston?
Posted
11:24 AM
by Sean
So tonight it's Ramon Ortiz vs. Livan Hernandez. The knock on Ortiz is that he's "excitable," and tends to be wild in pressure situations. The main evidence for this seems to be his start against the Yankees in the ALDS, in which he gave up six earned runs on three hits and four walks in 2 2/3 innings. Prior to that, however, he finished the season by going 6-0 in his last nine starts with a 2.77 ERA during a time when the Angels were scrapping for a playoff spot. And after his ALDS start, he went 5 1/3 innings against the Twins in the Metrodome, giving up 3 earned runs on 10 hits - not the greatest numbers, true, but he only walked one, so he wasn't particularly wild. I'd bet that Ortiz's biggest challenge won't be excitement, but rather rust; he hasn't pitched since that game against the Twins on October 9.
Hernandez, meanwhile, gets a lot of mileage with sportswriters because he's undefeated for his career in the postseason. This doesn't spill a lot of beer with me, though, because said postseason appearances prior to this year happened entirely in 1997 and don't seem to have much bearing on how good he's going to be tonight. Admittedly, he was great that year (except, oddly, in the World Series, when he was the Series MVP despite a 5.27 ERA, 15 hits, and 10 walks in 13 2/3 innings pitched). When you look at his recent starts, though, it is clear that he's throwing pretty well. He had a few bad games in June and July, and some kind of meltdown against the Dodgers at the end of September, but clearly he's capable of pitching well for several innings.
Given that Pac Bell is considered quite the pitcher's park, we may have the opposite of Game 2 - fast and low-scoring. The keys for the Angels will be getting Ortiz to throw strikes early in the count and keep Lofton, Aurelia, and Kent off the bases, and for Salmon, Anderson, and Glaus to shorten their swings a little and punch the ball instead of going for the fences. Making productive outs is something at which the Angels excel - in Game 2, they didn't strike out at all. If they do that again tonight, they've got a chance.
So tonight it's Ramon Ortiz vs. Livan Hernandez. The knock on Ortiz is that he's "excitable," and tends to be wild in pressure situations. The main evidence for this seems to be his start against the Yankees in the ALDS, in which he gave up six earned runs on three hits and four walks in 2 2/3 innings. Prior to that, however, he finished the season by going 6-0 in his last nine starts with a 2.77 ERA during a time when the Angels were scrapping for a playoff spot. And after his ALDS start, he went 5 1/3 innings against the Twins in the Metrodome, giving up 3 earned runs on 10 hits - not the greatest numbers, true, but he only walked one, so he wasn't particularly wild. I'd bet that Ortiz's biggest challenge won't be excitement, but rather rust; he hasn't pitched since that game against the Twins on October 9.
Hernandez, meanwhile, gets a lot of mileage with sportswriters because he's undefeated for his career in the postseason. This doesn't spill a lot of beer with me, though, because said postseason appearances prior to this year happened entirely in 1997 and don't seem to have much bearing on how good he's going to be tonight. Admittedly, he was great that year (except, oddly, in the World Series, when he was the Series MVP despite a 5.27 ERA, 15 hits, and 10 walks in 13 2/3 innings pitched). When you look at his recent starts, though, it is clear that he's throwing pretty well. He had a few bad games in June and July, and some kind of meltdown against the Dodgers at the end of September, but clearly he's capable of pitching well for several innings.
Given that Pac Bell is considered quite the pitcher's park, we may have the opposite of Game 2 - fast and low-scoring. The keys for the Angels will be getting Ortiz to throw strikes early in the count and keep Lofton, Aurelia, and Kent off the bases, and for Salmon, Anderson, and Glaus to shorten their swings a little and punch the ball instead of going for the fences. Making productive outs is something at which the Angels excel - in Game 2, they didn't strike out at all. If they do that again tonight, they've got a chance.
Monday, October 21, 2002
Posted
5:09 PM
by Sean
J.T. Snow says the infield warning track at Edison Field sucks, and doesn't get much of an argument from anyone. Snow, of course, used to play first base for the Angels, but was traded before the new rubberized track went in, so it must have come as a nasty shock to him to find himself falling down and going boom in Game 1. I give him a lot of credit for sticking with the ball, although it looked like Santiago probably would have caught it anyway.
It's interesting to think of such a thing as being part of the home-field advantage - from the article, Glaus clearly has an idea of how to approach making plays on the track. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for dirty groundskeeping tricks, including the rumors that various clubs that played their home games in domes would turn the air conditioning on and off to create advantages for their pitchers and hitters. The most famous groundskeepers in baseball history have probably been the Bossards, who have been working for the White Sox, Indians, and others for decades. And if the Giants have a mind to rig Pac Bell, they've got a pretty savvy groundskeeper at their disposal, too.
J.T. Snow says the infield warning track at Edison Field sucks, and doesn't get much of an argument from anyone. Snow, of course, used to play first base for the Angels, but was traded before the new rubberized track went in, so it must have come as a nasty shock to him to find himself falling down and going boom in Game 1. I give him a lot of credit for sticking with the ball, although it looked like Santiago probably would have caught it anyway.
It's interesting to think of such a thing as being part of the home-field advantage - from the article, Glaus clearly has an idea of how to approach making plays on the track. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for dirty groundskeeping tricks, including the rumors that various clubs that played their home games in domes would turn the air conditioning on and off to create advantages for their pitchers and hitters. The most famous groundskeepers in baseball history have probably been the Bossards, who have been working for the White Sox, Indians, and others for decades. And if the Giants have a mind to rig Pac Bell, they've got a pretty savvy groundskeeper at their disposal, too.
Posted
8:54 AM
by Sean
Angels 11, Giants 10. I didn't think it was possible for games to be more exhausting than they have been over the last six weeks, but somehow this one was. Michael Eisner is quoted in the L.A. Times as saying "have you ever seen a game like that? That's a good as it gets." No, Michael. "As good as it gets" has scores like 14-0 and 22-3.
Ugly as last night was, of course, a win's a win, and this one meant more than most - it buys the Angels the opportunity to get their home-field advantage back with one win in San Francisco. Ordinarily I don't put much stock in the home field advantage, but in a short series every little bit helps. And now, it's best-of-five.
Frankie Rodriguez was amazing, and it was good to see him come back after he was looking gassed in game 5 against the Twins. Hopefully he'll be available again by Wednesday at the latest.
And finally...that home run by Bonds. I can only say it because the Angels won, but JESUS H. CHRIST IN A CHICKEN BASKET, HE HIT THAT ONE A LONG WAY!
Angels 11, Giants 10. I didn't think it was possible for games to be more exhausting than they have been over the last six weeks, but somehow this one was. Michael Eisner is quoted in the L.A. Times as saying "have you ever seen a game like that? That's a good as it gets." No, Michael. "As good as it gets" has scores like 14-0 and 22-3.
Ugly as last night was, of course, a win's a win, and this one meant more than most - it buys the Angels the opportunity to get their home-field advantage back with one win in San Francisco. Ordinarily I don't put much stock in the home field advantage, but in a short series every little bit helps. And now, it's best-of-five.
Frankie Rodriguez was amazing, and it was good to see him come back after he was looking gassed in game 5 against the Twins. Hopefully he'll be available again by Wednesday at the latest.
And finally...that home run by Bonds. I can only say it because the Angels won, but JESUS H. CHRIST IN A CHICKEN BASKET, HE HIT THAT ONE A LONG WAY!
Sunday, October 20, 2002
Posted
8:17 PM
by Sean
Eleven runs in two innings? Good God. In a way, it's almost a curse to knock Ortiz out this early; Zerbe may just settle in and throw zeroes at them for the next three innings or so. With a travel day tomorrow, it's not that big a deal for the Giants to go deep into their bullpen. Let's hope Appier can avoid the longball for a couple of innings, long enough to turn it over to Donnelly et al.
Eleven runs in two innings? Good God. In a way, it's almost a curse to knock Ortiz out this early; Zerbe may just settle in and throw zeroes at them for the next three innings or so. With a travel day tomorrow, it's not that big a deal for the Giants to go deep into their bullpen. Let's hope Appier can avoid the longball for a couple of innings, long enough to turn it over to Donnelly et al.
Posted
7:02 PM
by Sean
The only prediction I'll make all series: Appier will walk Bonds at least twice tonight. Appier gives me ulcers usually, the way he falls behind the hitters. If I don't update later, send the paramedics.
The only prediction I'll make all series: Appier will walk Bonds at least twice tonight. Appier gives me ulcers usually, the way he falls behind the hitters. If I don't update later, send the paramedics.
Posted
6:44 PM
by Sean
So I'm waiting for coverage of the World Series, because my local affiliate here in Dallas is covering the Cowboys-Cardinals game in overtime. And the Cardinals get the ball down to the Cowboys' 30 or so, and one of the announcers (I don't know who) says something like "The Cardinals need to keep playing football here." Which is fortunate, because I think at least seven of them were thinking of bringing tennis rackets to the line of scrimmage. It's enough to make me grateful for Steve Lyons and Thom Brenneman.
Okay, no, not really.
So I'm waiting for coverage of the World Series, because my local affiliate here in Dallas is covering the Cowboys-Cardinals game in overtime. And the Cardinals get the ball down to the Cowboys' 30 or so, and one of the announcers (I don't know who) says something like "The Cardinals need to keep playing football here." Which is fortunate, because I think at least seven of them were thinking of bringing tennis rackets to the line of scrimmage. It's enough to make me grateful for Steve Lyons and Thom Brenneman.
Okay, no, not really.
Posted
3:56 PM
by Sean
Oh, no! PETA objects to the rally monkey!
"Sharing the view that something is wrong with the Angels is animal rights activist Amy Rhodes, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
"Rhodes was aghast at the notion of the Rally Monkey, a small brown primate that has been dressed up in an Angels uniform and forced to hold signs that say, 'Believe in the Power of the Rally Monkey' and 'Rally Time.'
"Images of the poor monkey are displayed proudly on the Angels' official Web site.
"'That,' said Rhodes, 'is unacceptable and it's really sick.'"
Game over, man. How can the Angels hope to stand against a group that just got their asses kicked by schoolchildren?
Oh, no! PETA objects to the rally monkey!
"Sharing the view that something is wrong with the Angels is animal rights activist Amy Rhodes, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
"Rhodes was aghast at the notion of the Rally Monkey, a small brown primate that has been dressed up in an Angels uniform and forced to hold signs that say, 'Believe in the Power of the Rally Monkey' and 'Rally Time.'
"Images of the poor monkey are displayed proudly on the Angels' official Web site.
"'That,' said Rhodes, 'is unacceptable and it's really sick.'"
Game over, man. How can the Angels hope to stand against a group that just got their asses kicked by schoolchildren?
Posted
2:05 PM
by Sean
For Christ's sake, could someone please talk about the Angels without sounding as if the Rally Monkey actually plays for them? Fox did the same thing last night. It's actually pretty ironic: once it became clear that they were going to have to cover the Angels this postseason, there was a stung-wildebeeste stampede to anoint them as anonymous Cinderellas. So now, instead of a discussion from the national media about the roles these players have in the lineup, we hear about their marketing gimmick. Look, I like the rally monkey fine, okay? But the rally monkey didn't make any brilliant catches in left field last night, nor did he throw lasers across the diamond three or four times to get a runner at first. If you want to write about the Angels' lack of offense, that's fine, but at least talk about the guys on the field.
For Christ's sake, could someone please talk about the Angels without sounding as if the Rally Monkey actually plays for them? Fox did the same thing last night. It's actually pretty ironic: once it became clear that they were going to have to cover the Angels this postseason, there was a stung-wildebeeste stampede to anoint them as anonymous Cinderellas. So now, instead of a discussion from the national media about the roles these players have in the lineup, we hear about their marketing gimmick. Look, I like the rally monkey fine, okay? But the rally monkey didn't make any brilliant catches in left field last night, nor did he throw lasers across the diamond three or four times to get a runner at first. If you want to write about the Angels' lack of offense, that's fine, but at least talk about the guys on the field.
Posted
11:25 AM
by Sean
Well, okay, Angels lose, 4-3. And yes, they looked pretty terrible with runners in scoring position. The good news, though, is that they didn't get beat by the top of the Giants' lineup - Lofton, Aurelia, and Kent were more or less shut down. If they can do that consistently, it gives them license to pitch Bonds any way they want - and I doubt that Reggie Sanders and J.T. Snow are going to become home run machines all of a sudden.
Well, okay, Angels lose, 4-3. And yes, they looked pretty terrible with runners in scoring position. The good news, though, is that they didn't get beat by the top of the Giants' lineup - Lofton, Aurelia, and Kent were more or less shut down. If they can do that consistently, it gives them license to pitch Bonds any way they want - and I doubt that Reggie Sanders and J.T. Snow are going to become home run machines all of a sudden.