![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Uh, no thanks
Posted 2:43 PM by SeanThe L.A. Times is reporting that there's no truth to the Glaus-to-New-York speculation. Yawn. Also, there's apparently no truth to a six-team deal that would send Guerrero to the A's, Anderson to the Hanshin Tigers, Percival to Mars, twelve billion dollars to George Steinbrenner, and a bag of Jolly Ranchers to Mrs. Eunice Sweetwater of Doubloon, Idaho.
More updates as breaking news occurs!
Friday, January 30, 2004
Good for a laugh, I guess
Posted 2:40 PM by SeanThis column suggests that the Angels, Yankees, and White Sox might do a three-way deal, the upshot of which would be that Glaus would replace the injured Aaron Boone in New York, Erstad and Washburn would head to Chicago, the Angels would get Konerko and Valentin from the Sox, and New York would send prospects to both Chicago and Anaheim.
Riiiiiiiight. And the Angels would hire a trained mouse to play third, I suppose.
The column is just skylarking, basically, with nary a source to suggest that any of the deals he's talking about are actually under consideration by anyone with, say, the power to make them happen. This is the kind of thing that passes for "news" in late January, the lazy dog-danglin' afternoon of the baseball year.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Tyger, Tyger, burning slightly brighter than you were yesterday...
Posted 11:13 AM by SeanThe Tigers are reportedly on the verge of signing Ivan Rodriguez to a four-year deal. This is good news for the Angels; one of Pudge's other suitors was rumored to be the Mariners, who recently inherited a $9 million windfall when closer Kaz Sasaki decided to bail on his contract and go back to Japan. The Mariners are in something of a bind, in that just about all of the good free agents have been snapped up by now (you're welcome, M's fans!), but they need to do something with that money if they expect to compete with Anaheim and Oakland in 2004. Additionally, the Mariners' fan base is becoming increasingly agitated with management; their off-season was already being seen as a disaster, and if the organization just pockets the nine mil they're saving on Sasaki we might see pitchforks and torches at Safeco.
Rodriguez may or may not have gas left in the tank - I think he does, but that's not the point. The point is that I'm a lot more comfortable finding out if that's true with him in Detroit than I would be with him in Seattle. Rodriguez could've been a difference-maker up north, if everything had gone right - hopefully we won't get the chance to find out.
This leaves the Mariners with one real "superstar" option, which is trading for Kansas City's Carlos Beltran (who is in his walk year). But KC knows this, and also knows that they have a legitimate shot at making the playoffs out of the knock-kneed AL Central. So any trade they make with Seattle is going to have to net them guys who will help them both long-term and short term, and I don't think the M's can put together a package like that without making some deep sacrifices, perhaps too deep to make a one-year deal worthwhile. Beltran might be induced to do a trade and sign deal, in which he extends his contract with the Mariners, but God alone knows how much that would cost the M's in dollars, in addition to whatever it costs them in personnel.
The bottom line is that the Mariners are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. If GM Bill Bavasi manages to spend that money on an impact player (or players), I'll be surprised.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Where are all the Angels blogs, anyway?
Posted 1:41 PM by SeanYou know, I've been doing this for a while now - sixteen months or so, albeit irregularly. When I started, I figured it was a pretty ripe area to get into, since the Angels traditionally don't have the media exposure that a lot of the East Coast teams get, and there weren't any fan sites out there above the level of "This is my totally rockin' Kirk McCaskill fan page!!!!!! Kirk should be in the Hall of FAme!" (including "blink" tags; last updated: 1994).
Since then, I've been stunned by the lack of Angels fan activity on the web compared to nearly every other team in the majors. Take a look, for example at the blogroll at Baseball News. Folks, there are twenty Mariners blogs out there. Now, I know that some of them are one-offs, guys (and gals) who tried the blog thing for a couple of days and disappeared forever. But, as near as I can tell, the only sites (besides this one) that made even a tokn effort at day-to-day commentary on the Angels have been the following:
The Monkey's Paw, which started out strong last summer, but stopped posting at the beginning of September, and the imaginitively named
Anaheim Angels Blog, which opened its doors last October, and is still publishing.
So that's a grand total of two currently viable Angels blogs out there, for a club that won the World frickin' Series two seasons ago. Am I missing something? Is there some vast unknown Angels blog community that I have yet to stumble upon?
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Posted
2:02 PM
by Sean
This article at the Angels' official site makes it sound as if Garret Anderson's contract extension is pretty much a fait accompli, even if no actual work has been done on it yet. It seems like I've been seeing some variation on this theme all winter: the Angels are committed to getting this done, Anderson wants it to happen, the Angels usually take care of this kind of thing in March. All true enough, I'm sure, but I, personally, will still breathe a sigh of relief when they sign on the dotted line.
This article at the Angels' official site makes it sound as if Garret Anderson's contract extension is pretty much a fait accompli, even if no actual work has been done on it yet. It seems like I've been seeing some variation on this theme all winter: the Angels are committed to getting this done, Anderson wants it to happen, the Angels usually take care of this kind of thing in March. All true enough, I'm sure, but I, personally, will still breathe a sigh of relief when they sign on the dotted line.
Posted
1:58 PM
by Sean
So yeah, I know, I promised a look at the position players the Angels have invited to camp as non-roster invitees, but I'm tired of trying to format statistics in Blogger. So here's the quick and dirty list of folks to watch for:
Erick Aybar - shortstop - flashy defense, hit over .300 at low-A Cedar Rapids last year.
Alberto Callaspo - second base - Aybar's double-play partner last year (and probably this year, too), even better at the plate, will probably advance a little faster.
Nick Gorneault - outfield - one of the few outfield prospects in the Angels' system. He hit .321 with 14 HR for Rancho Cucamonga from April through July of last year, then was promoted to Double-A Arkansas - which apparently really pissed him off, since he hit .345 (38-for-110) the rest of the year.
So yeah, I know, I promised a look at the position players the Angels have invited to camp as non-roster invitees, but I'm tired of trying to format statistics in Blogger. So here's the quick and dirty list of folks to watch for:
Erick Aybar - shortstop - flashy defense, hit over .300 at low-A Cedar Rapids last year.
Alberto Callaspo - second base - Aybar's double-play partner last year (and probably this year, too), even better at the plate, will probably advance a little faster.
Nick Gorneault - outfield - one of the few outfield prospects in the Angels' system. He hit .321 with 14 HR for Rancho Cucamonga from April through July of last year, then was promoted to Double-A Arkansas - which apparently really pissed him off, since he hit .345 (38-for-110) the rest of the year.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Posted
3:45 PM
by Sean
Continuing the rundown of non-roster invitees looking to impress in spring training, let's take a look at a pair of dark horse pitchers.
Eric Cyr is a big ol' left-hander from Oklahoma. He'll be 25 in a couple of weeks, so he's rapidly approaching his sell-by date, but the Angels will likely give him a long look inasmuch as they've got exactly one southpaw on the major league roster, and they may be looking to trade that one. Cyr has been in a few different organizations, but has shown generally good command and flashes of brilliance. In 2001, with Lake Elsinore of the advanced-A California League, he posted a 1.61 ERA in 100.2 innings (appearing in 21 games), giving up 68 hits and walking 24 while striking out a spectacular 131 and surrendering only one homer. He also performed well in 2002, splitting time between Double-A and Triple-A (with a very brief stint as a San Diego Padre at the end of June and beginning of July), but saw his numbers come back to earth a little bit in 2003, when he put up a 4.96 ERAin 103.1 innings, giving up 91 hits and 52 walks versus 78 strikeouts, with nine home runs. Opposing batters hit .236 against him, and I suspect that the Angels will end up moving him to Triple-A Salt Lake to start the 2004 season. Cyr will be under significant pressure to impress, given his age and the fact that Bobby Jenks, Ervin Santana, and Chris Bootcheck all figure to be vying for any potential opening in an already crowded rotation.
Pete Zamora, meanwhile, will turn an even crustier 29 years old during the 2004 season, so this may be the last time he gets a chance to catch someone's eye. Zamora has toiled in the minors since 1997, generally working middle relief or closing. He's spent the last three seasons in the International League, and put up solid numbers each time:
2001: 8-4, 3 SV, 2.93 ERA, 89 IP, 64 H, 41 BB, 79 K, 7 HR
2002: 5-2, 15 SV, 3.48 ERA, 62 IP, 63 H, 29 BB, 32 K, 2 HR
2003: 5-3, 1 SV, 3.49 ERA, 90.1 IP, 94 H, 32 BB, 53 K, 3 HR
I'm mildly surprised Zamora never made it up for even so much as a cup of coffee during those three years, but, then again, I may just be used to seeing pitching numbers from the hitter-friendly Pacific Coast League. In any event, Zamora, like Cyr, is a lefty, and could be good insurance in case the Angels' bullpen (exclusively righties at the moment) stops getting left-handed hitters out.
Tomorrow, we'll move on to some of the position players on the list.
Continuing the rundown of non-roster invitees looking to impress in spring training, let's take a look at a pair of dark horse pitchers.
Eric Cyr is a big ol' left-hander from Oklahoma. He'll be 25 in a couple of weeks, so he's rapidly approaching his sell-by date, but the Angels will likely give him a long look inasmuch as they've got exactly one southpaw on the major league roster, and they may be looking to trade that one. Cyr has been in a few different organizations, but has shown generally good command and flashes of brilliance. In 2001, with Lake Elsinore of the advanced-A California League, he posted a 1.61 ERA in 100.2 innings (appearing in 21 games), giving up 68 hits and walking 24 while striking out a spectacular 131 and surrendering only one homer. He also performed well in 2002, splitting time between Double-A and Triple-A (with a very brief stint as a San Diego Padre at the end of June and beginning of July), but saw his numbers come back to earth a little bit in 2003, when he put up a 4.96 ERAin 103.1 innings, giving up 91 hits and 52 walks versus 78 strikeouts, with nine home runs. Opposing batters hit .236 against him, and I suspect that the Angels will end up moving him to Triple-A Salt Lake to start the 2004 season. Cyr will be under significant pressure to impress, given his age and the fact that Bobby Jenks, Ervin Santana, and Chris Bootcheck all figure to be vying for any potential opening in an already crowded rotation.
Pete Zamora, meanwhile, will turn an even crustier 29 years old during the 2004 season, so this may be the last time he gets a chance to catch someone's eye. Zamora has toiled in the minors since 1997, generally working middle relief or closing. He's spent the last three seasons in the International League, and put up solid numbers each time:
2001: 8-4, 3 SV, 2.93 ERA, 89 IP, 64 H, 41 BB, 79 K, 7 HR
2002: 5-2, 15 SV, 3.48 ERA, 62 IP, 63 H, 29 BB, 32 K, 2 HR
2003: 5-3, 1 SV, 3.49 ERA, 90.1 IP, 94 H, 32 BB, 53 K, 3 HR
I'm mildly surprised Zamora never made it up for even so much as a cup of coffee during those three years, but, then again, I may just be used to seeing pitching numbers from the hitter-friendly Pacific Coast League. In any event, Zamora, like Cyr, is a lefty, and could be good insurance in case the Angels' bullpen (exclusively righties at the moment) stops getting left-handed hitters out.
Tomorrow, we'll move on to some of the position players on the list.
Posted
2:53 PM
by Sean
Off by a few hundred thousand: the AP reports that Washburn has signed for $5.45 million, and Weber for $900,000.
Off by a few hundred thousand: the AP reports that Washburn has signed for $5.45 million, and Weber for $900,000.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Posted
4:17 PM
by Sean
The Angels have agreed to terms with both Jarrod Washburn and Ben Weber on one-year deals, avoiding salary arbitration. The Angels never release contract details, but Washburn is likely getting in the 4-5 million range, while Weber should come in at around 1.2 million. This leaves David Eckstein as the only unsigned Angel for 2004.'
Meanwhile, the trade that would not die has resurfaced. Like Carrie, the A-Rod deal has thrust its mouldering arm through the soil of its own grave, meaning that Angels fans are now officially free to speculate again about the possibility of Nomar Garciaparra playing short for the Halos. Last month, conjecture was that the Red Sox would trade Nomar to the White Sox, who would turn around and deal him westward in exchange for pitching. Chances of all that happening are currently somewhere in the "Al Sharpton gets the GOP nomination" category, but I note that - purely as an academic exercise - Garciaparra's 11.5 million salary is nearly equal to the combined salaries of Jarrod Washburn and Troy Percival.
The Angels have agreed to terms with both Jarrod Washburn and Ben Weber on one-year deals, avoiding salary arbitration. The Angels never release contract details, but Washburn is likely getting in the 4-5 million range, while Weber should come in at around 1.2 million. This leaves David Eckstein as the only unsigned Angel for 2004.'
Meanwhile, the trade that would not die has resurfaced. Like Carrie, the A-Rod deal has thrust its mouldering arm through the soil of its own grave, meaning that Angels fans are now officially free to speculate again about the possibility of Nomar Garciaparra playing short for the Halos. Last month, conjecture was that the Red Sox would trade Nomar to the White Sox, who would turn around and deal him westward in exchange for pitching. Chances of all that happening are currently somewhere in the "Al Sharpton gets the GOP nomination" category, but I note that - purely as an academic exercise - Garciaparra's 11.5 million salary is nearly equal to the combined salaries of Jarrod Washburn and Troy Percival.
Posted
12:58 PM
by Sean
Now, as promised, we'll start looking at some of the non-roster invitees to Angels' spring training. Since pitchers and catchers report before anyone else, it's only fair to start with them.
And where better to start than with Ervin Santana? Santana was named the California League's 2003 Pitcher of the Year, despite the fact that he left Rancho Cucamonga for Double-A Arkansas mid-year, and didn't play in the California League after July 15. Widely considered the Angels' best pitching prospect (a distinction for which he actually has some competition), Santana features a fastball in the 96 mph range, complimented by a plus slider and a competent changeup. He's extraordinarily lanky, coming in at about 6'3", 160 lbs. Santana just turned 20 in November, and, considering the current logjam in the Angels' rotation and the presence of a couple more developed prospects at starter, the organization is in no rush to move Santana up the ladder unnecessarily. His 2003 numbers looked like this:
A Rancho Cucamonga (4/3 - 7/15)
10-2, 2.53 ERA, 124.2 IP, 98 H, 36 BB, 130 K, 9 HR
AA Arkansas (7/21 - 8/29)
1-1, 3.94 ERA, 29.2 IP, 23 H, 12 BB, 23 K, 4 HR
Santana will be in Tempe to get a look at some real major league hitters, some of whom will probably light him up like a pinwheel. At 20, he still relies primarily on overwhelming talent to get past hitters, but his relatively high (for a minor-leaguer) home run numbers indicate that he's putting some cheese over the plate a little too often. Still, look for Santana to have a few shining moments in camp, and then get sent back to Little Rock.
Joining Santana will be batterymate Jeff Mathis, who also split time between Rancho Cucamonga and Arkansas last year. Mathis is often described as one of two catchers in the minors right now destined for stardom, the other being the Twins' Joe Mauer. While Mauer has gotten more press, Mathis performed extremely well in 2003:
A Rancho Cucamonga (4/3 - 7/31)
.323 AVG, .384 OBP, .500 SLG, 378 AB, 122 H, 28 2B, 11 HR, 35 BB, 74 K
AA Arkansas (8/1 - 8/31)
.284 AVG, .364 OBP, .463 SLG, 95 AB, 27 H, 11 2B, 2 HR, 12 BB, 16 K
What stands out most are Mathis's doubles; 28 in 378 AB and 11 in 95 AB is impressive, and usually indicates good power to the gaps or down the line (particularly for a catcher, who probably isn't legging out any extra bases on balls that drop in front of the right fielder). Mathis will be 21 on opening day, but the Angels will likely try to put him on something of a fast track to the majors. Bengie Molina is signed through the 2004 season, with a team option for 2005; assuming Molina has a typical season in 2004, the Angels should be looking to exercise that option and bring Mathis aboard to serve something of an apprenticeship. He'll probably go back to Arkansas to start the season, but move to Salt Lake fairly quickly unless he regresses.
Tomorrow, we'll continue our look at the Angel's non-roster invitees.
Now, as promised, we'll start looking at some of the non-roster invitees to Angels' spring training. Since pitchers and catchers report before anyone else, it's only fair to start with them.
And where better to start than with Ervin Santana? Santana was named the California League's 2003 Pitcher of the Year, despite the fact that he left Rancho Cucamonga for Double-A Arkansas mid-year, and didn't play in the California League after July 15. Widely considered the Angels' best pitching prospect (a distinction for which he actually has some competition), Santana features a fastball in the 96 mph range, complimented by a plus slider and a competent changeup. He's extraordinarily lanky, coming in at about 6'3", 160 lbs. Santana just turned 20 in November, and, considering the current logjam in the Angels' rotation and the presence of a couple more developed prospects at starter, the organization is in no rush to move Santana up the ladder unnecessarily. His 2003 numbers looked like this:
A Rancho Cucamonga (4/3 - 7/15)
10-2, 2.53 ERA, 124.2 IP, 98 H, 36 BB, 130 K, 9 HR
AA Arkansas (7/21 - 8/29)
1-1, 3.94 ERA, 29.2 IP, 23 H, 12 BB, 23 K, 4 HR
Santana will be in Tempe to get a look at some real major league hitters, some of whom will probably light him up like a pinwheel. At 20, he still relies primarily on overwhelming talent to get past hitters, but his relatively high (for a minor-leaguer) home run numbers indicate that he's putting some cheese over the plate a little too often. Still, look for Santana to have a few shining moments in camp, and then get sent back to Little Rock.
Joining Santana will be batterymate Jeff Mathis, who also split time between Rancho Cucamonga and Arkansas last year. Mathis is often described as one of two catchers in the minors right now destined for stardom, the other being the Twins' Joe Mauer. While Mauer has gotten more press, Mathis performed extremely well in 2003:
A Rancho Cucamonga (4/3 - 7/31)
.323 AVG, .384 OBP, .500 SLG, 378 AB, 122 H, 28 2B, 11 HR, 35 BB, 74 K
AA Arkansas (8/1 - 8/31)
.284 AVG, .364 OBP, .463 SLG, 95 AB, 27 H, 11 2B, 2 HR, 12 BB, 16 K
What stands out most are Mathis's doubles; 28 in 378 AB and 11 in 95 AB is impressive, and usually indicates good power to the gaps or down the line (particularly for a catcher, who probably isn't legging out any extra bases on balls that drop in front of the right fielder). Mathis will be 21 on opening day, but the Angels will likely try to put him on something of a fast track to the majors. Bengie Molina is signed through the 2004 season, with a team option for 2005; assuming Molina has a typical season in 2004, the Angels should be looking to exercise that option and bring Mathis aboard to serve something of an apprenticeship. He'll probably go back to Arkansas to start the season, but move to Salt Lake fairly quickly unless he regresses.
Tomorrow, we'll continue our look at the Angel's non-roster invitees.
Posted
12:15 PM
by Sean
The Angels are first in ESPN's rankings of teams' off-season moves, a judgment that seems reasonable to me (completely unbiased party that I am). When you add the single most sought-after free agent, plus a marquee starting pitcher, you've had a pretty good off-season. Realistically, there are a number of other teams that have also taken pretty big steps forward in the last couple of months, but no one's done appreciably better than Anaheim. Nice to see.
Two items of note on the list: first, Oakland is fourth in the A.L. in terms of off-season moves (in ESPN's estimation), at 19th overall (Seattle is 8th, Texas is 13th). I think that may be accurate, although ESPN's assessment of the A's as "[T]hird best in the AL West heading into spring training" is probably too harsh.
Second, the list is quite skewed towards the AL. Nine of the top 13 slots are AL clubs, which again I think is accurate. It seems that quite a lot of the action this winter has been on the junior circuit, particularly in the AL East. There's going to be a lot of tough competition for the Angels in 2004.
The Angels are first in ESPN's rankings of teams' off-season moves, a judgment that seems reasonable to me (completely unbiased party that I am). When you add the single most sought-after free agent, plus a marquee starting pitcher, you've had a pretty good off-season. Realistically, there are a number of other teams that have also taken pretty big steps forward in the last couple of months, but no one's done appreciably better than Anaheim. Nice to see.
Two items of note on the list: first, Oakland is fourth in the A.L. in terms of off-season moves (in ESPN's estimation), at 19th overall (Seattle is 8th, Texas is 13th). I think that may be accurate, although ESPN's assessment of the A's as "[T]hird best in the AL West heading into spring training" is probably too harsh.
Second, the list is quite skewed towards the AL. Nine of the top 13 slots are AL clubs, which again I think is accurate. It seems that quite a lot of the action this winter has been on the junior circuit, particularly in the AL East. There's going to be a lot of tough competition for the Angels in 2004.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Posted
3:07 PM
by Sean
The Angels have invited eighteen non-roster players to spring training - guys who won't make the 40-man roster, but some of whom are being groomed for starting spots in the next couple of years. Unlike many previous years, there's a lot to be excited about in the Angels' system. Starting tomorrow, we'll start talking about the guys to watch.
The Angels have invited eighteen non-roster players to spring training - guys who won't make the 40-man roster, but some of whom are being groomed for starting spots in the next couple of years. Unlike many previous years, there's a lot to be excited about in the Angels' system. Starting tomorrow, we'll start talking about the guys to watch.
Posted
12:55 PM
by Sean
On Friday, I closed by noting that the Angels could be a better team defensively with Jose Guillen at first and Darin Erstad in center, instead of with Guillen in left and Erstad at first. So what keeps them from doing so?
The first reason is inertia. Guillen has never played first base, while Erstad played there full-time in 1997 and half-time in 1998 and 1999. It's a lot easier to shuffle the pieces so that everyone's playing a position they're already familiar with than it is to teach someone to play somewhere new - even if first base isn't particularly demanding. Additionally, Guillen throws with his right hand, which is considered somewhat of a liability when playing first - you have to reach all the way across your body to field most of the balls hit to you, then either turn all the way back or complete a full circle to throw to someone covering first. Not a debilitating handicap, to be sure - the list of right-handed-throwing 1Bs in the majors is actually pretty long - but maybe enough to think twice about moving him there when you've got an experienced lefty available in Erstad. Now, personally I'm not convinced by this logic, since the Angels would have all of spring training to teach Guillen how to play at first, but it's at least a cogent argument.
I'm somewhat less sanguine about the other argument I've seen advanced, which is that Erstad is likely to hit better once he makes the transition to first base. Proponents of this line of thought point to Erstad's 2000 season, in which he went .355/.409/.541 in 676 at-bats, as evidence of his true potential, and claim that his balls-out, anything-to-make-the-play style in center field has left him with various injuries that reduce his effectiveness at the plate.
There is only one problem with this theory, and that is that it is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
Consider: in that 2000 season, Erstad played 142 games in the outfield. Now, 112 of these were in left, while only 30 were in center, but surely it should raise a few eyebrows that his best - by far - offensive season occurred after he left the warm-n'-comfy confines of first base. His other two decent offensive seasons came in 1997 and 1998, a two-year stretch in which he averaged .298/.357/.476. Erstad did play first base for the majority of those two seasons, but spent significant time in left field in 1998. Beginning in 2001, of course, he's been subpar offensively, falling from that .355/.409/.541 high water mark in 2000 to a ghastly .252/.309/.333 in his injury-shortened 2003 campaign (he played in a total of 67 games).
So the story that some people tell themselves is that Erstad was progressing nicely through the late 90's, and had his breakout season in 2000. Even though he had played 297 career games in the outfield by the end of that season, they say, his injuries hadn't built up yet, and thus he was able to have a "true" Darin Erstad season at the plate. And then it all went to hell in 2001, because the injuries started to catch up with him and hamper him at the plate. Now, I suppose that if you squint your eyes and tilt your head, you might start to buy that story. Until you looked at these numbers:
2001 - .998 / 2.90 (+ 0.23)
2002 - .998 / 3.39 (+ 0.61)
2003 - 1.000 / 3.09 (+ .0.31)
Those are Erstad's fielding percentages and range factors (with the amount over the league average range factor in parentheses) as a center fielder for the last three years. Erstad's defense has been utterly spectacular during the same time his offense has suffered. But if his offense is suffering because of injuries he sustained while playing defense, wouldn't we expect to see a decline in the field as well? Would he slow down a step while chasing flies, or maybe be unable to extend himself quite so far while diving, if he's really suffering from injuries caused by precisely those activities?
Not necessarily, of course. One can always come up with scenarios in which such a thing could happen. But I don't think it's likely.
So the Angels are gambling: they're gambling that, unlikely as it is, Erstad will return to some form of offensive productivity following his move to first base (as opposed to gambling that they could put him in center and not have him end up spending significant time on the DL). If it works out, it's brilliant - no one denies that Erstad should stay off the DL more while playing first, and the abuse his body takes when he plays center is a long-term concern. If it doesn't, they've still upgraded the team, just not as much as they could have using a different defensive alignment.
On Friday, I closed by noting that the Angels could be a better team defensively with Jose Guillen at first and Darin Erstad in center, instead of with Guillen in left and Erstad at first. So what keeps them from doing so?
The first reason is inertia. Guillen has never played first base, while Erstad played there full-time in 1997 and half-time in 1998 and 1999. It's a lot easier to shuffle the pieces so that everyone's playing a position they're already familiar with than it is to teach someone to play somewhere new - even if first base isn't particularly demanding. Additionally, Guillen throws with his right hand, which is considered somewhat of a liability when playing first - you have to reach all the way across your body to field most of the balls hit to you, then either turn all the way back or complete a full circle to throw to someone covering first. Not a debilitating handicap, to be sure - the list of right-handed-throwing 1Bs in the majors is actually pretty long - but maybe enough to think twice about moving him there when you've got an experienced lefty available in Erstad. Now, personally I'm not convinced by this logic, since the Angels would have all of spring training to teach Guillen how to play at first, but it's at least a cogent argument.
I'm somewhat less sanguine about the other argument I've seen advanced, which is that Erstad is likely to hit better once he makes the transition to first base. Proponents of this line of thought point to Erstad's 2000 season, in which he went .355/.409/.541 in 676 at-bats, as evidence of his true potential, and claim that his balls-out, anything-to-make-the-play style in center field has left him with various injuries that reduce his effectiveness at the plate.
There is only one problem with this theory, and that is that it is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
Consider: in that 2000 season, Erstad played 142 games in the outfield. Now, 112 of these were in left, while only 30 were in center, but surely it should raise a few eyebrows that his best - by far - offensive season occurred after he left the warm-n'-comfy confines of first base. His other two decent offensive seasons came in 1997 and 1998, a two-year stretch in which he averaged .298/.357/.476. Erstad did play first base for the majority of those two seasons, but spent significant time in left field in 1998. Beginning in 2001, of course, he's been subpar offensively, falling from that .355/.409/.541 high water mark in 2000 to a ghastly .252/.309/.333 in his injury-shortened 2003 campaign (he played in a total of 67 games).
So the story that some people tell themselves is that Erstad was progressing nicely through the late 90's, and had his breakout season in 2000. Even though he had played 297 career games in the outfield by the end of that season, they say, his injuries hadn't built up yet, and thus he was able to have a "true" Darin Erstad season at the plate. And then it all went to hell in 2001, because the injuries started to catch up with him and hamper him at the plate. Now, I suppose that if you squint your eyes and tilt your head, you might start to buy that story. Until you looked at these numbers:
2001 - .998 / 2.90 (+ 0.23)
2002 - .998 / 3.39 (+ 0.61)
2003 - 1.000 / 3.09 (+ .0.31)
Those are Erstad's fielding percentages and range factors (with the amount over the league average range factor in parentheses) as a center fielder for the last three years. Erstad's defense has been utterly spectacular during the same time his offense has suffered. But if his offense is suffering because of injuries he sustained while playing defense, wouldn't we expect to see a decline in the field as well? Would he slow down a step while chasing flies, or maybe be unable to extend himself quite so far while diving, if he's really suffering from injuries caused by precisely those activities?
Not necessarily, of course. One can always come up with scenarios in which such a thing could happen. But I don't think it's likely.
So the Angels are gambling: they're gambling that, unlikely as it is, Erstad will return to some form of offensive productivity following his move to first base (as opposed to gambling that they could put him in center and not have him end up spending significant time on the DL). If it works out, it's brilliant - no one denies that Erstad should stay off the DL more while playing first, and the abuse his body takes when he plays center is a long-term concern. If it doesn't, they've still upgraded the team, just not as much as they could have using a different defensive alignment.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Posted
2:28 PM
by Sean
All right, so the Angels get better offensively in 2004, and that's no small thing. So what happens defensively?
Darin Erstad's return to first base is a big blow to the defense, and to Erstad's value as a player. Erstad plays a remarkable defensive game in center. Although he missed too many games in 2003 to qualify for the statistics leaderboards, in 2002 he led the majors in both range factor and zone rating, as well as leading the majors in total chances, while making exactly one error. In 2001, he was fifth in range factor, first in zone rating, sixth in total chances, and first in fielding percentage (again with one error). By just about any objective measurement, Darin Erstad is the best defensive center fielder in the game - and he may be the best defensive player, period.
So moving Erstad to first base hurts. Yes, of course, he'll continue to play stellar defense at his new position. But stellar defense at first base won't have an occasion to be displayed nearly as often as it would be in center; Erstad is going from one of the most demanding defensive positions to the very least demanding defensive position. He'll be replaced in center by Garret Anderson, who possesses a better-than-average .993 fielding percentage and 2.75 range factor in just over 300 career games in that position - so the defensive downgrade at center won't be as bad as if he were being replaced by just anybody, but it will still be significant enough to outweigh the defensive gains at first base. Perhaps more significantly, Erstad will instantly become virtually valueless to the Angels, unless he substantially improves offensively. Well, that's not technically true - he won't be valueless, but his value will be so close to "replacement value" - i.e., the value that would be provided simply by calling up someone from the minors - that it becomes rather difficult to justify his salary ($7.25 million in 2003).
Meanwhile, replacing Garret Anderson with Jose Guillen in left trades fielding prowess for a strong arm. Guillen is a competent right fielder, with slightly worse range than Anderson, but does have the kind of throwing power that runners think twice about. Similarly, replacing Tim Salmon with Vladimir Guerrero in right field should be an improvement in that area as well - Guerrero has been in the double-digits in assists every year since 1997, while Salmon, who has that kind of potential when he's healthy, has been either injured or relegated to DH for fear of injury so often that he might as well become the full-time DH anyway.
Overall, my sense is that the Angels get slightly worse defensively than they were in 2003 (this doesn't count pitching, obviously). The frustrating thing about that is that, with Erstad in center and, say, Jose Guillen at first, they could potentially be a much better defensive team.
So why won't the Angels do such a thing? That's a question for Monday, friends. In the meantime, I leave you with a mystery of the unexplained: the Angels will be scouting Maels Rodriguez, a Cuban defector and starting pitcher who's rumored to have a 100-mph fastball. Keep in mind that this is a free agent, not someone they'd trade for, and ask yourself just what the Angels would do with seven starting pitchers. This is either a colossal miscalculation, some kind of misdirection, or an indication that Stoneman has a fairly advanced deal put together to offload an arm or two already.
[Postscript: Maels Rodriguez is a reliever, apparently. For reasons unknown, I thought I had read that he was a starter, but this is not true. Not that it matters - the Angels have apparently shown nothing beyond cursory interest]
All right, so the Angels get better offensively in 2004, and that's no small thing. So what happens defensively?
Darin Erstad's return to first base is a big blow to the defense, and to Erstad's value as a player. Erstad plays a remarkable defensive game in center. Although he missed too many games in 2003 to qualify for the statistics leaderboards, in 2002 he led the majors in both range factor and zone rating, as well as leading the majors in total chances, while making exactly one error. In 2001, he was fifth in range factor, first in zone rating, sixth in total chances, and first in fielding percentage (again with one error). By just about any objective measurement, Darin Erstad is the best defensive center fielder in the game - and he may be the best defensive player, period.
So moving Erstad to first base hurts. Yes, of course, he'll continue to play stellar defense at his new position. But stellar defense at first base won't have an occasion to be displayed nearly as often as it would be in center; Erstad is going from one of the most demanding defensive positions to the very least demanding defensive position. He'll be replaced in center by Garret Anderson, who possesses a better-than-average .993 fielding percentage and 2.75 range factor in just over 300 career games in that position - so the defensive downgrade at center won't be as bad as if he were being replaced by just anybody, but it will still be significant enough to outweigh the defensive gains at first base. Perhaps more significantly, Erstad will instantly become virtually valueless to the Angels, unless he substantially improves offensively. Well, that's not technically true - he won't be valueless, but his value will be so close to "replacement value" - i.e., the value that would be provided simply by calling up someone from the minors - that it becomes rather difficult to justify his salary ($7.25 million in 2003).
Meanwhile, replacing Garret Anderson with Jose Guillen in left trades fielding prowess for a strong arm. Guillen is a competent right fielder, with slightly worse range than Anderson, but does have the kind of throwing power that runners think twice about. Similarly, replacing Tim Salmon with Vladimir Guerrero in right field should be an improvement in that area as well - Guerrero has been in the double-digits in assists every year since 1997, while Salmon, who has that kind of potential when he's healthy, has been either injured or relegated to DH for fear of injury so often that he might as well become the full-time DH anyway.
Overall, my sense is that the Angels get slightly worse defensively than they were in 2003 (this doesn't count pitching, obviously). The frustrating thing about that is that, with Erstad in center and, say, Jose Guillen at first, they could potentially be a much better defensive team.
So why won't the Angels do such a thing? That's a question for Monday, friends. In the meantime, I leave you with a mystery of the unexplained: the Angels will be scouting Maels Rodriguez, a Cuban defector and starting pitcher who's rumored to have a 100-mph fastball. Keep in mind that this is a free agent, not someone they'd trade for, and ask yourself just what the Angels would do with seven starting pitchers. This is either a colossal miscalculation, some kind of misdirection, or an indication that Stoneman has a fairly advanced deal put together to offload an arm or two already.
[Postscript: Maels Rodriguez is a reliever, apparently. For reasons unknown, I thought I had read that he was a starter, but this is not true. Not that it matters - the Angels have apparently shown nothing beyond cursory interest]
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Posted
1:23 PM
by Sean
The most immediate impact of Vladimir Guerrero's tenure with the Angels, of course, will be quite a bit of improvement on the offensive side. With Guerrero in right, Salmon will move to DH, while Darin Erstad will switch from center field to first base and Garret Anderson will move from left to center. The previously-signed Jose Guillen will play left. In essence, Guerrero and Guillen replace Scott Spiezio and Brad Fullmer (plus some ABs from Shawn Wooten and Jeff DaVanon) in the lineup. Let's examine the numbers:
Angels' first basemen, 2003: .293 BA, .362 OBP, .492 SLG, 21 HR
Angels' DHes, 2003: .258 BA, .332 OBP, .421 SLG, 20 HR
Jose Guillen, 2003: .311 BA, .359 OBP, .569 SLG, 31 HR
V. Guerrero, 2003: .330 BA, .426 OBP, .586 SLG, 25 HR
Of course, some caveats are in order. Brad Fullmer was injured in the middle of a monster year, so the Angels' numbers at both first and DH (he played a little of both) are slightly lower than they would be otherwise. And no one's sure if Jose Guillen is going to repeat his breakout performance of 2003. And Vlad played in only 112 games last year due to a back problem, so his HR number is artificially low. Realistically speaking, however, the Angels figure to score a whole lot more runs in 2004 than they did in 2003.
There's also some hope that Guerrero may have an even better season than he would normally, because putting Guerrero on didn't have the impact in Montreal that it will have in Anaheim. Vlad's usual protection in the lineup was Brad Wilkerson, a fine young player whose .268 BA, .380 OBP, .464 SLG, and 19 HRs made him, at a salary of $315,000, one of Montreal's bright spots from a value perspective. But with the Angels, Guerrero will (according to Scioscia) hit third, with Garret Anderson following in the cleanup spot. Anderson's 2003: .315 BA, .345 OBP, .541 SLG, 29 HR. Yowza.
Putting all this in context, the Angels finished eleventh in runs scored last year, and tenth in OPS. Clearly, that's going to change.
Tomorrow, we'll look at what the realigned Angels will look like defensively.
The most immediate impact of Vladimir Guerrero's tenure with the Angels, of course, will be quite a bit of improvement on the offensive side. With Guerrero in right, Salmon will move to DH, while Darin Erstad will switch from center field to first base and Garret Anderson will move from left to center. The previously-signed Jose Guillen will play left. In essence, Guerrero and Guillen replace Scott Spiezio and Brad Fullmer (plus some ABs from Shawn Wooten and Jeff DaVanon) in the lineup. Let's examine the numbers:
Angels' first basemen, 2003: .293 BA, .362 OBP, .492 SLG, 21 HR
Angels' DHes, 2003: .258 BA, .332 OBP, .421 SLG, 20 HR
Jose Guillen, 2003: .311 BA, .359 OBP, .569 SLG, 31 HR
V. Guerrero, 2003: .330 BA, .426 OBP, .586 SLG, 25 HR
Of course, some caveats are in order. Brad Fullmer was injured in the middle of a monster year, so the Angels' numbers at both first and DH (he played a little of both) are slightly lower than they would be otherwise. And no one's sure if Jose Guillen is going to repeat his breakout performance of 2003. And Vlad played in only 112 games last year due to a back problem, so his HR number is artificially low. Realistically speaking, however, the Angels figure to score a whole lot more runs in 2004 than they did in 2003.
There's also some hope that Guerrero may have an even better season than he would normally, because putting Guerrero on didn't have the impact in Montreal that it will have in Anaheim. Vlad's usual protection in the lineup was Brad Wilkerson, a fine young player whose .268 BA, .380 OBP, .464 SLG, and 19 HRs made him, at a salary of $315,000, one of Montreal's bright spots from a value perspective. But with the Angels, Guerrero will (according to Scioscia) hit third, with Garret Anderson following in the cleanup spot. Anderson's 2003: .315 BA, .345 OBP, .541 SLG, 29 HR. Yowza.
Putting all this in context, the Angels finished eleventh in runs scored last year, and tenth in OPS. Clearly, that's going to change.
Tomorrow, we'll look at what the realigned Angels will look like defensively.
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Posted
12:57 PM
by Sean
All right, I'm back.
I suspect that anyone journeying to this blog right now will be in search of an opinion about the single biggest event in this, or any, Angels' off-season: Rex Hudler's reinstatement as the Angels' television analyst. Yes, it's a triumph for the fans and the Wonder Dog himself that the Angels' brass was able to see past his occasional toke on those funny cigarettes and bring back one of the most entertaining broadcasters in any sport. Welcome back, Rex!
Oh, and I guess the Angels signed a couple of free agents this winter, too. One of the secret joys of making big baseball headlines is the ability to scan the message boards and blogs of other teams in your division; herewith my team-by-team summaries of AL West fans' reactions to the Vladimir Guerrero signing:
Angels: "Holy shit!"
A's: "No big deal! No big deal! He's not that good! In fact, there's no such person!"
Mariners: "We're dooooooooooooomed! Also, Bavasi sucks!"
Rangers: "We like pie!"
More tomorrow on what the Guerrero signing means to the Angels.
All right, I'm back.
I suspect that anyone journeying to this blog right now will be in search of an opinion about the single biggest event in this, or any, Angels' off-season: Rex Hudler's reinstatement as the Angels' television analyst. Yes, it's a triumph for the fans and the Wonder Dog himself that the Angels' brass was able to see past his occasional toke on those funny cigarettes and bring back one of the most entertaining broadcasters in any sport. Welcome back, Rex!
Oh, and I guess the Angels signed a couple of free agents this winter, too. One of the secret joys of making big baseball headlines is the ability to scan the message boards and blogs of other teams in your division; herewith my team-by-team summaries of AL West fans' reactions to the Vladimir Guerrero signing:
Angels: "Holy shit!"
A's: "No big deal! No big deal! He's not that good! In fact, there's no such person!"
Mariners: "We're dooooooooooooomed! Also, Bavasi sucks!"
Rangers: "We like pie!"
More tomorrow on what the Guerrero signing means to the Angels.