![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Okay, NOW it's a series
Posted 11:21 AM by SeanI'm trying to get a bunch of stuff done before leaving town this afternoon, so this will necessarily be brief. A lot's being made about home plate umpire Jerry Mears's strike zone last night; in my opinion, it was pretty tiny, but mostly consistent. There were three or four instances in which he seemed to call differently than he had before, which is bad, but it happened to both the Angels and the Red Sox. And Jerry Mears didn't throw a wild pitch at a critical time, or strike out with a runner in scoring position.
The major problem I'm having with the Angels in this series is not that they're losing. The Red Sox are a good team - the best in the American League, I think - and they're playing good baseball. My problem is that the Angels are losing because of their mental mistakes, and looking like chumps while doing so. This just isn't the team they've been this year. They've lost games, sure, but they've never looked like the Kansas City Royals before. Regardless of what's happening - and I suspect emotional letdown after chasing down the A's may be a factor - I'd really like it to stop, at least for one game.
Like I said, I'm going out of town for a few days, so the next entry (probably Monday) will discuss either the last game of the season or the incredible comeback.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Chicken Little, Table of A Thousand?
Posted 9:32 AM by SeanI'm quite sure I don't know what the hell everyone is talking about after the Red Sox's 9-3 win over the Angels yesterday.
The L.A. Times's Mike Penner is all but telling us that neither the Dodgers nor the Angels have a chance. Ditto Rob. Steve Bisheff at the Register is calling it a "mismatch." Meanwhile, guys who haven't seen an Angels game all year, let alone recently, are smugly claiming that the game they saw yesterday typifies the team. And T.J. Simers...is Simers off his meds? Or is this column a joke? Either way, I want my two minutes back.
Well, nuts to all y'all.
Lookit: I didn't even see the game yesterday. I listened to the radio broadcast. So maybe I'm missing something, but that sure didn't sound like a typical Angels game. It sounded like there were some defensive screwups that cost them big, and this is not a team that regularly screws up on defense.
Outside of Boston's seven-run fourth, the Angels actually outscored the Red Sox. That's not a whole lot of comfort, since MLB rarely lets you take a mulligan on stuff like that, but it points out that those who would seek to bury the Angels now are doing so because of one inning. An inning that went like this:
-D Ortiz walked.
-K Millar homered to left, D Ortiz scored.
-J Varitek singled to left.
-O Cabrera walked, J Varitek to second.
-B Mueller struck out looking.
-G Kapler singled to right, J Varitek to third, O Cabrera to second.
-J Damon grounded into fielder's choice to third, J Varitek and O Cabrera scored on throwing error by third baseman C Figgins, G Kapler safe at third on throwing error by third baseman C Figgins.
-S Shields relieved J Washburn.
-M Bellhorn struck out swinging.
-M Ramirez homered to center, G Kapler and J Damon scored.
-D Ortiz grounded out to second.
Both Varitek's single to left and Kapler's single to right were apparently close to being outs. So if the Angels get a little luckier, or maybe if Figgins and Amezaga get ten minutes' more sleep, it's a two-run inning instead of a seven-run inning. Again, this doesn't matter now, because the game is lost, and fair play to the Boston Red Sox. But it should tell you that this series is far from over.
As Richard points out, the Angels did get to Schilling a little bit; the Angels had nine hits to Boston's 11, all of them against Schilling. Tonight's game is pretty close to a must-win for the Angels, but there's no reason to believe that, if Colon can outduel Martinez, the Angels will be flying east to annihilation. Escobar versus Arroyo? Lackey versus Wakefield? Which of those games is unwinnable?
I am also stymied by the general feeling that Scioscia screwed up big-time by starting Amezaga. This was hardly a concession; Amezaga, you'll recall, also started against Mulder and Zito in games the Angels needed to win the division in the first place. I grant you that those starts were against lefties, and Dallas McPherson does not hit lefties well, but let us also note that Dallas McPherson did, in fact, get into yesterday's game early enough to go 0-for-3, including a groundout with the bases loaded.
In any event, what it all boils down to is that the Angels have their backs against the wall tonight. If they lose, they'll be in big trouble. But if they win, they're right back to even. And you'd better believe they've got a shot at winning.
Which, if you do the math, means they're still in this thing.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Call me when you've got an insight
Posted 11:11 AM by SeanSince this is just the first round of the playoffs, we're not quite to the point where I can make fun of the ludicriously overwrought human-interest stories the baseball press vomits up every fall. Here, instead, are the predictions I've been able to find on the Angels-Red Sox series:
King Kaufman takes the Red Sox in four:
But the real difference in this series, other than the two top starters, is the lineups. The Red Sox lead the league in just about everything offensively. The Angels do a nice job of putting the ball in play and manufacturing runs, but they're a middle-of-the-pack hitting team even at full strength, and their missing the suspended Jose Guillen and the injured Adam Kennedy. They small-balled their way to the championship two years ago, but I don't think they have the horses this time.
Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons says it's Red Sox in five:
So here's my big prediction: Schilling cruises over Washburn in Game 1. Game 2 (Colon vs. Pedro) has all the makings of one of those epic Red Sox defeats where the wheels come off in some excruciating way, sending everyone back home into an absolute panic (I'm getting a weird vibe about Jeff DaVanon in this game -- can't explain it). In Game 3, Arroyo pitches the game of his life. Up 2-1 in Game 4, Francona nearly panics and pitches Schilling on three days rest, then thinks better of it and hands the ball to Wakefield, who gets shelled in an ugly 11-9 slugfest. Poor Francona just can't win either way. So everyone flies back to Anaheim for Game Five ... and Schilling lays the smack down on Colon. Series over. Bring on Santana and the Twins.
Jayson Stark is taking the Red Sox to win the World Series, which presumably means they'd get past the Angels:
Still, we're picking the Red Sox -- because we expect Schilling to win Game 1. Which will give the Sox a chance to win the series at Fenway. And we like the way the Boston hitters match up against a staff that "doesn't pitch in very much," said one scout, "which is the only way to beat the Red Sox."
Aside from Simmons and Stark, the other ESPN analyst predictions are in this chart. To summarize:
Red Sox - Peter Gammons, Rob Neyer, Jerry Crasnick, Tim Kurkjian, Jim Caple, Pedro Gomez, Sean McAdam, John Sickels, Scott Ridge.
Angels - Buster Olney, Eric Neel, Bob Klapisch, Phil Rogers, Matt Szefc.
Additionally, Mark Simon is listed as taking the Angels in the ALDS, but predicts the Yankees over the Red Sox in the ALCS. Good luck, Mark!
Elsewhere on ESPN, Page 2 summarizes the picks of the aforementioned Eric Neel and Jim Caple, and adds ESPN editors Michael Knisley and David Schoenfield. Neel and Shoenfield have the Angels in five, Caple and Knisley the Red Sox in four.
John Donovan at Sports Illustrated picks the Red Sox in five:
If the postseason comes down to pitching -- and it usually does -- this series belongs to Boston. Schilling and Martinez rule over any Angels' starting duo. Still, the Angels won the World Series in '02 with a shaky rotation when their bullpen bailed them out. Can the Angels do it again? They've come a long way through a lot of pain, but the best lineup in the AL, coupled with that rotation and a good Boston pen, puts an end to Anaheim's season here.
So does Aaron Gleeman at The Hardball Times:
This really is a tough series to pick a winner for, and certainly tougher than it would have been with Oakland playing Boston. While the Angels have the better bullpen, that doesn't help them much unless the game is close in the late innings. The Red Sox have the better, deeper offense and far better starting pitching, and should be able to score enough runs on Anaheim's starters early to minimize the impact of the Angels' relievers. This is Boston's series to lose, and they won't if Foulke can hold leads late. I think he will.
As for today's game...Bodog.com puts it at Boston -168, Anaheim +153, meaning you'd have to wager $168 on Boston to win $100, and betting $100 on Anaheim would win you $153.
All of this seems to add up to one thing: the Angels are underdogs. Again.
It's funny - everyone seems to sagely agree that the 2004 team just doesn't measure up to the 2002 squad. But these are the same folks who universally picked those poor 2002 Angels to fold to the unstoppable juggernaut that was the New York Yankees. After all, just look at all that playoff experience the Yankees had! And the only Angel who'd ever even been to the playoffs was Kevin Appier!
Whatever, man. None of these picks are anything but the cheep-cheep-cheeping of guys with columns due. In the meantime, fifty guys in uniforms will figure it out and let us know the real answer in a few days, after which those same prognosticators, most of whom will have been wrong, will write to let us know why such an outcome was inevitable.
Me? I don't have a prediction, just as suggestion:
GO GET 'EM, ANGELS!
[Update: Rob also has a prediction roundup at 6-4-2]
Playoff roster
Posted 9:50 AM by SeanThe Angels' playoff roster has been finalized.
Halter, Galarraga, and Sele are off; Kotchman and Pride are on. Lackey, we're told, will be available to pitch out of the bullpen in Games 1 and 2, or could start Game 4.
Tim Salmon, of course, will not be on the roster, but will be with the team. Apparently, he had to watch Saturday's clincher against the A's via GameDay, since it was blacked out in Phoenix, where he lives.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
ALDS matchups set
Posted 4:18 PM by SeanThe Twins lost to the Indians this afternoon, meaning that, regardless of the outcome of the Angels-A's contest, the ALDS matchups will feature the Red Sox versus the Angels and the Twins versus the Yankees. The Angels-Sox game will start at 4:00 Eastern Time on Tuesday.
A few days ago, Twins blogger Aaron Gleeman studied the situation and concluded that he'd rather the Twins lose home field advantage and face the Yankees in the first round of the playoffs, instead of having to play Boston. I sympathize; certainly that sweep in Boston was a low point for the Halos. But, thinking about it, I realized that this is no worse than going into Yankee Stadium in 2002, underdogs to such a degree that it seemed that no one was giving them a second thought. Boston's got a terrific team this year, but they've got to come into Anaheim and win.
The last week has been a warmup. The real excitement starts in 48 hours.
Monster accolades
Posted 1:01 PM by SeanVlad Guerrero has been named A.L. Player of the Month for September, the first Angel to be PotM since Tim Salmon won it in '97.
I think maybe Arte's getting his money's worth out of this one.