Better Know A Rival: Los Angeles
Notice: I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of the names contained in this post. I'm working off best guesses and limited research, here, so I'll probably make a few mistakes. Those'll be dealt with in the comments.
Status: Division favorite
Threat Level: High
Projected Offense:
C: Napoli
1B: Kotchman
2B: Kendrick
SS: Izturis
3B: Figgins
LF/RF: Matthews Jr.
LF/DH: Anderson
CF: Hunter
RF/DH: Guerrero
I can't tell you how many times I've looked at this unit over the winter. And every single time I look, it seems a little bit worse.
This isn't to say that the Angels' offense is bad. It isn't. It's better than ours. But last year's 822 is a run total they're not likely to reach in 2008. The only real question here has to do with the size of the drop-off.
There's nobody awful here. Altogether, you've got a collection of ~average hitters dancing around a superstar maypole. Given their positions, the biggest offender is likely to be either Anderson or Matthews, but GA is coming off an .828 OPS, and the Angels will have Rivera and Willits as insurance in case they need spot starts or fairy dust. Willits may not have any ability, but a lot of pitchers don't have any control, so it's pretty easy to post a good OBP as long as you never swing the bat.
My two big question marks are Casey Kotchman and Howie Kendrick. Kotchman was well on his way to a breakout season before he suffered a concussion on June 16th, after which his batting line was never the same. And Kendrick - while absurdly talented - had a ridiculous 223-point separation between his BABIP and his LD%. If Kotchman can chip in 20 homers while Kendrick's batted balls catch up to his stats, they'll be good sources of much-needed support. But if Kotchman fails to take the next step while Kendrick's stats catch up to his batted balls, then the Angels will find themselves in a pickle, looking for help from people who can't provide it. These guys will go a long way towards determining just how close of a race we're going to get.
I think this offense ends up somewhere in the mid-700's. Call it 770 with downside. There's talent and a bit of depth, but there's also age and regression to the mean, two of the more powerful forces in the Major League universe. Me, I feel like they're still a bat away. That Matthews contract isn't doing them any favors. The lineup's all right, and it'll score some runs, but it wouldn't take much for things to really go south. Note: as Mariner fans, we should all be hoping that Erick Aybar and Jeff Mathis each have the Spring Training of a lifetime.
Projected Pitching:
SP1: Lackey
SP2: Escobar
SP3: Weaver
SP4: Garland
SP5: Saunders or Santana
The Angels haven't allowed 750 runs in a season since 2000, and that seven-year streak doesn't appear in jeopardy. This is a pretty good staff from top to bottom.
From an xFIP perspective, it isn't great. The fearsome top three look like #2, #3, and #4 pitchers, respectively. But none of Lackey, Escobar, or Weaver have paid much attention to their xFIPs for quite some time. What's their secret? How are they able to so consistently defeat their peripherals?
They seem to have figured out some trick to pitching at home, that's how. Pretty much all of the Angels have. Over the last eight years, Angel hitters have posted ~equivalent home run rates at home and on the road, but once in Anaheim, the pitchers have lowered their road rates by 15%. That's a massive edge, and one that allows the guys at the front of this rotation to beat their peripherals and put up some shiny ERA's. I don't know what the Angels are teaching their pitchers, but they're teaching it well. This is what I call a true home field advantage.
The ass end of the rotation isn't much to look at, but Saunders is fairly safe, and Garland can soak up a ton of innings. Santana and Moseley work fine as the 6/7 starters. They'll be stressed a little bit in the early going as it looks like Escobar's going to miss most/all of April, but Escobar always misses a little time, so this isn't a new phenomenon, and the Angels should be able to weather the storm. Barring catastrophic injury, there's basically zero chance of this pitching staff turning into a glaring concern.
With that said, it's not out of the question that this group undershoots what people expect. Weaver continuing his regression would go a long way towards weakening the team strength. Garland, like Silva, has a lot of blow-up potential, even though he, like Silva, will be pitching in a friendly environment. And Santana's coming off his own summer of agony. The Angels are set up fairly well, but they can't make any guarantees. There's no shortage of things here of which they should be wary.
The bullpen's fine. Francisco Rodriguez still scares the crap out of me.
Defense:
Bad.
Overall:
The Angels are the favorites to win this division, but they're the weakest of the AL's Big Five. Each of the other four do at least one thing really well. The Angels don't, and while their pitching staff is good, it has a lot more downside than upside. They're kind of the Joseph Michael D'Albora to the AL elite's Baldwin brothers.
Honestly, the more I look at this team, the more flawed it becomes. Not as flawed as us, but flawed enough to be within reach. Without some major steps up, they just don't seem capable of running away from the pack. I'm going with 88-92 wins and a sprained neck from constantly having to look over their shoulder during their daily jog. Here's hoping they trip.
0 recs |
74
comments
Comments
crave
by appleshampoo on Feb 19, 2008 11:25 PM PST 0 recs
I don't think this deserves a diary
by tworsandtwols on Feb 20, 2008 12:43 AM PST 0 recs
Be ready...
Personally, I'm seriously thinking about putting some money on Oakland. With the odds it seems worth it.
by Gromky on Feb 20, 2008 3:00 AM PST 0 recs
You'd be betting on Harden's health
by Graham on
Feb 20, 2008 3:04 AM PST
up
0 recs
Defense bad?
That said, for a division favorite this team says "beatable" to me.
by los marineros on Feb 20, 2008 3:30 AM PST 0 recs
Izturis
Figgins is lousy at 3B. Anderson and Vlad should DH most of the time. Matthews is below average in CF, but should be an asset in a corner. Kotchman is quite good, but plays the least important defensive position.
by G_ on
Feb 20, 2008 9:47 AM PST
up
0 recs
To me,
Izturis is... not a good SS. They've got to be waiting for Brandon Wood, but still not sure if he sticks at SS at the ML level. Chone is a decent hitter, but he'd have a hell of a lot more value if he was playing second instead of third.
I think their defense will be pretty awful, but I do think the O might be half decent. Their pitchers look pretty good though.
by seattlebruin on
Feb 20, 2008 10:53 AM PST
up
0 recs
re: Wood sticking at SS
by Matthew on
Feb 20, 2008 11:40 AM PST
up
0 recs
They have depth though
Kendrick is legitimately an above average 2b defender. He's equal to, or perhaps a bit above Jose Lopez, who's also a bit north of average.
As you say, their OF defense should be better next year. Nothing spectacular in any position, but having GMJ in LF instead of CF is big - similar to the M's with Randy Winn in LF (although 2008 Hunter <<<<<<<<<<< 2001-2 Cameron in CF).
I'm with you on Figgins. I don't remember him being that bad, but his RZR numbers at 3b are positively Braunian.
With that exception (and who knows, maybe Wood will be ready this year), I still think they'll be an average defensive team, esp. with fly ballers like Garland, Escobar and Weaver.
by marc w on
Feb 20, 2008 2:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
Aybar can't hit
by Matthew on
Feb 20, 2008 2:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
He's hit poorly in two trials
Not sure what's wrong w/him these days.
The point is, the Angels have options. Maybe Aybar regains the ability to hit - or simply flourishes if given a legit shot. Maybe Izturis isn't terrible, or maybe Aybar comes in as a defensive replacement.
Maybe Sean Rodriguez takes a step forward. Who knows. For the position to really be a problem area - on offense or defense - several things have to go wrong.
by marc w on
Feb 20, 2008 2:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
take Angel milb stats with an extreme grain
by Matthew on
Feb 20, 2008 3:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Fair enough
Kendrick can rake, and while he probably won't have the .200+ isos he had in the Angels minors, he's still a legit hitter.
To a much less degree, the same is probably true of Aybar. Though the struggles of Aybar and Callaspo give me pause...
by marc w on
Feb 20, 2008 3:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
It's Maicer, not Cesar
Lopez is a good comp for Kendrick. Both are a bit above average but still pretty close to the middle of the pack. Kendrick is kind of the opposite of Izturis in that he shows good range but does not make plays on all the balls he within that range.
If Maicer starts, the Angels will have three pot holes, including one at a premium position (SS, 3B, and either LF/RF), which puts their overall defense below average.
by G_ on
Feb 20, 2008 4:12 PM PST
up
0 recs
I know
That poor showing in 2005 was what - 20, 25 games?
AGAIN, the point isn't that Maicer is awesome. If he's plainly incapable of fielding the position, they can go with Aybar. If he sucks at the plate, they can job share it or make liberal use of defensive sub., or they can see how Sean Rodriguez is doing.
They may be below ave. at SS, but I don't think it'll be enough to totally drag down the DER.
by marc w on
Feb 20, 2008 4:47 PM PST
up
0 recs
It's 3B and LF/RF too
by G_ on
Feb 20, 2008 5:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
Why not?
The IF is a negative.
The pitching staff is FB-oriented.
The DER will be roughly average.
I just don't get why it's going to be terrible, unless SS is a god-awful black hole, or if all FBs somehow go to RF. (Or that Torii Hunter sucks; I know PMR doesn't like him, but he looks pretty good, even now, in RZR)
by marc w on
Feb 21, 2008 1:49 PM PST
up
0 recs
OF
Hunter = Average in CF
Anderson/Vlad = Bad to Awful in RF
In 2007, the Angels OF was about 30 runs below average. Yes, they add Hunter and shift GMJ over and push one of Garret/Vlad out of the OF, but it also removes Willits (a good defender) from the OF and Willits made 104 starts last year.
So really, all they've done is gone from 104 starts of Willits to 150 of Hunter (they're roughly comparable glove-wise). All the while, GMJ, Vlad and Anderson age.
I don't see how that change impacts them 30 runs in the positive direction. I'd call it pretty close to a 0 change.
by Matthew on
Feb 21, 2008 2:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
Matthews RZR
You're right that Willits wasn't a bad LF. The Angels could give him a number of starts in RF, and an OF of Willits/Hunter/GMJ - even for 30-50 games - would go a long way towards making up that 30 run gap. Last year Willits was in LF only for about 50-60 games. Going from 50 to 150 of GMJ in LF probably IS pretty big. Willits also had 20+ games in CF, where he was terrible. 162 games of either GMJ or Hunter isn't huge, but it's noticeable. And if Willits gets more than the 20 games he had in RF, say 50, then the OF is probably above average.
They have the pieces to create a damn good OF. We'll just see how they're utilized.
by marc w on
Feb 21, 2008 2:24 PM PST
up
0 recs
Right on
Kotchman's the guy I'm worried about. I have no idea how likely he is to live up to the hype, but if he does, there's trouble. Then again, Dan Johnson is supposed to be a similar type of hitter, no?
I think you're wrong on the D. They're kind of the anti-mariners in that sense. With Hunter/GMJ they'll have a solid-good OF, and a porous left infield. However, Aybar/Itzuris/Chone can't be as collectively bad as Ibanez in LF, so advantage Angels. I wonder if our lineup of groundball hitting righties is build specifically to give this Angels team fits.
by Mere Tantalisers on Feb 20, 2008 6:30 AM PST 0 recs
This is totally irrational
by InSpokane on Feb 20, 2008 9:58 AM PST 0 recs
On what basis?
by pdb on
Feb 20, 2008 10:01 AM PST
up
0 recs
I just hate him
I see him and my asshole meter goes crazy. Really have no rational reason for it.
by InSpokane on
Feb 20, 2008 10:05 AM PST
up
0 recs
That's all the reason I need
Ah, the sweet, sweet taste of irrational hatred. How I've missed you all winter.
by pdb on
Feb 20, 2008 10:19 AM PST
up
0 recs
Its his batting stance
by bluemax on
Feb 20, 2008 11:05 AM PST
up
0 recs
Doesn't quite capture it
by bluemax on
Feb 20, 2008 1:47 PM PST
up
0 recs
Like the right-handed version of Snelling.

by Wilder83 on
Feb 20, 2008 3:54 PM PST
up
0 recs
Why can't Washburn
by naviomelo on Feb 20, 2008 5:30 PM PST 0 recs
Probably because he never learned it himself
Road ERA: 3.34
Home ERA: 4.61
Not one single year of his career as an Angel did he have a lower home ERA than a road ERA.
by scareduck on
Feb 21, 2008 2:02 PM PST
up
0 recs
Vlad still scares the shit out of me
Career vs SEA: .368/.444/.693
Career at Safeco: .393/.451/.659 (Keep in mind he is RH)
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 20, 2008 8:35 PM PST 0 recs
And thats over
by Edgar for Pres on
Feb 20, 2008 8:39 PM PST
up
0 recs
Bias
by kornkidx on Feb 21, 2008 7:08 PM PST 0 recs
Excellent sir,
by redwolf75 on
Feb 21, 2008 8:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
From what we know about the Angels
by G_ on
Feb 21, 2008 8:36 PM PST
up
0 recs
Not once do I see Jeff saying we're gonna win the
"Status: Division favorite"
"This isn't to say that the Angels' offense is bad. It isn't. It's better than ours."
"This is a pretty good staff from top to bottom."
"Barring catastrophic injury, there's basically zero chance of this pitching staff turning into a glaring concern."
"The Angels are the favorites to win this division,"
"Not as flawed as us, but flawed enough to be within reach."
"I'm going with 88-92 wins and a sprained neck from constantly having to look over their shoulder during their daily jog."
Oh yeah, there's alot of bias there. In a nutshell he's saying that you guys are gonna win the West, unless alot of things break right for us and alot of things go wrong for you. I'm pretty sure every sane Angel fan around would agree with that.
by Goose on
Feb 21, 2008 9:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
It's too bad there wasn't something
Notice: I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of the names contained in this post. I'm working off best guesses and limited research, here, so I'll probably make a few mistakes. Those'll be dealt with in the comments.
by Jed MC on
Feb 22, 2008 7:12 AM PST
up
0 recs
Len Bias?
by PositivePaul on
Feb 21, 2008 11:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
You:Analysis is like Korn:Music
by Librocrat on
Feb 24, 2008 11:28 PM PST
up
0 recs
The rain is getting to us --
by redwolf75 on Feb 21, 2008 8:19 PM PST 0 recs
who listen to Nirvana and buy Microsoft products
Am I missing anything?
by Goose on
Feb 21, 2008 9:11 PM PST
up
0 recs
We're also a bunch of
by redwolf75 on
Feb 21, 2008 9:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
Woops, sorry about that.
by Goose on
Feb 21, 2008 9:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
Forlornly
by redwolf75 on
Feb 21, 2008 9:43 PM PST
up
0 recs
According to HH
by JI on Feb 21, 2008 11:32 PM PST 0 recs
I thought you were gone for the weekend.
by JI on
Feb 21, 2008 11:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm not without internet
by Jeff on
Feb 21, 2008 11:59 PM PST
up
0 recs
I can't stand overprotective parents.
by JI on
Feb 22, 2008 12:22 AM PST
up
0 recs
I thought they considered themselves
Or they would, if they knew what 'bastion' meant.
by Graham on
Feb 22, 2008 1:24 AM PST
up
0 recs
Many Mariner fans are not from Seattle.
by JI on Feb 21, 2008 11:33 PM PST 0 recs
HEY LOOK ITS A REPLY BUTTON
by JI on
Feb 21, 2008 11:34 PM PST
up
0 recs
Mariner fans?
by kornkidx on
Feb 22, 2008 6:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
I know you're trying your hardest
The 'hawks for one are a well run franchise that's won the division handily four years in a row, with plenty more on the way.
And what's that? LA doesn't have an NFL franchise? Awwwww...
by redwolf75 on
Feb 22, 2008 10:32 PM PST
up
0 recs
Don't encourage the Angels fan
Anaheim is in ORANGE FREAKING COUNTY.
by seattlebruin on
Feb 26, 2008 8:39 AM PST
up
0 recs
Hey coach, hauldog says "hi"
by redwolf75 on Feb 22, 2008 7:52 AM PST 0 recs
paging graham and libkertoffel (sp.)
by Matthew on Feb 23, 2008 6:39 PM PST 0 recs
Yeah I'm just going to delete it
by Graham on
Feb 24, 2008 2:43 AM PST
up
0 recs
What's to say?
The suburban anomie is a bit more pronounced, as you might expect. But the whole thing is so cartoonish and derivative; it's like he's just discovered the idea of trolling. Sort of like a little kid who just learned to say 'fuck.'
Even LL's trolls (and I'm not sure I count AK1984 in that number anymore) have more well-rounded and often unexpected personalities.
by marc w on
Feb 25, 2008 11:13 AM PST
up
0 recs
Could you be any more
Change tack, I'm getting sleepy.
by redwolf75 on Feb 23, 2008 8:34 PM PST 0 recs







