Difference between the Angels and Cubs
by silent_sole on Dec 19, 2006 3:21 PM PST
60 comments
The Angels last year would be considered by most a middle-of-the-pack team. They were infact a couple of wins (or a couple of Seattle wins) away from another division title. However the abysmal offense and defense was luckily hidden by the stellar pitching. To me that sounds like 2 holes that need to be filled, not simply a problem that can be answered by a single position player. To fix this problem the angels went out and signed a center fielder, in Gary Matthews Jr. whose contract takes the place of Erstad's moneywise, but may not even be as good a hitter as Erstad and could not hold a candle to him or Figgins in center defensively. Lets hope GMJ's last year was not an abberation becuase if he is the player that he has been in the past even Figgins may hit more home runs than him. The money spent on GMJ is also crippling the angels trades or signings in the future.
With that said the Cubbies have spent more than any other team this offseason, some of it on people the Angels bid for. Missing out on the big guns and then settling for average or below average product is turning the Angels into the Orioles of the west coast not the Yankees that owner Arte Moreno had in mind. I'm aware that lots of free agents are overpriced this offseason, but trades were possible if Stoneman would pull the trigger. Its as if he doesnt realize that in order to get a big piece you must give up value as well, and pitching is an area they Angels have alot of value in the majors and minors. Missing out on these trades and free agents has shown the Angel fans that Stoneman values his prospects and would rather wait to win with them then take a gamble on a mixture of prospects and talent brought in from other avenues. The Cubs have spent alot, maybe not on all the best free agents, but they are going for it, all out. And not just Cubbie fans are paying attention, the Cubs are putting an interesting and fun product on the field made up of a mixture of Soriano's and Ted Lilly's. They have picked themselves up from the bottom of the National League garbage heap and put them selves among possible the top 3 or 4 teams, which means playoffs, and once you get there anything can happen.
This all happens while the Angels sit and try to wait out eveyone else in order to get the best possible deal but when that time comes it'll be October 1st 2007 with the Angels talking about a good "productive" season finishing 2 or 4 games out of first in the West and Angel fans will have to sit through another offseason of proposed trades and signings.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
0 recs |
60 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Take Arte up on his Refund offer
The Cubs are good at one thing: Losing. Let me know when they win something.
all im saying is
Perspective
Our offense in '06
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 19, 2006 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
On Paper?
by Barry on Dec 19, 2006 9:24 PM PST up reply actions
Funny
If a douche like Dayn Perry can write for Baseball Prospectus I am not sure I need to read the shit.
Well,
Our offense sucked on paper and sucked during the season also...
by Barry on Dec 21, 2006 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
Well, BP is good
Seriously, they may have been right, or close to right on the rankings, but not for any foreseeable, legitimate reasoning. If Kotchman hadn't gotten the near-death-type-mono, the offense is already considerably better. It's like saying the Cardinals offense is going to be the worst in baseball, and then being right, but only because Albert Pujols got breast cancer. Half credit...at best.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 21, 2006 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
How did the Angels defense look on paper?
by johnnyangel101 on Dec 22, 2006 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
Wake me when
also
Orioles fans live for the future
We are NOT the Orioles of the west.
Matthews
I know he made that amazing catch but
Figgins gets better jumps?
I'll second that
And third by me
Yeah Figgins,
by Barry on Dec 19, 2006 9:27 PM PST up reply actions
If the Cubs win more games than the Angels
Speaking of which the Angels have averaged 90+ wins for the last five years, making the playoffs three times, narrowly missing a fourth, winning a World Series, and making it to a second LCS. You know when's the last time Baltimore even had a WINNING FREAKING SEASON? 1997.
Your logic -- have to give up value to get a big piece! -- was very popular in the mid-'90s, when there was enormous pressure to trade one of Erstad, Anderson, Salmon, Edmonds, and J.T. Snow (can't have four fine young outfielders, and a talented young first basemen, don'tcha know). Back then it was pitching wot we needed, not offense, so G.A. and Erstad and Edmonds were constant trade bait in the papers, Chili Davis was traded for about 8 innings of Mark Gubicza, J.T. Snow was exchanged for the excruciatingly mediocre Allen Watson, and the Angels spent the rest of the '90s narrowly missing the playoffs due to the rotten stiffs and/or talented sniffs they had to import year after year at high price to fill the void left by Snow and Davis (who, needless to say, were busy raking in their new digs).
You may have a hankering for the glory days of Cecil Fielder, Rickey Henderson, Greg Jeffries and Tony Phillips, but I sure as hell don't. Yeah, Figgins at 3B blows, and GMJ ain't all that, but the winter is young, and Stoneman/Moreno have produced the best five-year-run in franchise history, BY BLOODY FAR, while grooming arguably the most talented crop of young talent in franchise history.
Yeah, totally like Baltimore. If, by "Baltimore," you mean Earl Weaver's crew from 1966-1983.
Moreno bought the Angels
And made the playoffs
You're right, he's no better than Peter Angelos.
And Stoneman preceded his purchase by three years
by like Baltimore i mean
just to clarify
It is not Arte's fault
It is not his fault he never even got the opportunity to shower A Ram with cash.
If by "hasn't worked," you mean...
Don't get me wrong -- I'm still pissed about last year, and will start throwing things if Figgy's the opening day 3B, AGAIN. But they are developing a perennial World Series contender here, not that bag of syphillic crabs over in Maryland.
"Syphilitic?"
"Syphilitic?"
yeah ill agree with that
I wish
Then traded
actually
Zito & Lilly
TL: 59-58, 4.60 ERA, 99 ERA+
BZ: 6 consecutive years of at least 213 IP
TL: Career high of 197.3 IP, only one other season with 180
BZ: 3-time All-Star, 2-time top-21 MVP finisher, one-time Cy Young.
TL: Made an All-Star team.
No, yeah, totally the same.
Maybe he meant similar as in...
check out kieth laws analysis
whoops, forgot about that, here:
Lilly is Barry Zito without the name recognition, and with a little more stuff. Lilly throws four pitches, with his fringe-average fastball (87-89 mph) probably his worst pitch. He has a plus curve, similar to Zito's in shape, with good depth and two-plane break. His changeup may be even better than his curve, because he maintains his arm speed extremely well and gets some fade on the pitch. He also throws a slider in the low 80s that, while inconsistent, is also plus at times, and on some nights it's his best secondary pitch.
On the downside, like Zito, Lilly has below-average control and is susceptible to the long ball. He'd be a much better fit in a bigger ballpark than Toronto's, which has tended to be homer-friendly over the past few years. He's also had minor arm trouble several times over the years, including a never-identified shoulder issue that cost him eight or nine starts in 2005 and caused him to post the worst ERA of his career. Durability is well-compensated in the free agent market, so Lilly won't see Zito dollars. But should he stay healthy, he's a good bet to outpitch Zito over the next three to four years.
Zito #15
Zito has long been considered the prize starter on the 2006-07 free agent market; he's one of only two available Cy Young Award winners (with Greg Maddux), he's left-handed, and he's put up great numbers while throwing most of his innings in pitchers' parks with great outfield defenses behind him.
Zito needs to pitch somewhat backwards to be successful. His fastball is below-average, usually around 84-86 mph and occasionally touching 88, with a little run but no sink. He has two plus secondary pitches: a changeup with good fade and tail, a pitch on which he maintains his arm speed extremely well, and his famous curveball, with a huge, two-plane break, a pitch he can throw for strikes when he needs to or throw down and away against left-handed batters to finish them off. What Zito brings to the table is durability; he's never had a major injury and has topped 210 innings in every full season he's spent in the big leagues. That sort of predictability is valuable, especially in a market full of guys with serious injuries in their recent histories.
Zito is a third or fourth starter with the reputation of a one or a two. In fact, over the last three years, he's struggled badly when facing the two premier offenses in the AL, posting a 6.59 ERA against Boston and the Yankees while walking 47 men and allowing 18 homers in 83.3 innings. His control is below-average; only Daniel Cabrera has walked more batters in the last two years than Zito has. And should Zito's stuff slip at all, he becomes a fifth starter or a guy who needs to head to the National League, the current destination for asylum-seekers who fear AL persecution of their fringy fastballs.
by silent_sole on Dec 20, 2006 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Sir
I would also like to add that Ted Lilly is no Barry Zito.
All you need to know about this analysis
Yeah, like they brought in the fences 25 feet and installed turbine engines behind home plate.
With a crappy pitching staff, Yellowstone would be "homer friendly".
Joke.
by darkangel01 on Dec 20, 2006 11:29 AM PST up reply actions
Wow, what a lousy analysis
That proves it!
But should he stay healthy, he's a good bet to outpitch Zito over the next three to four years.
Why? Mr. Inside Man doesn't say! Maybe (I'm just extrapolating here) it's that Lilly has a couple of extra MPH on his fastball, and that Zito's "stuff" might "slip" (I guess the idea being that he has more possibility of slippage and/or less margin for error). Meanwhile, back in the real world, Lilly has outpitched Zito in exactly one year (2004), and has mostly lagged far behind him. But at least he's two years older and more injury-prone!
Zito is a third or fourth starter with the reputation of a one or a two.
Zito had the third-most Win Shares (18) of any pitcher in the American League last year. Sounds like a #1! He had the 15th most in 2005. Sounds like a #2! There was also that Cy Young business in 2002, the All-Star game in 2003, the MVP votes in 2001.... The only season he hasn't pitched like a one or two is 2004. Unless Mr. Inside Man is so Inside that he just knows Barry will collapse next year, that sentence is just ludicrous. Especially when his "proof" is the following:
In fact, over the last three years, he's struggled badly when facing the two premier offenses in the AL, posting a 6.59 ERA against Boston and the Yankees while walking 47 men and allowing 18 homers in 83.3 innings.
In mathematics there's this concept called "small sample size," in which one is warned not to derive sweeping conclusions (that Zito is not a #1 or #2, despite pitching like a #1 or #2 in six of his seven seasons) from tiny, unrepresentative samples. Roy Halladay has a 5.48 ERA in 67 innings against the Angels! Therefore he's not a #1!
And there's something suspiciously specific about that "last three years" window, isn't there? Let's check the three years before that.... Oh yeah, Mr. "three or four" posted a 3.39 ERA against Boston and New York from 2001-03, while walking 28 men and allowing 8 home runs in 77.1 innings.
His control is below-average; only Daniel Cabrera has walked more batters in the last two years than Zito has.
Carlos Zambrano led the NL in walks last year. Scott Kazmir led the AL in 2005. Does that mean they're not #1 or #2 pitchers either?
Yes, Zito's strikeout rates are declining, and he's no longer the dominant guy he was from 2000-2004, but he's never been anything but a very good pitcher, quite unlike Ted freakin' Lilly.
In addition
by ineptituderunsamok on Dec 20, 2006 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
It's still the Cubs.....
Something's a-brewing in the Office of Stoneman, I can feel it.
Huh?
This is quite possibly
Angels are the O's???
Here's a dollar. Buy a clue.
Um???
Underappreciated movie.
The only thing the O's and Angels have in common is that you can spell "Angels" using the letters from Peter Angelos' name.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 20, 2006 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
haha
by silent_sole on Dec 20, 2006 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Dumbest post
DING we have winner.
by ineptituderunsamok on Dec 20, 2006 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, the most meaningful difference
PATTERN SPOTTING
... the cubs just did that so now they are gonna win!!
SEE THE PATTERN
... if i eat at the Mad Greek on the way to Vegas i will win at roulette ... oh wait, it happened again! shit this cubs guy might be a mad genius !!!!!
Does the cubs big payroll mean
by chosen1 on Dec 20, 2006 9:45 PM PST reply actions
I hear
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 20, 2006 9:54 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I think they are going to need it.
by chosen1 on Dec 20, 2006 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Rangers fall after Young gets touchy feely with third base coach
- Tony La Russa vs. Colby Rasmus: Who ya throwing overboard?
- Marlins say they won't honor Bobby Cox during today's game
- We're Going Streaking! Paul Konerko assures us he's not done
- Rejected! Cardinals fan throws back Brandon Phillips' foul ball
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
