Why does Keith Law hate the Angels so much?

by Howie the Halo on Jun 4, 2007 2:15 PM PDT Comment 33 comments

From his article on ESPN.com about the 2002 draft: "Sixteen pitchers were selected in the first round of the 2002 MLB Rule 4 draft. Of those 16, eight suffered major injuries that cost them all or most of a professional season, and only Cole Hamels has developed as expected, with Joe Saunders becoming an up-and-down guy but never fully recovering from his injury."

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Haha I read that too.

I believe there was little mention of Howie Kendrick as well.

by Wytelitning on Jun 4, 2007 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Best of the Rest

Names the best pick of the tenth round.

Law is a clown

I'm giving Figgins a big F U.

by hauldog on Jun 4, 2007 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

East Coast Bias/Billy Beane Mancrush

so much for the notion that STATGUYS are "objective"...

Joe Saunders is #6 on our staff only because we have the deepest staff in baseball - he would be the #2 guy on 20 frickin' teams EASILY!

by Rev Halofan on Jun 4, 2007 2:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ESPN

He is truly from the Eastern Sports Propaganda Network, as he actually dissed the A's too. It can be argued that the A's had a top 5 draft.

The putdown of Saunders sure was odd. I make almost the same point as the Rev. Can anyone name one (or a few) teams on which Joe would not be in the starting rotation?

by elricsi on Jun 4, 2007 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, this proves it.

If Keith Law doesn't love Saunders, that is absolute, undeniable proof that stat guys are not objective. Sarcasm.

And, unfortunately, Saunders is not nearly as good as us Angel fans think he is. #2 on 20 teams? Maybe 2 or 3 teams. Nationals, Rangers, and Royals, I'm looking at you. In 24.1 major league innings this year, Saunders has only 11 strikeouts and 12 walks. That is not the kind of ratio that warrants a 2.22 ERA. Believe me, I hope he can keep his ERA that low and keep winning, but he's not going to do it with a 11/12 K/BB ratio.

by Dogman on Jun 4, 2007 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh

Are you seriously saying that Saunders doesn't deserve his low ERA because his K/BB ratio ain't so good? That's like saying Reggie Willits doesn't deserve his high batting average because his SLG average is so low.

by Higz on Jun 4, 2007 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not at all what it is like

K/BB ratio has a strong correlation with ERA. Batting average and SLG - not so much. Slugging is more of an extension of batting average - it basically weights batting average for impact (total bases) of each hit.

by Dogman on Jun 4, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But why use the word "warrant?"

His ERA is what it is. You can't argue with the numbers.

I don't care how many guys Saunders walks if his ERA is that low. It shows he's limiting runs when all is said and done, which "correlates" to wins a lot more than fewer walks/more Ks does.

by Higz on Jun 4, 2007 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have "warrant" defined as follows...

Show to be reasonable or provide adequate ground for.

I think that word works in this case.

Higz, you're right - his ERA is what it is. What I'm saying is that we should be thankful that it is that low and we should not expect it to stay that way if he continues to strike out and walk batters at the rate he has.

The point is, it is extremely difficult to maintain a low ERA with a K/BB ratio of 11:12 over an extended period of time and his ERA will surely climb if he continues at that rate.

I hope I'm explaining that clearly. Sorry if I'm not.

by Dogman on Jun 4, 2007 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel you.

by Higz on Jun 4, 2007 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So Wrong

in every way.

by Pwn on Jun 4, 2007 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lay it on me, genius...

by Higz on Jun 5, 2007 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way...

I'm not sticking up for Law, in particular. I like some of his analysis, but I don't have any special feelings for him. I am just once again pointing out that just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they're "biased." I did feel that he short-changed Saunders a little bit. But not enough to claim that he's an idiot.

One more point - if anyone read his chats on espn.com, you'd know that he continually mentions the Angels as having one of the best (or maybe even the best - I can't remember) rotations in baseball. Point is, if you want to whine about bias, Neyer is a better (though still faulty) target.

Stop playing the victim. We don't want to sound like whiny A's fans, do we?

by Dogman on Jun 4, 2007 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Victim? Whiny?

How about NetworK:

I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!

They ignore us we rip them instinctively, fiercely and thoroughly. We do it every time and we do it mercilessly. They are paid to analyze baseball and we will not let them collect a paycheck without our say being delivered.

And name the teams that don't need Saunders.

by Rev Halofan on Jun 5, 2007 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand completely

So I'll address the part that I do understand:

My point isn't that Saunders isn't a good player to have around. There are plenty of teams that could use him. He would certainly be in almost every team's rotation with only a few exceptions (the Angels, fortunately, being one of them). I just think calling him a #2 starter on 20 teams is a huge stretch.

by Dogman on Jun 5, 2007 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rob

I didn't want to start a new diary about this even tho everyone needs to see this from the ESPN chat today:

"Matt (Anaheim Ca): Youve critisized the Angels lack of OPS in the past, finally they are doing better in this category and you dont talk about it. Can you just admit you hate the Angels and especailly former Angel Darin Erstad?

Rob Neyer: (12:39 PM ET ) Okay, I'll admit it: I hate them. I hate their silly caps with the silver halos, and I hate their Big A in center field, and I hate their stupid singing cowboy owner. And what's with Disneyland, anyway? Why build an amusement park right next to a baseball team?"

He is being sarcastic obviously, but maybe that would make a good quote for the top of HH forever or something?

by elricsi on Jun 5, 2007 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought that was pretty funny

This question also came up later on:

Kemmy (Spokane, Wa.): When the A's get healthy will they be able to catch up with the Angels?

Rob Neyer: (12:53 PM ET ) You say when, I say if. The A's have been so incredibly injured for the last year-and-a-half that you have to at least wonder if it's just bad luck, or something else. They've played better than I would have guessed, given all the injuries. The Angels still look like the better team, though.

He is SO BIASED!!! Oh, wait. He said the Angels are better than the A's and that there might be something more than bad luck to the A's injuries.

by Dogman on Jun 5, 2007 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He also made this comment:

"I've noticed over the years that many sports fans aren't happy unless they can complain about their favorite team being underappreciated. I mean, I get that from Yankees fans."

I think we Angel fans suffer from this a little bit. It's almost fun to be underappreciated because it makes us feel even better when we beat the New Boston York Red Yankee Sox. And I think this is what leads us to cry bias so often.

by Dogman on Jun 5, 2007 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Law is an idiot

But you're right that Saunders ERA is deceiving. All his peripherals, WHIP, K?BB ratio, .OPS against, BAA are worse in his 4 starts this year than last year, but his ERA is less than half. Then again, his ERA was inflated last season in a few starts at seasons end where he was clearly gassed, as evidenced by his superior performance on an extra day's rest. The jury is still out on young Joe, but he doesn't have to be Johann Santana to have value. He'd still start for 25+ other teams.

DarkAngel hath spoken....

by darkangel01 on Jun 4, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Saunders certainly has value and would be a starter (not #2, though) on most teams. I do think his peripherals will get better, but I think his ERA will also go up. I'm sure you agree. And I also agree that his ERA last year was somewhat inflated. It probably should have been closer to 4.10 than 4.77. Anyway, I like Saunders and I think he'll be a useful back-of-the-rotation starter.

by Dogman on Jun 4, 2007 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joe VT

Yes, Rev went overboard with the #2 comment, but I still can't think of more than a few other teams where Saunders would be in the minors.

In addition to walks and SO per inning, the other stat to watch is HR/Inning, and Saunders is above average at that. He gives up a HR only about every 10 innings in his career, whereas a typical AL pitcher would give one up in about every 8 innings.

Anyway I expect Joe to pitch with an ERA in the low 4's and that has enormous value as a SP in the AL.

by elricsi on Jun 4, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very good point...

... about the HR/IP. Saunders has done an excellent job in that category which bodes well for his ERA.

by Dogman on Jun 5, 2007 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oddly enough

Joe has great peripherals, but a poor ERA down in AAA right now.

Even if he's not a number 2 guy on most clubs though, the fact is he's probably at least 3 or 4 on most teams. A guy who put up the kind of Triple-A and ML numbers he did last year would almost certainly have stuck around longer on nearly any other MLB club, especially after the way he pitched in his first three starts.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jun 4, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is interesting

I hadn't looked at his AAA numbers in a while.

by Dogman on Jun 4, 2007 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He implied in an interview that he was

experimenting with some stuff... After all it's not the big leagues.

by melvintoast on Jun 4, 2007 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Keith Law is officially an idiot"

(SOURCE: August 19th, 2006 edition of the Toronto Star)

Keith Law had written in his blog that Vernon Wells had no intention of signing a contract extension with the Blue Jays, claiming that Wells had told Blue Jay GM Ricciardi that he would play elsewhere after 2007.

"The conversation never happened," Wells told the Star, "It's a complete fabrication."

Ricciardi was even stronger in his denial.

"He's become a writer," Ricciardi said of Law. "It doesn't take long. Keith Law is officially an idiot."

Ain't no stoppin' us now. We got the groove!

by Fan Since 1981 on Jun 4, 2007 3:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs