Napoli doesn't miss Scioscia...
by sadsox on Aug 7, 2011 9:39 AM PDT
Email
PrintPer Nick Cafardo, Boston Globe:
Mike Napoli, C/1B, Rangers - Napoli feels far more relaxed being out from under the thumb of Angels manager Mike Scioscia, who is tough on his catchers. Napoli was hitting .296 with 18 homers, 44 RBIs, and a 1.011 OPS entering yesterday. He has the lowest CERA (2.37) among active catchers with at least 250 innings. "I always felt like I was looking over my shoulder to see if I was doing things right,’’ Napoli said of his time with the Angels. "I had ‘bad hands.’ I was so worried about my setup and the mechanics all the time. I learned a lot. I learned a lot of what I do there, but playing there just wasn’t much fun.’’
Must be challenging to be one of Scioscia's catchers, to say the least.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
193 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As an outside observer
I can only imagine this to be absolutely true. If Napoli paid any attention during his tutelage under Scioscia he should have learned a lot, and now that he is free to be himself I would expect him to flourish. But he’ll never be as premium as Mathis :}
I meant the OTHER Howard!
This has been pointed out before.
In an older article from either the OC Register or LA Times, Naps said pretty much the same thing, which really conflicts me, because on the one hand i’m a die-hard Halo fan, and on the other hand, I always thought Naps to be the better backstop, if Soth would only have opened up his damn eyes, and given him the chance. But no, now were stuck with Premium. And i’m sure he’ll be around as long as Soth.
YOU DON'T KNOW THE POWER OF THE DARKSIDE.....
I've read similar reports in Texas newspapers as well.
Naps has said the Rangers allow him to be the player he is resulting in a more relaxed atmosphere. He still plays first and catcher, and his hitting very well this year. They are not over using him at catcher that may re-injure his shoulder. The thing with Napoli and other players the Rangers signed and didn’t let go like Michael Young shines a light on how much smarter the Ranger FO is than the Angels FO.
"It's our money," owner Arte Moreno said.
by 44FAN on Aug 7, 2011 10:14 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Don't blame Nipples at all
It’s not difficult to even the most casual observer that Soth has his favorites and is really tough (read: unforgiving) on others.
Our loss is definitely Texas’ gain.
One problem here is that Sosh began inventing excuses for not playing him more than half-time
Whenever it became clear that Napoli was much more deserving, Sosh would come up with ever-more elaborate insidery-catcher reasons for keeping Naps’ glass ceiling at 50% PT, even when Mathis was air-mailing every throw to the center fielder. It’s one thing to ride herd on a guy who needs to improve his tools (which I think Naps needed); another to have him chasing his tail after a series of questionable excuses.
We are repeating this process with Hank Conger, which is unconscionable. The catching position under Mike Scioscia is beginning to resemble the 2B job under Dick Williams. If he makes the Hall of Fame as a manager, it will be in spite of, not because of, this tic.
by mattwelch on Aug 7, 2011 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 17 recs
PTSD
The Godfather of Chavez Ravine replacing Scioscia with a power-hitting, no defense fellow Italian permanently scarred Sosh for life.
The Mathis-Napoli points are well made
I think it goes too far, however, to say that the Angels’ treatment of Hank Conger has been “unconscionable.” Conger got plenty of playing time at the start of the season. He was demoted because he was not playing well — not for any other reason.
Conger’s game logs show that he started on a regular basis early in the season. Through the first 39 games of the season, Conger started 19 times, compared to 18 starts by Mathis and 2 by Wilson. Conger also appeared in 2 of those 39 games as a pinch-hitter. Thus, contrary to the claims that repeatedly are made on this site, Conger was starting more than any other catcher early in the season. He was not Mathis’s backup at that time.
After May 13, Conger received three days off and next appeared as a pinch-hitter on May 17 and May 18. Conger received those days off because he was in a mini-slump at the plate (4 hits and 1 walk in his last 20 plate appearances), and because the team had lost his last three starts. Those starts included an 8-0 loss in which Santana gave up 8 hits, 3 walks, and 5 earned runs in 6 innings, as well as a 4-1 loss in which Weaver gave up 7 hits, 1 walk, and 4 earned runs in 6 innings.
Following those days off, Scioscia immediately went back to starting Conger on a regular basis. Conger started 6 of the team’s next 9 games from May 19 to May 27, and he also appeared as a pinch-hitter on May 28. The fact is, through the first two months of the season, Conger was playing regularly.
The reason for Conger’s demotion is simple — he was having problems on defense and he was hitting at Mathis-like levels on offense. In fact, in 125 plate appearances from May through July, Conger hit only .191/.280/.318. And, as the Orange County Register reported at the time , Conger threw out only 14 percent of potential base stealers — an abysmal rate that actually was “inflated by an interference call and two cases where the baserunner beat his throw to second but was tagged out after oversliding the base.”
Despite Conger’s demotion, Scioscia has praised Conger repeatedly and has said that the team views his potential as a full-time catcher. I really do not think there are sufficient grounds to be concerned about the team’s handling of Conger. At least not yet.
He was demoted because he was not playing well — not for any other reason.
But, he was still playing better than Jeff Mathis. And a 4-for-19 “mini-slump” (210 BA) is a stretch of plate appearances that would send Lyle Spencer gushing about how hot Mathis’ bat is becoming.
Yet, I agree that Hank is not quite all there, just had to laugh at the slump being as good or better than Jeff Mathis.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Immediately
the first thing I thought of too when I read that. His worst is still better than Mathis.
This is not about whether Conger was or is "better than Jeff Mathis"
We could debate which player was playing better at that point in the season. From an offensive standpoint, Conger was slightly better, although a prolonged slump of .191/.280/.318 for two-plus months is awful. Defensively, he was simply bad. As noted above, he threw out only 14 percent of baserunners, which is about half as successful as Mathis. So, although I agree that Mathis has been especially terrible this season, it is not clear to me that Conger was better than him from May 1 to July 16.
But that’s not really the point. The point is that by mid-July, it was clear that there were a number of areas on which Conger needed to improve — both on offense and on defense. Rather than reduce his playing time and have him try to make these adjustments at the MLB level, the team sent him down to AAA so that he could play regularly, without the pressure of performing in a pennant race. At the time, I thought that this was a sensible move. And so far, I think that this strategy has worked for Conger and for the team.
I would do a backflip if Mathis had a two month OBP of .280
I have no problem with Conger being sent down to play everyday in AAA because he was struggling. But his worst is still better than Mathis could ever hope to be.
Offensively, I’ll take the guy with an OPS almost 200 points higher.
That, to me, is a big enough gap to make up Mathis’ defense.
"I have one word for you...Be careful."
-Jose Guillen
Here's how it has not worked (and is, in my opinion, "unconscionable")
We’ve got a catcher at AAA stone cold smoking the ball, we’re 1 game out of first place, and we’ve got a starter at the big-league level who is one of the very worst hitters in Major League history.
The kid at his worst still hit better than Mathis, and by the time he was sent down his brains were clearly scrambled by the Scioscia-tron. And now he has every reason to believe that he’ll never start 81 games in a season while Jeff Mathis is still on the club.
I find that all unconscionable, especially since every last bit of it was avoidable. Even if he had played himself down to AAA, in a non-Wells universe you could have had Napoli/Wilson catching, and Mathis holding down the job for the Pirates.
by mattwelch on Aug 8, 2011 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Except I would add, Matt, that Wilson has been just as bad as Mathis offensively
More Howie please...
He is squaring up balls occassionally
… he’s “seeing the ball” a lot better than Mathis ever has in his career save spring training 2010, where he was crushing the ball in BP there.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions
You are entitled to your opinion
Conger was in a terrible slump, to the point where he was barely hitting better than Mathis and objectively was doing much worse than him on the defensive end. Sending him down has worked because Conger has regained his offensive stroke, and the team has played well without him. Given that Conger was playing at least half the time in March, April, and the first half of May, and given that Scioscia repeatedly has referred to Conger as having the potential to be our everyday starter, it is ridiculous to suggest that “he has every reason to believe that he’ll never start 81 games in a season while Jeff Mathis is still on the club.” The kid is a rookie. If he had maintained his play at the level it was at in March and April, he would have remained a fixture on the team, just like Trumbo and Walden. He was on pace to catch 81 games this season until things got away from him in May. He will have another shot next season, if not sooner.
I can't agree with the idea that the move has worked out for the team.
I can at least see we’re you’re coming from in regard to it working out for Conger(even though I’m not in complete agreement with it).
But I think you’re stretching it to say it’s worked out for the team. Other players(Santana, Trumbo, etc.) have really stepped up and we’ve been winning despite the 6 foot, 200 pound black hole wearing catcher’s gear most nights.
If the guys playing instead of Conger were contributing consistently, I would agree that it’s worked out for the team.
No disagreement there
It certainly appears that the team is winning despite Mathis (and Wilson). Nevertheless, the team is winning. So we can disagree on semantics, but in my view, if the team keeps winning and Conger reverts to the level he was playing at the beginning of the season (both of which are happening right now), I consider the move a success.
Fine, 79 games
Your statement was that “he has every reason to believe that he’ll never start 81 games in a season while Jeff Mathis is still on the club.” And through 39 games, until Conger started to struggle, Conger had started more games than Mathis. The only reason he was not on pace to start 81 games was that we were carrying a third catcher who made two starts — not because Mathis was taking more than half the playing time.
You're ignoring the part where Mathis whined to Soth about playing time and was then rewarded for doing so.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
by snowhor on Aug 9, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
And yet, weeks after that happened, Conger still had more starts
The event you refer to took place on April 16, after Conger started for the third consecutive game. http://www.halosheaven.com/2011/4/16/2115226/angels-conger-gets-3rd-consec-start-at-c-mathis-upset-w-playing-time
After that event, Mathis started the next two games. Then Conger started two of the next three, replaced Mathis as a pinch-hitter in the game after that, and then started the game after that. The result was that on May 13 — four weeks after Mathis’s closed-door meeting with Scioscia — Conger still had started more games than Mathis had.
Prior to complaining on 4/16, Mathis made a minority of the starts and from 4/16 until Conger was sent down (7/17), Mathis made a majority of the starts.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
And the team has a better record
When I wear a white shirt than it does when I wear a red shirt.
And the impact of your clothes to team wins is equally relevent to Mathis' impact on the team's pitching performance.
But the sad thing is, you can probably expect a phone call from the team soon requesting that you wear white shirts more often.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
Here is every reason to believe he'll never start 81 games while Mathis is w/ the club
77
68
71
84
55
Those are the number of starts a far superior hitter who didn’t satisfy Scioscia’s defensive requirements received when playing alongside Jeff Mathis. Conger, who really didn’t satisfy Scioscia’s defensive requirements in his last few weeks up at the big club, has 42 starts this year.
Why on earth should he conclude that he’ll ever get more than 81 starts?
Hank Conger is not Mike Napoli
Last year, Mike Napoli started 127 games for the Angels. Most of those games were at first base, because, as we all recall, the Angels lost their starting first baseman to injury. In 2009, Napoli started 100 games for the Angels, including 84 at catcher. The two years prior to that, Napoli missed significant amounts of time with ankle, shoulder, and hamstring injuries.
None of this is as relevant to Conger’s future playing time as Conger’s performance. The evidence of that is that when Conger was playing well, even as a rookie, he was starting at least as much as Mathis. Everything else is all a sideshow to that main fact. In addition, Scioscia repeatedly (and as recently as last week) has said that Conger’s potential is to be the team’s everyday catcher. I, for one, do not recall him making such statements about Napoli.
by Brody on Aug 9, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're right -- he's not as good as Mike Napoli
And Mike Napoli could never get more than 84 starts behind the plate with Jeff Mathis as a teammate and Mike Scioscia as the manager. And yes, Scioscia did say on several occasions that Napoli could become the dominant starter at that position if he earned it; it’s just that he somehow never managed that feat.
Scioscia has said as recently as this week that it does not matter what Jeff Mathis hits, as long as he’s so sweet behind the plate.
I would love it if it were true that he has a plan to start Conger more than 81 games behind the plate during the Mathis era, but the evidence on hand — which includes the fact that Conger is tearing it up in AAA while the Angels struggle to make the playoffs with the worst hitter in the Major Leagues getting the bulk of the starts behind the plate — suggests that, at minimum, Conger should not have the expectation to be anything more than a time-sharer.
by mattwelch on Aug 9, 2011 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Matt, I don't come to this site to argue with you
I say that sincerely. I respect you as one of the more informed and thoughtful writers on this site. Although I agree with you on many issues, and although I have come to accept over the course of this season that the team would be better if we had not traded away Mike Napoli (provided that he were catching in place of Jeff Mathis, rather than, for example, playing first base in place of Mark Trumbo), I do not agree with you that the team has mishandled Conger.
In my opinion, Conger got a fair shot, as evidenced by the fact that he was starting as much as or more than Mathis for the first quarter of the season. Conger continued to start on a regular basis and to appear as an occasional pinch-hitter until the All-Star break. The Angels did not send Conger down to AAA until after he had gone through a prolonged two-and-a-half-month slump, during which time he hit only .191 and threw out only 14 percent of basestealers on a team that is based on its pitching and defense. For what it is worth, Conger praised the team’s handling of him, saying at the time of his demotion, “I’ve been injured most of my life coming up through the minors. I’m just trying to catch up. I appreciate how the Angels handled my situation. They really gave me a chance to try to perform when I was up here.” http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/6784968/los-angeles-angels-send-hank-conger-call-tyler-chatwood
At some point during our back and forth, the question changed from whether the Angels have mishandled Conger (your original premise) to whether Conger reasonably can expect to start 81 games in a season. I cannot possibly know what Conger believes or reasonably expects will take place during his career with the Angels. Nor, I doubt, can you. If Conger’s public statements are to be believed, he does not seem at all discouraged.
In any event, I want to make it clear that I understand and appreciate the frustration underlying your statements about Conger and the Angels’ catching situation. I also understand that your dire projections for Conger’s future as an Angel are based on the team’s past treatment of Napoli, which you and many others perceive to have been unfair, and on Scioscia’s ongoing and recent praise of Mathis’s defense.
Although I do not agree with your assessment, I am sure that you will agree with me that there is little point to continuing this debate. Given the focus of the last several posts, you and I now appear to be engaged in forecasts of Conger’s future that are based on our own speculation. All I can say is that I understand where you are coming from and have a different view of the situation than you do. So, in closing, I will give you three reasons to at least entertain the possibility that good will come of this situation:
(1) Conger was on equal footing with Mathis for a long period of time, notwithstanding predictions that he would begin the season at AAA.
(2) At the time of Conger’s demotion, Scioscia said: “There’s no doubt Hank’s upside is to be an everyday catcher. That’s obvious. That’s where we want him to grow and want him to get to. He’s tried to learn some things on the fly, which is not the easiest thing to do in the major leagues.” [See link above]
(3) Just one month ago, the Angels reportedly tried to trade Mathis for someone who would be a reserve on this team. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/jeff_mathis/
by Brody on Aug 10, 2011 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nice ... may I?
“so, let’s leave it alone,
coz we can’t see eye to eye…
there ain’t no good guy,
there ain’t no bad guy…”
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 11, 2011 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
good stuff.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
by thebigtizzle on Aug 10, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
There's always Dad of Vlad to keep it real, though.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 11, 2011 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Sosh is a control freak and I can completely understand Nap's point of view
it just makes sense. Mathis is probably a total puppy dog wagging his tail for Soth’s attention.
He’s the ultimate Stepford Catcher
I'm an Angels fan
sosh is probly telling him wag his tail to boot
Are you sure he was safe? It looked like an out to the entire statium. Well bad call Blue.
by Alavel on Aug 9, 2011 12:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
To finish the title..."And do you blame him?"
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
I really liked Scioscia for so many years
but its getting to be a bit too much.
He is going to ruin Hank and there is nothing we can do to stop him. New manager anyone?
WE NEED CONGER NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No to the new manager statement.
This team looks really good right now (7/9/11)
Not giving up yet... but man this season stinks right now (6/9/11)
Things could get worse with a new skipper
Such as placing our team slugger at the 3/4 spot, and we wouldn’t want that, now do we?
I'll like to dedicate this signature box to SB Nation for blocking my previous account. So yea.. #%!€ you SBN.
Kind regards,
- Chris
by DanishThunder on Aug 7, 2011 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes * * = depending on who the replacement is.
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
by angelslogic on Aug 7, 2011 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It is not even worth thinking about a new manager
Sosh is here until at least 2018 regardless
"Its like when i’m right…i’m right… and when i’m wrong…i could have been right..so i’m still right cause i could have been wrong"-Chevy Clarke's Twitter
Yea you guys are right
Just thought I would put it out there to see what you guys think.
WE NEED CONGER NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All managers have annoying counter-productive habits
Scioscia would be fine—or at least no worse than any other manager—if someone higher up could just rein him in.
by Suboptimal on Aug 7, 2011 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yes, exactly this.
A capable G.M. needs to do the talent assessment and acquisition function. Scioscia needs to manage on the field.
"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base." ~Dave Barry
i think you make a good point
not just the catcher dilemma, but alot of decisions the past few years are questionable. go back to 2003 when we had the 2 best catchers in the game( the molina bros.) naps was the part time 3rd man out. instead of dealing those 2 away in the subsequent seasons, and having the mathis era/problem. the management could have kept 1 or both and dealt mathis away before he ever got a chance with the big club. therebye bringing up naps properly, behind a proven gem working pitchers and playing defense. while providing adequate offense at the same time. that was a scosia decision, as was the mcphearson for glaus mistake. granted troy is not even playing right now, but in the 3yrs, after being let go, he was hitting better than any 3rd baseman we had. and if he had been retained, we might not have the power shortage from that position that we have now. i’m not saying he would still be here, but there could have been a better transition than there was.figgins was never more than a fill in until a real 3rd baseman showed up, and that hasn’t happened. the same can be said of callaspo, even though he is playing better than expected.look at the managers that left here, like bud black, joe maddon, and ron roenicke. they all play scosia ball better than scosia. that leads me to believe that he was the architect of the winning, just the beneficiary.(did i spell that right?)
by hoffy loves the angels on Aug 9, 2011 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you make some bad points
Catching situation back in ‘03? You probably mean ’06? When Mathis was given his chance after they let Bengie go as a FA. IIRC Mathis was always ahead of Napoli by year. Once Mathis failed they brought up Napoli and gave him his chance. Isn’t that how it works. If they decided to do what you wish they did and trade Mathis before the ’06 season they would have probably resigned Bengie since they would have had no one else since Naps was a year behind in development. That would probably mean naps would have never gotten his chance unless one of the Molina brothers gotten hurt. I guess hindsight is 20/20
Are you really going to bring up D-Mac? Glaus was one of my fav players but it was his time to go. He was coming off of back to back injured years. We had a stud prospect waiting to replace him. Plus he wanted multiple years. What could have been a better transition besides the obvious one of being successful? Hindsight again is 20/20 I’m guessing you probably were against letting K-Mo take over at 1B after Teix left because he was unproven at MLB level. Since you’ve had time to see the results you probably in hindsight are glad K-Mo finally got his chance?
Was it really Sosh decision to let Bengie and Glaus go? For a Manager that has a reputation for not liking rookies that much he sure doesn’t like them veterans either.
Now the coaches? Let me get this straight. Maddon leaves and the Angels completely tank? Nah because we still have Black and Roenicke, right? Lets see Black leaves and the Angels tank again? Nah we still have Roenicke, right? Lets see Roenicke leaves and the Angels tank? Nah there still in it, even though its not pretty but there still in it. Hmmmmm so i guess maybe Sosh knows what he’s doing. He may not be perfect but he might know a thing or two about managing. Of course Maddon and Black will always get alot of credit with the Rays and Padres. When they win its like, “wow how do they do that with a low budget team compared to there competiton?” When they lose it’s, “there in a rebuilding year since they let all their good players go or traded them away.”
Napoli: "I had bad hands"
So Scioscia plays Mathis because his offseason job is being a hand model in Italian cinema? The answer!
I take it you don't have the DOV Secret Decoder Ring
You need to drink more ovaltine
-Quad Fin Rider
I think she's gesturing
Mathis’ batting average…“zero. zero. zero.”
And then at the end, a final zero for the percent chance that matters to Scioscia.
A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 7, 2011 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Good thing he doesn't have to worry about doing things the right way any more.
This should help us.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
True.
Guess we gotta live with that and hope he and the Rangers pay for their inferior defense. Offense comes and goes no matter who you are, but defense good or bad, is constant. We can live with the cards we’ve chosen, I think.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
If only the defense was actually inferior...
I mean, Mathis hasn’t shown that he’s that much better, if at all. He’s never had a good CS rate. He’s never had good WP or passed ball numbers. He always has quite a few errors. The only places he “excels” are in the nebulous categories that, theoretically, should show up in CERA. But as much smarter people have put out there, CERA is junk.
I love Scioscia and think he’s been great. But this is his blindspot. It’s a large one, and it’s cost the team this year (and in past years) given the misuse of Mathis over Napoli. It is in SERIOUS danger of repeating itself with Conger.
I’m still comfortable defending Scioscia in most regards, but anyone defending his flawed catcher management has to point to the old saw: Scioscia’s gotta be a genius because he was a great defensive catcher. I’m not buying that one any more. He’s an expert, sure, but I think his expertise has created blinders.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Aug 7, 2011 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
What is his expertise?
Playing baseball. I’ve really never accepted that playing baseball and managing baseball are necessarily overlapping skills. This isn’t the case in other sports, but baseball has a different culture. Managers wear uniforms as if they were players, and a non-player manager just wouldn’t be socially acceptable in the league right now.
If you can’t get over that, then you start to wonder if a major-league manager is really any better at directing the game on the field than any other person who has watched over 4,000 games live (yes, even you Lyle). Mike Scioscia’s playing experience came through the eyes of a catcher. It makes sense that he’s inflated the importance of the catcher’s role on the field. He has no idea what it feels like to be a pitcher. Does the average pitcher believe so strongly in the catcher’s influence on his pitching ability? Would Bud Black have made the same managerial decisions?
I was okay with Mike Scioscia back before this issue came to a head, because it seemed like his “social acceptability” was the best thing for the team. But I think now his player-expertise has created too much reverence for his manager-expertise. He filters the entire game through his former-catcher glasses, and now that’s a problem. It’s like watching BattleBots take over the military: we’d have totally awesome giant killer robots roaming around Afghanistan right now, but no one would have realized beforehand that they have no defense against rocket-propelled grenades to the kneecap.
by Suboptimal on Aug 7, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's right, anyone who has simply watched enough baseball
Is capable of being a MLB manager.
And anyone who is really good at fantasy baseball would make an excellent MLB GM.
It’s only baseball’s good old boy culture that is preventing a knowledgeable sabremetrically-informed fan from showing the so-called baseball experts like Mike Scioscia, how to really manage.
Got it.
by Zaius on Aug 8, 2011 1:44 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think what Supoptimal means is that
an informed fan could make the in-game managerial decisions.
But of course, there is the personality-managing aspect that takes a former player/Mike Scioscia type to handle.
"F it, let's pitch." - Ervin Santana
by Chzburger Jones on Aug 8, 2011 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions
right.
What you don’t get is that most bloggers really do think they could manage on a sheet of paper. It involves so many dynamics, we have no clue. So suddenly Mike Sciosca can’t get the basic acknowledgement of being an expert? Mind-boggling, this internet quarter-backing set.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
I agree with you here.
We spend so much time sitting around thinking about baseball that we have convinced ourselves of being in possession of a vast wealth of knowledge.
And yet, to my knowledge, not one of us has actually spent any time in a pro dugout during a game, much less hours upon hours in front office meetings or running a pro training camp. We don’t even know what it is that we don’t know.
Mike Scioscia has zero credibility to get mad at anyone, or anything. He is the reason Jeff Mathis plays baseball.
Mike Scioscia has already forgotten more than we'll ever know.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed.
We just found out Naps wasn’t having fun and unhappy here. I don’t think the Sosh just found out a couple of days ago.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
Yes I have.
I have no position on the soap opera part of it because I wasn’t there. Napoli’s own words continue to show me that maybe he needed the change of scenery to grow up and be himself. I’ve said plenty of times that this also contributes to us not appealing to many free agents. We’re the San Antonio Spurs of baseball in that regard, but you can’t argue with the results. Last season was the exception, not the rule.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
Sure
Of course, this fan would first have to obtain a credential from Baseball Management College. I hear they’ve just expanded their night-school offerings to include Defense 143: Late-Inning Replacements, Baserunning 200: Advanced Base-running Theory, and Intangibles 102: Getting Your Team To Play The Game The Right Way (a new prerequisite for the highly impacted Grizzled Old School Manager program). A degree is more accessible than ever.
Still, it’s a highly competitive program, so there’s no guarantee of admission. Jack McKeon had a pull a few strings in the commissioner’s office to earn his re-certification earlier this season, arguing that his World Series ring should count for 4 credit hours in the October Baseball department. But personally, I’m glad there’s such a rigorous system in place. You wouldn’t want Lyle Spencer managing a National League double-switch any more than you’d want someone who’s seen every episode of ER operating on your brain tumor.
A couple of points
I think they’re more than anecdotal, but I don’t know.
There are an exceedingly large number of catchers who become manager over other positions on the field. All of what I’ve seen, and it makes a ton of sense, is that catchers have the best repore with both sides. They are position players but they have to work closely with the pitching staff. Until Black became a manager several years ago, I don’t believe there were any managers in baseball who were former pitchers, while there were quite a few catchers.
Second, as in anything, being good at something doesn’t mean you’re good at teaching it. However, Scioscia has an excellent track record as a manager, and aside from Napoli, has anyone ever complained about his coaching? The players love him and his assistant coaches love him. He’s been very successful from a W-L standpoint.
The problem with catching is that I think he’s latched onto one guy who he REALLY wants to see become a player like him. A light-ish hitting, good receiver of pitches who can block the plate like nobody’s business. And if we were to find ways to praise Mathis, wouldn’t it start with those two things? The pitchers love him and blocking the plate is always something he’s been very good at. Everything else, of course…well, it’s terrible.
I just think this is a blindspot. I have no reason to think that Scioscia’s bad at coaching, or even bad at coaching catchers. I think he’s got some poor raw material, and has done what he can, but is trying to make a half-rotted, knotty piece of wood into a replica of Michaelangelo’s David. And he won’t let it go. It’s a significant blindspot, to be sure, but in my mind, that doesn’t call his coaching/teaching abilities into question.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Scioscia was a good offensive catcher
If Mathis was like a Dodger catcher, it’d be Steve Yeager. But even Yeager could hit the ball sometimes.
Okay here is one for you Matt
Is Napoli a poor mans Mike Piazza or is Mike Piazza a poor mans Mike Napoli? Take into consideration the defensive aspect of things as well when doing the comparison.
Look at K/BB & HR ratio. Don’t forget to figure in the other aspects as well. I mean those vitamin diets guys were on at that time was also helpful.
by Angel Aviator on Aug 20, 2011 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I am really concerned about the Napoli/Mathis disaster repeating itself with Conger
Scioscia seems more insistent than ever that Mathis contributes enough defensively to more than make up for his non-existent bat(which has somehow become even worse).
And Conger is tearing up AAA. I’m worried that we’ll see Captain CERA remain our starting catcher for the rest of the season, while Hank helps pad Salt Lake’s win totals.
Yeah this wasn't anywhere near my point.
My point was referring to the defense and defensive discipline of the team, not that Napoli is a bad defensive player or that Mathis is better in any way. I sorta bailed on this issue once it was clear that emotions were over taking reason. My only point was questioning whether or not there was some validity to the notion that Sciosca’s gameplan requires a certain discipline from the catcher position to be effective. I pointed out that Napoli seems to be support this.
I’m not boxing myself into a position where I have to friggin defend Jeff Mathis. At the same time, no one has ever answered the critical question. Instead a few horribly flawed attacks at the organization and staff, and general fallacies. If, in fact, Napoli lacks toolsets required for Mike to run his game then his home runs would not help us. News flash: people don’t hire managers and make sure they know the universals of baseball. When they hire a manager they endorse their approach to the game and thier gameplan. Then, they make a commitment to providing the players that will do that. This is real baseball, not fantasy baseball. As all will learn this season, you don’t just compile the best OPS you can and add the two relief pitchers with the lowest ERA. We aint issuing fantasy points, here. We’re chasing a title. If pitchers feel (and there is NO reason to believe they don’t) there’s a difference with the catcher then maybe there is? Napoli says he now uses what he learned in Anaheim, maybe there’s something to it? He says he’s freer, happier, and maybe that’s why he’s killing (good for him). Yet, even in that free and happy environment where he’s murdering the ball, he catches less than 30% of their games. This seems to confirm that managers are seeing something thats’s not in the stas.
I think all of this talk about Sosh and Reagins amounts to unjustified character assassination. It’s possible for Napoli to be awesome, great for Texas, and WRONG for Mike Scioscia’s system. There’s no question he would make us a better team. But that does not mean we would have a better record. If Mike Scioscia said to me that Mike Napoli could not be on this team while we’re playing Borjous, Trumbo, Conger, Trout, and Chatwood, I’d believe him. Naps is probably a loose fun-loving kid (good for him), Mike probably believes that he needed him more serious to and focused (that’s ok too). I’ve fired my best employee before for the sake of the company. And he started his own business and was real competitor. He took somebody with him and word got out he was doing things MY way and not HIS way now that he was accountable.
Mike may be hard to catch for, but I am suspicious of anyone who gets to play baseball for a living and cries that it “wasn’t fun to play there”. Until someone can prove that Mike is wrong about his approach and its benefit to the team and game results, this is all emotional knee-jerk man love. Every HR should make us happy for Naps, but not assume that an unhappy Nap who is forced to focus on catching technique he doesn’t care for would be good to this team. The man wants to play, drink, and have fun (god bless him), Mike doesn’t want that in a catcher, especially with a bunch of young guys (good for him). I can admit I don’t get what Sosh is seeing, but I won’t say he’s making up reasons or that his decade of winning is based on luck. Just because it doesn’t show up in BRef, doesn’t mean it’s not important to winning real baseball games (rather than fantasy ones).
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
by thebigtizzle on Aug 8, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
"Until someone can prove that Mike is wrong about his approach and its benefit to the team and game results, this is all emotional knee-jerk man love."
What a black and white universe you inhabit!
I’m not boxing myself into a position where I have to friggin defend Jeff Mathis
This is the point where you click “Cancel” instead of “Post.”
by Suboptimal on Aug 8, 2011 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
I swear I almost did.
Honest truth.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
Well....
It’s possible for Napoli to be awesome, great for Texas, and WRONG for Mike Scioscia’s system.
That is true, but my biggest beef is that any system that undervalues Napoli to the point of trading him away for the chance to give MORE playing time to Jeff “Friggin” Mathis is a system with flaws. Flaws that are at the root of how baseball teams win games.
In a time when the Angels are starving for offense, they trade one of their top three hitters for an $86 million contract on a player that is in obvious decline?
Not only is Scioscia myopic and stubborn as a damned mule about this issue, but Reagins is too much of a wimp – or too stupid – to put the best players available on the roster.
Character assassination, my ass, it is as obvious to see as the nose on your face.
How does this team win with this offense? Hey, anyone....DRAW A WALK!!!
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
by jimmuscomp on Aug 8, 2011 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
What do you mean "at the root of how baseball teams win games"?
This is where I admit I have no expertise (and, thus, I am deferring to Scioscia and Reagins since they’ve proven they know something about it). How do baseball teams win games? Is there one universal way or are there different ways?
If Mike says playing Napoli will boost Ron Washington’s system, but his offense doesn’t overcome what he subtracts given the catcher’s role in my system, do you have any basis to refute him? If so, please do. I agree about Mathis, but I have thought about it and all we get is VW sucks and Mathis sucks, which we all see.
The million dollar question that no one who holds your position about Sosh and TR (which is the clear majority) can answer is this: Given their near identical offensive and pitching numbers, what is the difference between the Angels and A’s? 13 games is alot of games and it aint luck. I’m not taking Mathis’ side at all, but I’m proposing there’s something to Scioscia’s approach. That’s my only horse in this race…
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
I can refute Scioscia's statement using his own word:
If Mike says playing Napoli will boost Ron Washington’s system, but his offense doesn’t overcome what he subtracts given the catcher’s role in my system, do you have any basis to refute him? If so, please do
“CERA.” Napoli’s CERA is below Mathis’. You’ve run out of arguments.
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
By "at the root of how baseball teams win/lose games", I mean....
adding up runs scored and pitting that against runs allowed, that’s how.
As for the difference between the 2011 Angels and 2011 A’s. Seriously? For starters, it’s about the extra 37 runs allowed for Oakland. That’s a big part of it.
As for Pythag, the Halos “should” be 60-55 and the A’s “should” be 55-59…
So, the teams are 11.5 games apart right now, but based on RS/RA, they should be about 5 games apart. So, the real question is “how are they separated by 6 games with nearly identical RS/RA numbers.”
That difference seems reasonable to me. Especially when you have a front 3 performing like Weaver/Santana/Haren it makes a difference. Look at the WHIP for the front three on both teams. While the A’s ERA is hanging with the Halos, they are putting more runners on base and that makes a difference when your offense is as bad as their (and the Angels).
Another thing to look at: the Halos have allowed 30 unearned runs so far in 2011. The A’s have allowed 62. So, that goes to the quality of the team defense, and honestly, I bet a large part of that is Peter Borjous, but that’s just speculation.
Honestly, the expected 6 win difference can be chalked up to luck, better Angel defense and less Angel baserunners allowed. That isn’t – by any stretch – 100% fool proof, but just a cursory look at the team numbers gave me more than a few answers to your query. Do you think it is all the mystic powers of Scioscia/Mathis? If so, can you “prove” that as well as I “proved” my thesis?
How does this team win with this offense? Hey, anyone....DRAW A WALK!!!
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
by jimmuscomp on Aug 8, 2011 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I don't know about Mathis...but let's use your proof.
All I know is Mathis is a horrendous hitter yet Scoscia and the pitchers continue to say that his play at catcher outweighs what we see on offense. I mean, they’re saying this over and over again. Given that, I am inclined to believe them rather than assume they’re “making up reasons” or somehow lying to us.
I think it’s a stretch to apply luck for the Pythag difference given the significant difference in unearned runs. I don’t think it’s a stretch to give a chunk to Borjous, because, yeah, he really is that good. But, combined with a 6 game over-performance of their Pythag? Nope. Something’s there.
Unearned runs, especially given the similarity in runs saved/runs against seems to point to defensive discipline and technique. Again, I can’t prove it for certain, but a concerted effort to mitigate runs allowed is clearly evident. Now, Mike Scoscia repeatedly says Jeff Mathis is critical to this. The pitchers repeatedly back this up. I’m not saying I also see what they’re seeing, but I’m questioning the dismissal of these claims given the evidence in favor of its possibility. I mean, you’re identifying an over 2:1 ratio in this category. Why would they make this up? Just because the metrics this team has been defying for years can’t spot it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If anything, it identifies an opportunity to investigate the team’s (historical) performance against the metrics under Scoscia. I’m suggesting that something’s there and it ain’t sinister. Why do so many find this improbable?
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
Fair enough.
Agree to disagree and all, but it all seems much more likely explained by luck than some unmeasurable skill that folks haven’t discovered yet.
Of course, I don’t believe in God, so there you go.
Anyway, all things being equal, I’d rather – by a LONG SHOT – have Napoli, and the numbers back that up. So, until you can prove that the mojo you are counting on exists, I’ll still be pretty sure of myself with regard to which catcher is the bigger help when it comes to winning baseball games. The guy hitting like a Hall of Famer is my choice, yours is the guy hitting like a 12-year old girl. Also, she is blind. And limbless.
How does this team win with this offense? Hey, anyone....DRAW A WALK!!!
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
lol
For sure.
#ineedtoinventametric
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
?
I mean, they’re saying this over and over again. Given that, I am inclined to believe them…
That must be the silliest reasoning in defense of a belief system ever given. It sounds like something used against Galileo.
Mike Scioscia has zero credibility to get mad at anyone, or anything. He is the reason Jeff Mathis plays baseball.
No-no-no
Meaning I believe they believe that. Rather than they’re making it up or somehow lying to us. For me it’s still a question. I’m just surprised people so quickly dismiss it.
Man, I hope this doesn’t put me in some Mathis club…
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
I don't think people dismissed it quickly.
I think people gave Sosh a lot of slack as Mathis’ failures added up. At some point, we rolled right past the unreliability of small numbers and were able to determine that Mathis is indeed a poor MLB player.
NOW that this is a mathematical certainty, anybody entering into the discussion FOR THE FIRST TIME can “quickly” come to that same dismissal.
Subsequent to that time, outside queries to Sosh (and now Lyle Spencer) have come back with the same claim – like Ptolemy’s epicycles – repeated over and over.
Mike Scioscia has zero credibility to get mad at anyone, or anything. He is the reason Jeff Mathis plays baseball.
I agree he is a poor MLB player.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
Scioscia pinch-hitting for Mathis...
is an indicator that Soth is also losing faith in Jeff’s bat. This is a step in the right direction.
I buy your “if they players and coach are saying it…” idea. It means something to them. If Mathis was a detriment, the players would say nothing publicly.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 9, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it says that they like him and are pulling for him.
I’m sure he’s a good friend, great person and all that crap. I just think it’s time for them to make a new friend.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
Yes this is what I also believe, DR.
They could say “hey, he’ll pull out of it” or “he’s driving it alot but it’s not falling”. They are repeatedly saying “he sucks on offense, but what he does on D outweighs this”. This is why I am surprised no one wants to know what it is. I sure as hell want to know…
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
By the way
Since you seem to be a man who relishes the details, I hope this will interest rather than incite you. The colloquial use of epicycles as some a historical example of some kind of anti-scientific superstition is actually entirely bogus.
Copernicus believed in epicycles. Galileo believed in epicycles. Astronomy and natural philosophy—what we would call “physics”—were entirely different disciplines at the time. Philosophers tried to explain why things were the way they were. Astronomers made calendars and cast horoscopes. Ptolemaic epicycles were mostly thought of as mathematical constructions: useful tools for calculating festival dates and astrological occurrences, and not necessarily accurate representations of the physical universe.
Heliocentrism was more of a legal pretext for the Pope, who was an old friend of Galileo’s, to condemn him for a semi-unrelated personal offense. Turns out, Galileo called him a moron in print. He was actually a terrific jerk.
That's not the way my college Astro text book discussed it.
People stopped thinking that perfect circles were a convenient math construction with Aristotle, subsequently insisting that this was reality. And epicycles became more complex as our ability to take measure of the heavens became more accurate and astronomers needed more funky ways to fit reality into their perfect circle belief.
Mike Scioscia has zero credibility to get mad at anyone, or anything. He is the reason Jeff Mathis plays baseball.
Only partially true
Aristotle pre-dates Ptolemy. He was neither an astronomer nor a mathematician, but his theory of “perfect” heavenly motion did influence others, especially Ptolemy. However, Ptolemy never advertised his work as “reality”; it can really only explain one orbit at a time, not the entire solar system at once. You have to assume that the sun is in a slightly different position, called a deferent, for each planet in order to get the predictions to work out right.
That was actually the problem Copernicus wanted to solve. Because he kept the epicycles and threw away the deferents, he was even more committed to uniform circular motion than Ptolemy was. Galileo, on the other hand, was just a gadfly when it came to mathematical astronomy. He could knock down the Ptolemaic model easily enough, but his only defense against the geocentric Tychonic system, which is empirically equivalent to the Copernican theory, was to ignore it.
There were some attempts to make a “physical theory” based on Ptolemy and Copernicus, and they never really convinced anyone. Even into the late 1700s, you could take a class on natural philosophy at a major university and hear nothing but Aristotelian physics. To learn about elliptical motion or even epicycles, you’d be better off consulting the local astrologer.
This is why I love HH so much.
Tomorrow when i’m at work, wiring a service panel, or working on a power transformer or switch leg (i’m an electrician), I can ponder such things as Ptolemy or Aristotle, and how they influenced our modern world, in regards to epicycles and elliptical motion. All the while, still discussing baseball. Now excuse me, this electrician is going to get his drink on.
YOU DON'T KNOW THE POWER OF THE DARKSIDE.....
by halofolife on Aug 9, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Shaq was a self-proclaimed "The Big Aristotle"
Logical Thinking … it’s for everyone.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 11, 2011 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Scoscia and the pitchers continue to say that his play at catcher outweighs what we see on offense
What are they supposed to say? “Dude is my catcher, my team mate, but he really blows hard and I hate him. I miss Napoli.”
I mean, if anything, they are praising his defense just so they can take a shot as his craptacular offense. Build him up with a positive so you can mention his negatives. If they really liked him, they wouldn’t have anything negative to say.
Scoscia and the pitchers continue to say
that his play at catcher outweighs what we see on offense."
This simply begs the question, though: how so? “What we see on offense” is calculable, and easily translated into a number of lost runs.
The only way that Mathis’ play at catcher can actually, in reality, outweigh his offense is if, in truth and fact, the team gives up even fewer runs than it otherwise would. It must be objectively measurable to be real, because baseball games are won by scoring more runs than the other guys, however you get there.
IMHO.
Agreed.
Again, it’s not my claim.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
by thebigtizzle on Aug 8, 2011 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not buying that line.
Baseball is far less of a “system” sport than football or basketball. Except for throw and catch, or consecutive offensive contributions, there is almost no systemic inter-dependencies between the athletic contributions of each player. Either a player adds his own contributions to the product on the field, or he does not.
Mike Scioscia has zero credibility to get mad at anyone, or anything. He is the reason Jeff Mathis plays baseball.
If you were trying to win the argument based on the number of words used, you win.
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
Not the argument, the contest for longest comment.
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
It should be pointed out....
… that Mathis has played some good defense this year. B-Ref’s WAR likes his results, and he’s definitely had some eye-opening moments, even if he’ll never be great on the whole throwing-out-basestealers tip.
I'm not a Mathis fan in any respect.
But when I see that our #1 pitching is followed by Oakland at #2 and Seattle at #4, yet we are 13 games better, something has to give since we know it’s not our offense. Mike seems to push the notion that defensive technique (of some mysterious kind) is a difference maker. I’m not inclined to directly give Mathis any credit for it, but as you said he has made some nice plays on D. Until its proven wrong via results, I have to believe that something besides pitching is making this team a contender. The benefit of the doubt goes to Sciosca especially since Naps own comments of happiness and freedom are coming from a catcher on a bad defensive team.
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
Huh?
Rangers are a bad defensive team? Their IF defense is perhaps one of the 5 best in the game with Beltre/Andrus/Kinsler and their OF defense is solid as long as Hamilton isn’t in CF.
Soth is full of shit.
Using Soth’s fake stat, CERA, Napoli has produced better results with an inferior pitching staff.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
by snowhor on Aug 7, 2011 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe
Ron Washington must have some reason for only trusting the guy to catch 25% of their games, no? There has to be something there or Ron doesn’t appreciate him either? Maybe he respects Naps limitations more than Mike could tolerate?
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
Maybe Washington is smart enough to focus on Napoli's value rather than attempting to tolerate his limitations.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
Then why did they flash the stat last night that Premium leads the league in CERA?
If the Halos don't care about the way they play, then why should I?
they based it on a minimum of 60 games started at C
I believe Naps has 32 at this point (depending if he started tonight).
"Keep pushing for us." Ervin Santana after NO-HITTER (July 27, 2011)
So has Napoli
Thrown out 44% of basestealers, the 2.43 CERA. With Beltre out they’ve needed Napoli’s and Torrealba’s bat’s in the lineup at the same time – and they have had Napoli catch a good number of games with Yorvit as the DH!
Scioscia is a great manager, does many things right, and has this team competing when most of Halos Heaven thought we were headed for another first place team. But this is a pretty big wart on his record, and it hurts all the more that if we lose the division to Texas, Napoli will be the pretty obvious margin.
"That boy is our last hope" - Obi Wan Scioscia, as Francisco Rodriguez left for the Mets. "No, there is another" - Yoda Reagins.
by RallyMonkey5 on Aug 7, 2011 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Especially that last sentence
This year really is about Mathis v. Napoli, and Sosh’s catcher pathologies.
Imagine this alternate-universe preseason scenario:
- Mathis non-tendered
- No Wells trade
So instead of paying $18 million for Vernon Wells we’d be paying $5.25 million to Juan Rivera, for essentially the same production. Not only that, when Rivera demonstrated by mid-season that he’s no longer worthy of an AL starting position, you could just bench or DFA the guy in favor of a cat named Mike Trout. No pesky $74 million in future salaries to worry about, no fragile psyches to maintain — we’d have better results by now, for $12 million less.
Meanwhile, at the catcher position, instead of paying Jeff Mathis $1.7 million to suck while blocking Hank Conger, you could be paying Mike Napoli $5.8 million to hit the shit out of the ball while splitting time w/ Conger and taking some DH ABs away from Bobby Abreu. Between them Napoli & Conger have 22 2Bs, 25 HRs & 50 BBs, in 427 PAs.
In sum — We’d be paying $8 million less this year for a much better baseball club. We’d have Conger prepped to take over the position full time in 2012, we’d be getting some compensation for letting Napoli walk as a free agent, we’d have $11 million coming off the books in 2012 & on top of that we wouldn’t owe Vernon Wells a goddamned thing.
Wow.
by mattwelch on Aug 7, 2011 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 16 recs
No matter how many times Mike Napoli comes up in a discussion, I always find myself shaking my head as I'm reading the article.
It is hard to believe that the Angels traded a hitter whose current line is .294 / .392 / .610. Overall, that is better than anyone in the Angels line-up. What also hurts to think about is what we got in return.
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
by angelslogic on Aug 7, 2011 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I don't think they "traded" Napoli...
they threw him out with the garbage.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
the ONLY upside to the trade, was ridding ourselves of Juan Rivera's lazy corpse
More Howie please...
I've seen carcasses play better defense than Juan Rivera
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
But, there are 76 million reasons
to want Rivera over Wells in 2011.
How does this team win with this offense? Hey, anyone....DRAW A WALK!!!
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
Wow
“It is hard to believe that the Angels traded a hitter whose current line is .294 / .392 / .610. Overall, that is better than anyone in the Angels line-up.”
Now it’s only 218 at-bats and it’s unlikely Napoli would keep those rates playing everyday, but saying that’s better than anyone in the current hitting challenged lineup is severely understating how good Napoli has hit.
That OPS is higher than any season VLADIMIR GUERRERO ever had for the Angels.
"That boy is our last hope" - Obi Wan Scioscia, as Francisco Rodriguez left for the Mets. "No, there is another" - Yoda Reagins.
by RallyMonkey5 on Aug 8, 2011 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Try this alternate universe lineup
DH Abreu .255/.370/.345
3B Callaspo .290/.369/.365
2B Kendrick .301/.359/.447
C Napoli .290/.385/.608
1B Trumbo .260/.301/.488
SS Aybar .274/.307/.412
RF Hunter .248/.319/.398
LF Rivera .256/.315/.380
CF Bourjos .268/.321/.405
Not adjusted for OPS+ etc etc, but you get the idea.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
by johnnyangel101 on Aug 7, 2011 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Understood. And agreed.
But we had no real control over Beltre. The lineup here was completely under our control.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
by johnnyangel101 on Aug 8, 2011 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Fire Reagins.
"F it, let's pitch." - Ervin Santana
by Chzburger Jones on Aug 7, 2011 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
And just as important
Texas wouldn’t have Napoli.
"That boy is our last hope" - Obi Wan Scioscia, as Francisco Rodriguez left for the Mets. "No, there is another" - Yoda Reagins.
by RallyMonkey5 on Aug 7, 2011 8:28 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
And he's batting .346 with RISP
Supposedly his bugaboo with the Angels.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
by johnnyangel101 on Aug 7, 2011 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions
You know, Matt
it stinks to see that in writing in August because I think a good bunch of folks on this site could see it coming when the trade was made…
I looked up the stats on Napoli the other day, expecting to see a decent home/road split with him playing in Texas and all. I was floored when I saw that his numbers are IDENTICAL at home and on the road.
Damn I miss that player…
How does this team win with this offense? Hey, anyone....DRAW A WALK!!!
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
Actually, this site did exactly that
From the front page on January 21:
This trade doesn’t even deserve the dignity of a formal analysis. The Angels voluntarily vacated about three or four wins next season while simultaneously boosting their payroll by nearly $10 million.
I really struggle to understand how rational human beings made this decision.
by Suboptimal on Aug 7, 2011 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It would also have left open the possibility of a mid-season trade
The Angels could have Carlos Beltran in left field for the stretch run, or any of the other outfielders whose names came up during trade discussions. As good as the Angels pitching has been this season, they could have a 4-5 game lead on Texas right now, and the gap would be widening.
That makes me want to throw up
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Aug 7, 2011 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The front office's acrimonious relationship with Scott Boras is extremely detrimental.
Any big payroll team must have a working relationship with Boras. If the Angels did, they probably would have successfully signed Beltre. Clearly the Angels had the money to make it happen.
So in addition to mattwelch’s scenario I would add Beltre into the mix.
Beltre (3.9 WAR) and Napoli (3.3 WAR) : quite the swing having them on the Rangers instead of the Angels.
So the Angels:
1) Improperly assess players (Napoli)
2) Can’t negotiate with Boras
3) Have no clue how to value contracts (Wells)
The solution?
Hire Brian Cashman. He is sabermetrically smart and he knows how to deal with Boras (ARod, Tex, Soriano). 2011 is the last year of his contract with the Yankees which pays him $2 million per year.
I think the Angels should sign Cashman this offseason. He would never have gotten sucked into the Wells contract fiasco. And even if he did, I’m sure he could have gotten more than $5 million from the Jays. When he traded for ARod, he was able to negotiate the following with Texas:
Texas agreed to pay remaining $4M in signing bonus & $67M of remaining $179M in salary.
by Fan Since 1981 on Aug 8, 2011 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions
cashman will never leave ny, and would never take over this mess!
by hoffy loves the angels on Aug 9, 2011 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Mess? Really?
- The Angels have a .548 winning percentage and are only 1.5 games out of first place.
- The contracts of Scott Kazmir ($12 million), Gary Matthews Jr ($11.4 million), Joel Pineiro ($8 million) and Fernando Rodney ($5.5 million) all come off the books this year. That’s $36.9 million of additional payroll space.
- Hank Steinbrenner is harsh and the NY media is ruthless. Working for Arte and dealing with the tame OC/LA press will be a picnic for Cashman.
by Fan Since 1981 on Aug 9, 2011 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
to be fair, isn't this what us fans always assume?
Hank Steinbrenner is harsh and the NY media is ruthless. Working for Arte and dealing with the tame OC/LA press will be a picnic for Cashman.
time and time again free agents choose to go to these markets with harsh media over the tame OC market. perhaps the press, weather and owner don’t play as big of a factor in the decision making process as us Halo fans want to believe. We really need to stop trying to talk ourselves into this premise.
additionally, I would think Cashman enjoys where he is at, especially now that The Red Sox payroll continues to inflate. Cashman has a legit rival in his division with essentially the same resources, as well as Tampa who works in opposite ways and yet continues to push the other teams in the division. I’m not sure he sees the AL West as some baseball warzone like the AL East continues to be.
"You realize that Ive been posting on AN since 07 on this name and I am one of the most rec'ed posters there right?" - Some douche named DFA from AN
by 2pintsofbooze on Aug 9, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't referring to free agents. I was specifically discussing Cashman's situation.
Players will always seek out the big bucks regardless of who, what, or where. It’s speculation on my part and yours whether Cashman enjoys the higher competition/expectations/intensity of the AL East. Maybe he likes it.
But if he doesn’t, he can always go west where things are lame and tame. :)
by Fan Since 1981 on Aug 9, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I know you weren't talking about FAs
but your line of thought was similar to what many have when discussing potential FAs. and lets be honest, if Cashman doesn’t get extended he will essentially be a FA, just not the kind we’re used to.
also, I’m sure he’d prefer the big bucks too, and the Yankees are in a much better position to offer their GM more $$ than I think Arte would.
I just don’t want you to get your hopes up, thats all :)
"You realize that Ive been posting on AN since 07 on this name and I am one of the most rec'ed posters there right?" - Some douche named DFA from AN
by 2pintsofbooze on Aug 9, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he'd only come here if he's ready for a retirement-like job.
Think about it, Arte offers a nice paycheck, doesn’t hold people accountable for poor decisions, lets you phone it in whenever you want and offers an expense account for as much fine dining (Del Taco) as you want.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
This just ruined my day
I knew it was bad from the beginning, but when fleshed out like this, I feel sick.
by Big Easy Halofan on Aug 8, 2011 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"A cat named Mike Trout..."
is still a kitten, not a battle-tested alley cat.
MEOW!
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Matt, You Forgot Something Very Important to the FO
Not trading for Wells would have freed up money for the Mathis mega-extension.
Do we really need to say anything else about the subject.
Big Matt just said it perfectly! Hindsight is a bitch, but we all knew this was going to happen.
Yep, hindsight and foresight is the same thing in this case.
Too bad turtes don’t have brains.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
Usually...
be it someone like your parent, teacher (a good one), or even your drill sergeant, the child, student, or recruit, may say things like “He was too tough”, “She was strict”, or “He was a hard ass’. The question remains (and Napoli even answered): Did that individual learn anything? I’m not in Mathis camp and we are not privy to knowing Napoli as ‘a character’ guy. He probably had a sloppy work ethic. If we remember a few years back, the dude was with the team because of a few injuries at the ’C” position, so he needed to work on those fundamentals even while he was with the big club!
Gimme a cigarette
I thought Napoli came up because we dumped Bengie for Mathis, then Mathis failed with the bat.
Then, Mathis just never developed the bat, but became best buds with the pitching staff. The rest is history.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Nah
Remember they still had Jose! I believe that he got hurt and they called up Napoli. I definitely recall wondering “Who the hell is this guy” because he came from AA and not the Salt Lake Club. Dude started hitting bombs and the rest is history!
Gimme a cigarette
Not really the way I remember it and this confirms it:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2006/6/27/125339/279
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
June 27, 2006
Snippet from that link above:
Mike Napoli seems to have taken firm hold of the Angels catching job, pushing aside the more-heralded Jeff Mathis
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Aug 8, 2011 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Obviously.
Although all the crying over Napoli isn’t doing us a damn bit of good. We might as well move on.
More Howie please...
by hk47 on Aug 8, 2011 8:34 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
I'm pretty confident this topic will still be coming up 10 years from now
especially if VW continues to suck donkey balls the next few seasons and Mathis continues to be on the team past this October
"You realize that Ive been posting on AN since 07 on this name and I am one of the most rec'ed posters there right?" - Some douche named DFA from AN
by 2pintsofbooze on Aug 8, 2011 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
We can move on
When the perpetrators of this crime against Angel baseball have been punished, and we can be assured that it will never happen again.
I don’t want to go into the next season with the Angels issuing a feel good press release about how they’ve added power to the lineup by trading for Soriano’s power bat in exchange for Hank Conger.
"That boy is our last hope" - Obi Wan Scioscia, as Francisco Rodriguez left for the Mets. "No, there is another" - Yoda Reagins.
by RallyMonkey5 on Aug 8, 2011 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Different point of view
Napoli has some insecurities that a 13 year girl could relate too when it comes to Scioscia
He needed the change of scenery to perform to this level.
I play music for your entertainment
by Seik1177 on Aug 8, 2011 9:00 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Yes
It was all Napoli’s fault and not the FO. A manager’s job is to bring the best performance out of a player. Clearly Scioscia failed miserably at this.
Naps wouldn't hit for the same numbers here:
Arlington is a band box to hit in and he’s got way more protection in the Ranger’s line-up so he gets better pitches to hit. He would probably be the same as he was his whole career with the Angels…a .250 hitter with some pop. Which I would gladly take over Mathis.
These comments confirm a lot of suspicions for me about MS though. He’s a control freak who micro-manages his catchers into mediocrity or worse in the case of Mathis.
FALSE.
Nap’s home and road stats:
H: .291/.392/.627
R: .296/.392/.593
He has slightly more power at home, but those road stats blow away anyone in our lineup by far.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
But what about his SARC?
Squat Above Replacement Catcher
by ~MMP~ on Aug 8, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He destroys Napoli in SARC and GH.
GH stands for Good Hands. Soth can give you the full and quite possibly explicit definition.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
by snowhor on Aug 8, 2011 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, seriously?
Nap nap nap, blah blah blah.
Who knows why they traded him, but since you don’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt, the assumption is that it was some personal vandetta.
All I know is that this team has three superstars having down years, and we’re within one game of the Rangers – that is some badass skippering.
Who knows what happened with Nap, and yes I die a small death every time Mathis comes to the plate, but damn. If we were 10 games out, then game on, but damn…
You are a nut-beam for crediting the Soth as being "badass."
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
Since when do we have 3 superstars?
On this roster there is one superstar (Weaver), a couple of borderline All Stars (Haren, Howie), and 3 washed up former borderline All-Stars (Hunter, Abreu, Wells).
What roster are you looking at?
"I have one word for you...Be careful."
-Jose Guillen
by IE Angel on Aug 8, 2011 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
3 superstars baby...
Hunter, Abreu and Wells have all, at one point, been verifiable superstars – AND, even though none of them would be considered superstars today, they should still each be producing. Managing the team to within a game of the Rangers is badass.
You guys bitch like we’re the effing Royals or something.
I totally agree that they should all be producing,
and it’s indisputable that they were once very productive players.
But “verifiable superstars” is a stretch, in my (and most people’s) opinion.
VW: 3 All-Star teams, 2 Gold Gloves, 1 Silver Slugger, 0 career playoff appearances, 1 Top-10 MVP vote finish.
Torii: 4 All-Star teams, 9 Gold Gloves, 1 Silver Slugger, 6 playoff appearances, 2 Top-15 MVP finishes.
Abreu: 2 All-Star teams, 1 Gold Glove (shocking as that may be), 1 Silver Slugger, 4 playoff appearances, 1 Top-15 MVP finish.
All borderline All-Stars throughout their careers. Solid players, no doubt. But not superstars. A superstar to me has a couple of qualifications.
A perennial MVP or Cy Young candidate.
Face of a franchise.
National recognition for either team success or personal achievement.
Preferably, a World Series or at least a Championship Series appearance.
Torii, Wells and Abreu were never superstars. They weren’t guys you build a team around when they were successful.
Torii was very close for a time. Face of a successful franchise. But never an MVP candidate, or a guy you fear at the plate.
Vernon was always a compliment middle of the order player. Carlos Delagdo early, then he had a 2 year stretch where he was their biggest threat (though he had a lower OPS than Frank Cattalanoto and Shea Hillenbrand), then Troy Glaus came in and took over for a season, then Alexis Rios, Frank Thomas and Glaus blew him away the next year, 08 he was the top dog there but only played 100 games. 09 he had the 8th highest OPS on his 4th place and under .500 team.
Abreu was the 2nd best player on a lot of bad Phillies’ teams in the late 90’s-early 2000’s, arguably the best with Scott Rolen as his competition. Then Jim Thome came and took over that city for two seasons until the trio of Ryan Howard, Chase Utley and Jimmy Rollins came in and took over the franchise. He got traded to the Yankees in 06 and I don’t need to list all the players in NY that he was behind.
It’s not that they aren’t stars because they are and were. They just aren’t “superstars”. And weren’t ever in that stratosphere.
To put it simply, if I asked you to list the 25 greatest players from the last 10 years. None of those 3 would be on the list.
"I have one word for you...Be careful."
-Jose Guillen
by IE Angel on Aug 8, 2011 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Hunter was never a superstar
Perfectly fine player, nothing more. Wells had a couple of great seasons, but never sustained it.
Talk to me in a few seasons...
It’s a small sample on the home versus road stats and I still think it will show up in the long term as almost all the Rangers players do better at home. Look at Angel Stadium’s overall numbers that he would be playing half his games at as night games there kill fly balls which he hits a lot of. The bigger deal is that he’s getting pitches to hit because opposing pitchers know that the next guy in the line-up can also kill you.
Having breaks in a line-up with a couple really poor hitters is a big part of the Angels problem with hitting with runners in scoring position. Opposing pitchers get to choose who they want to throw to in our line-up and that doesn’t happen nearly as much in Texas.
Any sample size is still better than anyone in the current lineup.
Small sample size.
Angel Stadium: .429/.556/.571
Vs Angel Pitching: .316/.435/.474
Large sample size.
Career at Angel Stadium: .246/.343/.486
Any sample size is still better than anyone in the current lineup.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
The bigger deal is that he’s getting pitches to hit because opposing pitchers know that the next guy in the line-up can also kill y
This.
If the Halos don't care about the way they play, then why should I?
How do you explain how Vlad hit so well for us when there was no one else in the lineup that could "kill" you?
Why can’t we attribute a player’s success to his ability?
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
My memories of Napoli:
The HR against Boston ALDS Game 3
The playful personality (His interactions with Aybar-classic)
Long fly ball outs
K’s with runners on
Solo HRs
Big whiffs
That shoulder injury that hampered his throwing
Running the bases while holding the batting gloves in his hands
137 K’s .238 in 2010
At least one of the starters getting rocked while he’s behind the dish-weekly
The pros outweigh the cons
Would I take him over Mathis???? Hell yes!
Gimme a cigarette
You listed 2 pros and 7 cons, but those pros outweigh the cons?
Don’t get me wrong, he (and anyone) is still better then Mathis, but he was not the god that everyone here makes him out to be. It was hard to imagine Naps having this good a season in 2011 back when he was hitting .238 last year (while getting the full playing time that everyone said was all he needed). I guess what he really needed was to go to a different team. I do not think he’d be putting up these same numbers if he were still with us – but yes it would still be better then Mathis.
You are right, Nap would not have the same numbers if he were on the Angels this year.
But that is an indictment of Mike Scioscia’s management style.
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
by angelslogic on Aug 9, 2011 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
And the team's swing at every possible pitch philosophy.
I’m sure Ron Washington doesn’t frown every time Napoli walks.
Soth would rather his players swing at a bad pitch and ground out than walk because in his twisted world “trying to make something happen” is better than getting on base.
Pollyanna is dead. But don't get mad at me, I didn't kill her. Tony Reagins did.
Sigh...
Been looking over some of Naps’s videos when he was with the Angels… Makes me wonder just how good our lineup would be and where we’d be in the standings if we had kept him, and not traded him for V-Dub. I would have loved to see a platoon with him and Conger, and he could have also robbed Bobby of at-bats in the DH spot when he’s not playing catcher. I’m pretty sick of Sosh’s sticky love for Mathis, and of Reagins’ incompetence in making trades or signing free agents. I think it’s pretty amazing that these two individuals running the team are also actively hurting it, when there’s a plethora of people on Halos Heaven who could surely do better, at least in the decision making. I used to be a huge fan of Mike Scioscia, but my good perception of him is consistently waning, as I think is the case with most members of this site.
Mark Trumbo: 2011 Rookie of the Year
It's the official term for a collection of pinatas.
If the Halos don't care about the way they play, then why should I?
Hey Mike, guess what? Jeffy is still Sosh's favorite.
Yeah, I know. You raised your BA to .299 today and your OBP is just a tad shy of .400 (.398). But, you know, that 1.009 OPS just makes Big Mike cringe – being on base that much causes you to clog the bases. What’s that? Your CERA is one of the lowest in the Amercian league? It doesn’t matter. Big Mike stopped talking about CERA a few weeks ago. Now it’s all about “what goes on behind the plate.” Whatever that means.
A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.
"what goes on behind the plate"
Is that code for what’s in the pictures Jeffy has of Mike?
by YouthofToday on Aug 8, 2011 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
EAD Scioscia
Napoli’s catcher ERA, or cERA, isn’t just good – it turns out it’s the lowest cERA in all of baseball. A total of 68 different catchers have caught at least 100 innings on the year. Napoli’s cERA leads them all.
I am not one that ever bought into the cERA crap but with Nap’s now sitting atop of it I am left to believe that is the reason the Great Mike Scioscia is no longer mentioning it as much as he once did
by Angel Aviator on Aug 20, 2011 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Halos Heaven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
