E. Santana starting the season on the d.l.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 3:19 PM CDT
Email
PrintThe L.A. Times has an article up, saying that Ervin Santana will be starting the season on the d.l., but which is kind of murky on details other than that.
Mike Scioscia is quoted as saying Santana shouldn't miss a significant part of the season, and Santana himself is quoted as saying that "Everything is fine" in regards to his arm, but he's had an MRI on his elbow after suffering tightness in it in his last start.
The Angels are already dealing with the absence of Kelvim Escobar for at least the first part of the season, and with Santana down, it means that the Angels will go into the season with a rotation of John Lackey, Jered Weaver, Joe Saunders, and two guys from the group of Dustin Moseley, Nick Adenhart, and Shane Loux.
If Santana is just down for the first two weeks of the season and then bounces back strong, it will be a non-issue. But if Santana misses significant time, along with Escobar, then the Angels -- who already are a bit spotty in the lineup -- could have some problems this year.
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We will see
Sooner or later it will catch up with them.
Keith Law on Greg Golson, "He's similiar to Cameron and Hunter in that all three are black."
I think the A's offseason moves are looking better and better, myself
The Angels got through stuff like Escobars injury because they had guys like Santana step up… but sooner or later you’re going to run out of guys like that (especially when your farm system sucks like theirs does).
Looking at those names AJM rattled off, you’ve got Adenhart, who imploded upon his MLB debut last year, Dustin Moseley, who isn’t very good, and Shane Loux, who I’ve never heard of before but has some really shitty minor league numbers aside from 2008 – with the possible exception of Adenhart, I don’t see any of those guys replacing Santana in that rotation.
"You can have such a massive impact on a game even when you're not getting ground balls hit at you." - Michael Young
by LSJ on Mar 8, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions
YES
OT: I was looking at the Mariners roster yesterday and they really really suck. We should be able to get a lot of easy wins from them.
Well, they're actually not nearly as bad as they where last year
Their OF defense is bigtime improved, and if Brendan Morrow’s transition to the rotation is finally completed they’ll have a good #2 behind Felix – and maybe a #3 if Bedard gets healthy. So even though they still suck, we’ll actually probably have less “easy” wins against them this year.
But hey, this is a first for you: an optimistic comment. I like it, even if you’re not entirely correct.
"You can have such a massive impact on a game even when you're not getting ground balls hit at you." - Michael Young
by LSJ on Mar 8, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions
should have one of the best defensive OF (if not the best) in baseball
bedard > morrow though
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Well, if he's healthy
That’s kind of an if at this point, from what I’ve heard.
"You can have such a massive impact on a game even when you're not getting ground balls hit at you." - Michael Young
by LSJ on Mar 8, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Great
Because you said that, the Rangers are going to go 3-16 against the M’s this year. And that will probably cost them a playoff berth.
I hope you are happy.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Didnt the M's go about 3-16 vs the angels last year?
Anyway I think their fans will be disappointed by the impact their defense actually makes, but if they get a full healthy seasons from bedard, felix and morrow they could certainly take some series.
the preceding post was a great success.
A true Rite of Spring
Another “The Angels aren’t really that good” post from Adam.
LoneStarBall....You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
by LSBUser on Mar 8, 2009 3:57 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Well
I was in 2003 and 2006.
And they weren’t a legit 100 win team last year…I had them as a mid- to high-80s win team, and they had a Pythag. won/loss of 88-74.
Anaheim isn’t some magical franchise that will just perpetually spit out 95 wins per year.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions
pythag
Pythagorean expectation is a formula invented by Bill James to estimate how many games a baseball team “should” have won based on the number of runs they scored and allowed.
they were VERY lucky last year
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
its all luck your right.
It has nothing to do with having pitching that performs well when the game is close and it also nothing to do with them not scoring as much when they were down because they get a lot of their runs from sacrifices and stealing, if they are up by a lot then they don’t need to do any of that.
Nope
Not really.
Pythag. won/loss is more indicative of the ability of a team, and is more predictive of future performance.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
who cares what should have happened?
a win is a win is a win is a win.
If you got by pythag then every team above .500 was lucky and every team below .500 was unlucky. Its about what you do when it matters.
x
If you got by pythag then every team above .500 was lucky and every team below .500 was unlucky.
Wrong. Quite wrong. Even more wrong than Andrew Cashner should have been drafted instead of Justin Smoak wrong.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions
It doesn't predict future performance
However, it is more indicative of future performance than raw W/L records are.
Basically, a team with a .500 record and a .550 Pythag is generally going to be better going forward than a team with a .550 record and a .500 Pythag.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 9, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
how come nobody has mentioned
that the Rangers, just like the Angels, outperformed their Pythag last season. Seems silly to expect the LAAAs to regress, but not the Rangers.
Doctor please. Some more of these.
It has been mentioned
many times. But the Angels outperformed their Pwin total by a much larger margin.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Nobody has mentioned that?
That gets mentioned all the time.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 9, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
That's one of Josey's favorite lines
I don’t know how you missed it. And there is a huge difference between a 3 win difference between actual record and Pythagorean vs. a 12 win difference. Also, 2nd and 3rd order wins had the Rangers right at 79 wins last year.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
pythag
Pythagorean expectation is a formula invented by Bill James to estimate how many games a baseball team "should" have won based on the number of runs they scored and allowed.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 8, 2009 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Luck
There is about a 30 point difference between their BA (.268) and BABIP (.299). Out of 14 AL teams, the Angels ranked 12th on BB’s and 11th in OBP. It seems they had a bit of luck on their side.
by Excel Hearts Choi on Mar 8, 2009 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Did you think that is a true, repeatable skill?
It has been pretty well established that, if “clutch” hitting exists, it is at a level so low as to be virtually undetectable…in other words, it isn’t statistically significant.
Do you think the Angels’ pitchers have a special ability to “clutch,” and that such ability exists for pitchers and not hitters?
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions
their clutch ranking
is off the charts.
each of their pitchers have more grit than erstad and eckstine put together and more clutch than david ortiz and jeter put together
they are just that good.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Opponents hitting in the clutch:
As you can see, Justin Speier has one goofy-ass name.
by oc on Mar 8, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Okay
In 2007:
Lackey: .301, .249
Weaver: .280, .265
Santana: .266, .246
Saunders: .262, .200
Speier: .205, .133 (.202 overall)
Shields: .242, .216 (.220 overall)
Oliver: .269, .267
So, basically, last year was an aberration. In fact, the one guy who was an outlier in 2008 — Saunders — was particularly good in 2007.
Expecting those guys to continuing to allow substantially lower averages in those situations than overall is a mistake.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Is it just too crazy to assume that Jose Arredondo and his fantastic 61 innings pitched helps balance that out?
And now the addition of Fuentes?
I don’t understand how people can assume that the entire Rangers pitching staff is bound for improvement, while the Angels are just bound for regression.
Health plays an enormous factor obviously. We’re already down Benoit and Hurley.
by oc on Mar 8, 2009 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions
That's separate issues
First of all, Fuentes is replacing K-Rod. K-Rod wasn’t the best reliever in the history of the game last year, like some suggest, but he was very damn good, and Fuentes replacing K-Rod is a downgrade.
As for Arredondo, I didn’t list him because I listed the guys who pitched in 2007. If you want to assume that the Angels were great “clutch” pitchers last year, then you have to either assume that:
1) They weren’t clutch in 2007, but somehow, during the 07-08 offseason, figured out how to team the pitchers to be clutch (other than Joe Saunders), becoming the first team to be able to teach their pitchers to be particularly dominant in those situations, or
2) That exceptional performance by their pitchers in those situations in 2008, relative to their general performance, is an aberration that is unlikely to recur in 2009.
The Angels allowed 24 runs fewer than would be expected, given the performance of opposing hitters against them. That’s almost entirely due to the “clutch” pitching.
The Rangers allowed 34 runs more than would be expected, which is due almost entirely to particularly craptacular performances with RISP.
Now, neither of those things are considered to be repeatable skills. When I talk about “regression to the mean” and why I think that, even barring any other changes, the pitching will improve, because it is highly unlikely that they are going to be so much worse in those situations than overall.
Ditto the Angels. They aren’t likely to be particularly better in those situations next season.
Now, whether or not the Angels will regress enough, and the Rangers will improve enough, to make up enough difference for the Rangers to be in the race next year is another matter entirely.
But the last paragraph you wrote is also pretty critical. We’re down Benoit and Hurley. And the Angels are down Escobar and now have a big question mark about Santana.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes. But there is something to be said for stability.
All of the players I listed are returning (barring Santana’s injury getting worse).
The Rangers? We’re only crapshooting with the likes of Guardado, McCarthy, Turnbow, Donnelly, Eyre…
by oc on Mar 8, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm confused now
What does the fact that they are returning and providing stability have to do with their BAA with 2 outs?
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I suppose I am implying that it isn't entirely out of the question that we see repeat 'clutch pitching' from the Angels next year.
by oc on Mar 8, 2009 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Is it entirely out of the question?
No.
Is it highly unlikely?
Yes.
I see no reason to believe that the Angels have a special ability to be particularly clutch pitchers.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
There are other things of course such as Scioscia maybe having a better feel for how to use his bullpen than Washington.
I agree that the two teams are a lot closer than 21 games this upcoming season.
I just can’t discount that the Angels still have the more superior pitching staff of the two teams.
by oc on Mar 8, 2009 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't disagree that their pitching is better
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions
you
look at things WAY too statisticaly. have you ever played baseball before?? when there are people on base and you are a pitcher you just naturally focus more and try harder. When the game is close its the same thing. The difference between a score of 14-6 and 14-4 isnt much. the difference beteween a score of 3-2 and 5-2 is a ton. Pythag doesnt consider that.
Which means that Pythag is pretty much useless because a run when the score is 14-0 is considered the same as run scored when it is 1-1.
Who cares what “should” have happened?
And from looking at the Pythag win-loss in one year and looking at that same teams actual win-loss the next year it isn’t useful at all.
You ignorant jackass
That big lead, small lead stuff evens out over time. And as far as the team having a different record the following year, are you assuming they kept their roster exactly the same, and that all of those players played at exactly the same level, and that there were no injuries?
If your team finishes with 100 wins, but the P-win total was only 88, it should tell you that:
- the team wasn’t really as good as 100 wins might seem to indicate
- you shouldn’t count on that same collection of players producing in the neighborhood of 100 wins again
- you would be smart to upgrade the roster any way you can if you expect to win 90+ games the following season
Seattle a couple of seasons ago was a perfect example of a team that would have been wise to follow this. They won well above their P-total in 2007. Thinking they were better than they really were, they went and traded the farm for Bedard hoping that would put them over the top. Not surprisingly they played well below expectations — because they were expecting the wrong thing.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Your example doesn't make sense
But the rest of your argument is right on.
The Mariners a couple years ago were 9 wins better than their Pythag. Sherill was the only player traded who was a significant piece of that team and they had Putz already so they weren’t losing their closer. 2 of their starters who started at least 20 games had ERAs over 6.20 so upgrading their starting pitching seemed like the right move and Bedard was an upgrade.
Now it didn’t work out very well but the moves they made were in an effort to improve.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
None of what you say
changes or refutes what I said. They traded away a lot of talent thinking that Bedard was enough of an upgrade that they would be contenders. It was utterly foolish. They should have been thinking long term, not trading away Jones and Sherill.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
(personal attack)
how does it “even” out??
and so the Rangers’ record last year was 79-83 and the Pythag record was 76-86, so what does that mean for the Rangers?
Hahaha, yep
"You can have such a massive impact on a game even when you're not getting ground balls hit at you." - Michael Young
by LSJ on Mar 9, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions
hurley roughly equals adenhart
and any of the pitchers in the angels rotation >hurley
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 8, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions
I think they're 7th, 8th, and 9th inning pitchers
being dominate last year was pretty repeatable.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Well...
I don’t know that saying that the Angels could have some problems if Santana and Escobar both miss significant time really qualifies, but…
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 8, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions
they are pitchers are still better.
Rock Flag & Eagle Radio: Thursdays 10 PM - 1 AM on FM 88.7 The Choice
"Zirconia Ztolen!"
I remember last year when Escobar went down for the year
I got really excited.
Then Santana had to go and be good.
Fuck you Ervin Santana.
Rock Flag & Eagle Radio: Thursdays 10 PM - 1 AM on FM 88.7 The Choice
"Zirconia Ztolen!"
deep voice 'yeah'
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
this is killing my fantasy teams
first the santana ’injury"
then the fact that i have zambrano, the walking injury
and i have e santana
:(
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Yeah, well the Angels were without John Lackey for the first part of last season
and things still worked out pretty well for the Angels as in American League West Champions. Being without Santana for awhile is’nt going to kill us, we have lots of depth.
Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!
Really?
Where is the depth behind Lackey and Santana?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Of course there is
After Saunders and Weaver though it’s just mostly pretty shitty depth.
"You can have such a massive impact on a game even when you're not getting ground balls hit at you." - Michael Young
by LSJ on Mar 8, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions
They have guys for a rotation
but I don’t consider that depth. Saunders is a back of the rotation guy and Weaver has been looking worse each year since his rookie year. I don’t think you consider that to be depth since they aren’t going to pitch anywhere near the level of Lackey/Santana.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Adam has almost the exact same spring script
As far as the angels are concerned.
Starts with saying about they are weakened by free agency losses, and are aging. He does not seem them as powerful as they were the year before.
Then someone from the angels staff gets injured and he states that this could really hurt them in the long run.
Season starts, and they bend us over and take us to brown town, regardless of who is playing or pitching.
OT: MLB network
i dunno how many people have seen this, but this ‘Young Family’ piece on the Network is absolutely AWESOME…yes, even better than Josh’s piece…
i like this channel.
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012
"AMMIITAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABHH!!!"
Halos Heaven says he has a sprained MCL:
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
mexico/australia on WBC
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
also US vs venezuela on
and the guy on 1b looks strangely like jeff bagwell (i think its youkilis)
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
question
what is the chances of having a WBC thread daily? — would anyone be opposed to that?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
usa winning 14-5
its what venezuela gets for pitching felix yesterday and gallaraga today
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
USA! USA! USA!
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012
"AMMIITAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABHH!!!"
is sbnation upgrading or something?
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012
"AMMIITAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABHH!!!"
I couldn't log on for about an hour earlier.
Keith Law on Greg Golson, "He's similiar to Cameron and Hunter in that all three are black."
yes crashed on me
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 8, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Angels rotation
I think Saunders would be the no.2 starter with Weaver behind him.
"Yeah, like I had a chance there" - Lancaster batter, after striking out against Derek Holland
Wow
Australia mercy ruled Mexico 17-7
In other news, Matt Harrison has learned a cutter – he will be our next ace
Harrison has a cutter?
Cool. Linky?
"You can have such a massive impact on a game even when you're not getting ground balls hit at you." - Michael Young
X
"It doesn't look like he's trying. It kinda pisses me off," "He could throw 110 if he tried. The way it explodes out of his hand is really something special." ~ B-Mac on Feliz.
OT -- Gammons says Bard hit 100MPH the other day
Boston’s bullpen of Jonathan Papelbon, Takashi Saito, Hideki Okajima, Justin Masterson, Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez will make approximately $11.7M in 2009. And that doesn’t include prospect Daniel Bard, who struck out the side Sunday against the AL champion Rays while throwing 100 mph. Meanwhile, Reds closer Francisco Cordero will make $12M in 2009.
I know this is a typical Red Sox lovefest from Gammons — but 100 MPH really surprises me. I didn’t know he had THAT kind of velocity.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
I'm surprised Gammons didn't report that he throws 150 mph.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Mar 9, 2009 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, take it with a grain of salt
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
doesn't matter
it was a ball.
Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012
"AMMIITAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABHH!!!"
As opposed to a cucumber?
Keith Law on Greg Golson, "He's similiar to Cameron and Hunter in that all three are black."
he threw in upper 90s in college
i didnt know he broke 100 but i was under the impression last year he was sitting in upper 90s
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 9, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
