The Angels, Defense, and Clutch Hitting

by Peter Bendix on Oct 7, 2008 6:00 AM EDT Comment 13 comments

"Their achilles heel has been getting the big hit in big situations."

This phrase has been espoused by announcers on TBS several times over the course of the Red Sox/Angels series. And it is simply untrue. With no one on base, the Angels hit .268/.330/.413, good for a .738 OPS, which was 18th in baseball. However, with runners in scoring position, the Angels hit ..279/.357/.418, good for a .775 OPS, which was 12th in baseball.

Their .279 BA with RISP was 6th highest in baseball. They hit 11 points higher with RISP than overall - this was tied for the seventh best difference in baseball. In other words, the Angels were the seventh best team in baseball with RISP, relative to their overall production.

Yes, the Angels struggled with runners in scoring position in this series. But during the regular season, they were one of the best teams with runners in scoring position.

Getting the "big hit" was NOT their achilles heel.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

In the top of the fifth last night, with Erick Aybar on first, Chone Figgins singled into right field. Aybar must have forgotten what team he played for, as he stopped at second base. Despite being known as a team that goes first-to-third, the Angels are simply not that team.

In the bottom of that inning, with Jason Varitek up to bat, Mark Kotsay went first-to-third on a single. The next batter, Jacoby Ellsbury, hit a slow roller to second, and Kotsay scored. The Red Sox went first-to-third, the Angels didn't.

The Angels are also known for their defense. In this series, however, there were many instances when their defense let them down - Ellsbury's pop-up that fell for a three-run single; a fly ball off the glove of Garret Anderson leading to a run; Howie Kendrick not handling a groundball cleanly; Reggie Willits diving in the ninth inning, when playing the ball on a bounce would've held the runner to a single. Many of these miscues weren't scored as errors - furhter evidence (as if we needed any) of the flaw of the error statistic. Meanwhile, in the course of one inning in game four, Mark Kotsay made a fantastic catch on a popup, and then Kevin Youkilis made a great play on a slow roller to third. Dustin Pedroia has fantastic range at second, and the Red Sox's outfield defense is superb. The Angels are known for their defense, but really, the Red Sox should be.

Someday, I hope, we will have announcers and other media members who use facts, rather than cliches and perceptions.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Angles get pegged as a fundamental team that likes to manufacture runs.

I thought the first bunt last night (to move Willits to third) was pretty smart, but the ensuing squeeze attempt was pretty silly. I’ve seen a ton of the Twins/Angels lately and both are regarded as “fundamental teams” yet, and this is likely small sample size, both have made mistake after mistake on the basepaths and in the field.

I’m pretty sure the fundamental label gets attached to any team without players who have a .300 BA or 40 homeruns.

by R.J. Anderson on Oct 7, 2008 10:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Also: Lackey's tRA was higher than Zito's this season.

by R.J. Anderson on Oct 7, 2008 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

did anyone catch ron darling...

when speaking about defensive alignment in relation to how you pitch to a batter?

he said something to the effect that back in the good ’ole days a pitcher would tell his defense where to set up and now they have “all these charts and these facts” and he said facts in a “who the hell needs those annoying things?” type of tone.

by EWS1532 on Oct 7, 2008 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Baseball teams aren't static....

Labeling teams this way can be too simplistic, and the Angels are a great example. After winning the 2002 World Series, baseball saw the Angels as a bunch of small-balling, base-stealing, bunting, first-to-thirding run manufacturers with a knack for making productive outs and playing great defense. Rosters and lineups have changed since then, yet we still think they are the same entity. Only Anderson, Lackey, Shields and Rodriguez were around for that series (Figgins was there too, but only as a PH/PR).

The reason the Angels lost this series is because their roster was not constructed to suit Sciosciaball. Instead, they ran into outs and gave the Red Sox extra outs.

When the Angels won the World Series in 2002, they hit .320/.367/.512 as a team, Troy Glaus hit 7 homers and Scott Speizio set a post-season RBI record. That, and the Yankees played lousy defense.

"Lefty relievers are like the different Mountain Dew flavors. New ones keep appearing, and people are willing to buy, but in the end most of them suck." - Gallagher's Watermelons

by scatterbrian on Oct 7, 2008 2:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i also hate when people explain why a team was successful based on their performance over 5 games (4, in this case)

any team can show any strengths and weakness over such few games. people need to stop reading into anything based on the playoffs.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 7, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

guilty

but I do think the Angels aggressive base-running style cost them games, and I do not think their roster warranted that style.

"Lefty relievers are like the different Mountain Dew flavors. New ones keep appearing, and people are willing to buy, but in the end most of them suck." - Gallagher's Watermelons

by scatterbrian on Oct 7, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wasn't really picking on you, just using your post as a jumping-off point.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 7, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah but you make a good point....

I just find it weird how people forget that the one Angels team that has made noise in the playoffs was a team that outslugged everyone.

"Lefty relievers are like the different Mountain Dew flavors. New ones keep appearing, and people are willing to buy, but in the end most of them suck." - Gallagher's Watermelons

by scatterbrian on Oct 7, 2008 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

shouldnt a differential of

Their .279 BA with RISP was 6th highest in baseball. They hit 11 points higher with RISP than overall – this was tied for the seventh best difference in baseball. In other words, the Angels were the seventh best team in baseball with RISP, relative to their overall production.

shouldnt the difference be taken in percentage (if it isnt already) like if a team hit .250 and then .275 with RISP, and another team hit .350 and then .375, those shouldnt be equal right? (sorry for outlandish numbers, im just illustrating my point)

by someguy132 on Oct 7, 2008 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

interesting question

my initial reaction is no, but i really have no idea.

is it easier to hit ten points higher with RISP when your overall AVG is .280 than if your overall AVG is .260? Intuitively I say no, but by someguy132’s approach, you’d say yes.

i feel comfortable saying that what MATTERS in terms of better production is the absolute difference, not the percentage difference. Hitting ten points higher will add the same benefit for a .280 team than a .260 team. And if it IS easier (because of the percentage thing) to hit ten points higher for the .280 team, that’s a good reason to have a high-AVG team.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 7, 2008 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs