Tuesday, April 26, 2005
ANGELBALL
I've always credited Mike Sciosica with the Angel turnaround. Not only has he helped create a winner but he has created an identity for the organization. He isn't just a coach, he is the father of Angelball.
It also just so happens to be anti-moneyball. The LA Times is on the story:
So back to Angelball and Moneyball. The questions ultimately becomes, which style of play is better? I'm not sure but both obviously work. The A's went to the playoffs for four years in a row and the Angels have now gone in two out of the last three (and won a World Series).
And both teams can still learn a lot from each other. A's GM Billy Beane has increased his focus on the bullpen, citing the Angels as an example. The Angels need to learn how Beane keeps drafting superstar starting pitchers.
On the Angels message board, people keep wondering if the A's and Angels have a budding rivalry. I don't think so. So far, both seem too intent on being respectful and classy (no battery chuckers here), which is fine by me. The competition on the field and in the style of play is entertaining enough for me.
It also just so happens to be anti-moneyball. The LA Times is on the story:
The season after the Angels walked and struck out fewer times than any team in the American League, led the league in stolen bases and committed its fewest errors, they are again on the same track, playing away from many of the Moneyball tenets, of walks and on-base percentage and conservative baserunning and letting the defense fall where it may. [emp. added]There is no denying that the Angels are playing old school Dodger baseball and I don't mind at all. And Scioscia's imprint isn't just in the offense. The coach has firm ideas on how to fun a team: heavy on the discipline. How to use a staff: put your relievers to use. How to deal with retaliation: almost never throw at a guy. What to do with slumping players: keep them in. It's amazing just how consistent he has been in all his baseball ideas.
So back to Angelball and Moneyball. The questions ultimately becomes, which style of play is better? I'm not sure but both obviously work. The A's went to the playoffs for four years in a row and the Angels have now gone in two out of the last three (and won a World Series).
And both teams can still learn a lot from each other. A's GM Billy Beane has increased his focus on the bullpen, citing the Angels as an example. The Angels need to learn how Beane keeps drafting superstar starting pitchers.
On the Angels message board, people keep wondering if the A's and Angels have a budding rivalry. I don't think so. So far, both seem too intent on being respectful and classy (no battery chuckers here), which is fine by me. The competition on the field and in the style of play is entertaining enough for me.
