2000 Anaheim Angels: Why Pitching Matters

[Guest]

This team was pretty killer with HRs. Look at this starting lineup:

 

Troy Glaus: 47 HRs 

Mo Vaughn: 36 HRs

Garret Anderson: 35 HRs

Tim Salmon: 34 HRs

Darin Erstad: 25 HRs

Scott Spiezio: 17 HRs

Benji Molina: 14 HRs

Adam Kennedy: 9 HRs

Benji Gil: 6 HRs

 

Glaus, Vaughn (lol), Garret, Salmon, and Ersty hit a ton of HRs. 

4 Players with 100+ RBIs, Salmon with 97. 

Solid offensive numbers all around, with Darin Erstad looking mighty close to Mike Trout. 

 

Those numbers are very impressive, and they reflect a GOOD hitting team: but this Angels team went 82-80 and didn't make the playoffs. Why?

 

Look at the SP:

 

Scott Shoeneweis: 7-10 5.45 ERA

Kent Bottenfield: 7-8 5.71 ERA

Ramon Ortiz: 8-6 5.09 ERA

Brian Cooper: 4-8 5.90 ERA

Jarrod Washburn: 7-2 3.74 ERA

Ken Hill: 5-7 6.52 ERA

 

The pitching was horrendous, and I think this club could have gone far if the team placed any importance on pitching. 

 

Now, obviously, 2000 was a hitter's era, but a 5.00 combined ERA is unacceptable; it's a shame really, these group of guys could have been a dynasty in my opinion. Guys like Salmon, Ersty, Glaus, Molina, and Anderson were one of a kind, and I'm glad they were at least able to win it all in 2002.

 

But, wow! Goes to show you how important pitching is, right? A team can have all the home runs in the world and still barely make it over .500

[ScottT]

That team ranked 7th in the AL in runs scored and 8th in the AL in ERA.

[fan_since79]

That's why Trumbo is no help for Arizona.

 

He's having a monster April, but their pitchers are giving up six runs a game.

[Guest]

 

That team ranked 7th in the AL in runs scored and 8th in the AL in ERA.

 

They ranked 3rd in HRs in the AL, 3rd in SLG %, 3rd in TB...

 

they were a great hitting team. 

[Docwaukee]

the team ERA- for 2000 was better than that of 2012 and 2013. 

[Guest]

the team ERA- for 2000 was better than that of 2012 and 2013. 

That's pretty sad. 

[Guest]

the team ERA- for 2000 was better than that of 2012 and 2013. 

The starters in 2000 were not particularly good, but the Angels had a  very good bullpen back in those days. They started the Rally Monkey in 2000 because the team was able to get a lot of come from behind wins. The Angels would often start out behind (due to the starters) but the bullpen was at least able to keep those games within reach and allow the offense to come back. 

[tdawg87]

the team ERA- for 2000 was better than that of 2012 and 2013. 

 

That doesn't sound right, but I will take your word for it.

 

All I remember was 2000 was an all around disaster from a pitching perspective. It was Percy's worst season by far. They also had Mike Holtz sucking it up from the pen. I literally don't remember any standout pitching performances from that year. Then again I was only 13 so yeah.

[tdawg87]

The starters in 2000 were not particularly good, but the Angels had a  very good bullpen back in those days. They started the Rally Monkey in 2000 because the team was able to get a lot of come from behind wins. The Angels would often start out behind (due to the starters) but the bullpen was at least able to keep those games within reach and allow the offense to come back. 

 

The pen sucked in 2000 as well.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Great point

The funny thing is that team (as good as it was) was probably still not as good (offense wise) as some other teams that year. That was the juiced ages.

Back then, a 25 home run guy 'had some pop', wasnt a power hitter.

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

The pen sucked in 2000 as well.

Yeah.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ANA/2000.shtml

[ten ocho recon scout]

Anyone remember texas back then? Nintendo numbers

Juan gon/arod/pudge/palmeiro, all in their steroided peak

[tdawg87]

Man, a 5.05 ERA was a 100 ERA+.

 

That's just insane.

[ScottT]

Why context matters.

[Guest]

Why context matters.

Or in your case, why reading matters. 

 

From my post:

 

 

Now, obviously, 2000 was a hitter's era, but a 5.00 combined ERA is unacceptable;

[Quinlanforthewin]

This was a different time in baseball.  Can't compare the two.  

[Quinlanforthewin]

Or in your case, why reading matters. 

 

From my post:

 

Well no because 35 HRs was practically average back then.  Freaking Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez were hitting mid 50s 

[ScottT]

The pitching was mediocre.  Offense wasn't much better.  They were a .500 team because they were roughly mediocre in all areas.  Go figure.  

[stormngt]

AROD wasn't with the Rangers until after 2002

[stormngt]

That doesn't sound right, but I will take your word for it.

 

All I remember was 2000 was an all around disaster from a pitching perspective. It was Percy's worst season by far. They also had Mike Holtz sucking it up from the pen. I literally don't remember any standout pitching performances from that year. Then again I was only 13 so yeah.

our pitching really hasn't been good in 2012 or 2013

[AngelsLongBall]

How I developed my username

[ten ocho recon scout]

AROD wasn't with the Rangers until after 2002

first year was 2001. He and manny both signed in the 2000 offseason

[Inside Pitch]

That's why Trumbo is no help for Arizona.

 

He's having a monster April, but their pitchers are giving up six runs a game.

 

Monster April my ass..  He's hitting HRs and doing absolutely nothing else to help them.   .219/.275/547.  with a negative WAR. 

 

If  Trumbo's 114 OPS+ makes for a "monster April", what's that make Pujols' 150 OPS+?.