Sometimes You Just Run Into a Buzzsaw

[Ohtaniland]

I don't think that is quite fair. I think that some feel it is a way of excusing the fact that they played poorly in those games (save pitching in games 1 & 2).

Pujols, Hamilton and Trout. Our Buzsaw lineup didn't have any teeth when it counted the most.

[mtangelsfan]

Trout, Pujols, Kendrick, Freese, Aybar, Ianetta, Cron......................

 

nobody with any consistency.  That was the problem, no hitting and a defense that cost us game one for sure.

[T.G.]

Winning is hard and baseball is beautiful.

 

Last night Travis Ishikawa hit a walk off homerun to put the Giants in the WS.  It was his first extra base hit off a fastball above 96 miles an hour since 2010!!

 

Sometimes the improbable happens; especially in baseball and that's one of the things that makes this game great.

 

Snide comments, a lot of whining and finger pointing isn't going to accomplish much.  It's not interesting to read and I doubt it will even make you feel better.  The Royals deserve to be where they are. Trying to diminish their accomplishments is silly and makes people just look bitter.

 

This postseason has been full of drama and great stories.  Some of you are missing it as you wallow in your misery.  Not everyone gets to be a champion.  Again, winning is hard.  It's supposed to be hard.  That's why it feels so great when it happens and hurts so much when it doesn't. 

[Jay]

Three reasons why people won't admit that Dave:

1- The Royals "suck" or they are "garbage"

2- It's always Scioscia's fault

3- Despite the 8 wins in a row they argue what buzzsaw means

 

So I'm reading here that the Angels played their game perfectly well but the Royals were just too good.

 

That's utter nonsense.

 

What the Royals are doing now is impressive.  But what the Royals are doing now has nothing to do with how the Angels played in ALDS Games 1 and 2.

[Dave Saltzer]

The Royals had at least 2 scouts at every Angels home game studying our hitters and figuring out how to get everyone in our lineup out (and often had 4 scouts). They did a damned good job of that. Their pitchers still had to execute the pitches to get our guys out.

 

I am sure that we did the same thing to the Royals, which is why our starting pitching in games 1 and 2 did a great job. And, by and large, for the innings pitched, our bullpen did a great job. Yes, Wilson had a meltdown, but that wasn't why we lost the series. When it came down to crunch time, they out executed against us and were able to string hits together while we could not. They sawed our offense in half and kept guys from getting hits with superb defense. I have no problem admitting that they were the better team during that series. As much as we "lost" the series, their team still had to "win" it.

[Stradling]

So I'm reading here that the Angels played their game perfectly well but the Royals were just too good.

That's utter nonsense.

What the Royals are doing now is impressive. But what the Royals are doing now has nothing to do with how the Angels played in ALDS Games 1 and 2.

I was responding to Dave asking a question. Most of the threads had a lot of the failos saying the Royals suck or are garbage. Or they were saying it was Scioscia's fault. Then this thread was created and people spent time arguing what a buzzsaw is. I have posts where I blame the offense, so no the Angels didn't play a perfect series. The Royals sure as hell played a good series against us.

[Mark68]

We were our own buzzsaw.

 

"I have seen the enemy and he is me."

[QuinlansMinion]

The Giants are more proof that winning in the playoffs isnt just luck or blind chance.

Maybe a few more humiliating Angels playoff exits, and people will realize.

[Stradling]

Well QM in the last five years the Angels have only been ousted in the first round once.

[QuinlansMinion]

Well QM in the last five years the Angels have only been ousted in the first round once.

I guess we forget the 5 humiliating losses before that.

[Stradling]

Where we lost to the Yankees, Boston, Boston, Boston and the White Sox, if memory serves me correct. I would say two of those were humiliating, and one disappointing. We were the best team at least in my opinion, when we lost to Boston in '08. I thought after getting over the hump in '09 we would beat the Yankees, but it's not like they sucked. The one that bothered me, where I felt like we were better was the white sox. I get that you want to win every year, but so does everyone else.

[Stradling]

Also QM I was kinda joking

[stormngt]

Of those five: four win the World Series. It is never an embarrassment if you end up losing to the World Champions

Where we lost to the Yankees, Boston, Boston, Boston and the White Sox, if memory serves me correct. I would say two of those were humiliating, and one disappointing. We were the best team at least in my opinion, when we lost to Boston in '08. I thought after getting over the hump in '09 we would beat the Yankees, but it's not like they sucked. The one that bothered me, where I felt like we were better was the white sox. I get that you want to win every year, but so does everyone else.

[AngelsLakersFan]

The wild card reps never get any love. Can't believe as Angels fans that some don't remember that we were the WC rep in 2002 and schooled all the favorites.

 

The Angels were the best team in baseball that year. Best run differential and best record with the toughest schedule (post season included). That they happened to be the wild card is irrelevant. This KC team would be unlikely to make the playoffs in the vast majority of seasons without the existence of the wild card.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Angels' record against teams that finished last or next to last in their divisions: 49-16

 

Record against teams that made the postseason: 20-22

 

That isn't really that surprising.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Of those five: four win the World Series. It is never an embarrassment if you end up losing to the World Champions

this. And in 04, after beating the skanks, boston swept the cards. Ths chisox swept boston, had karma to beat us 4-1 in the alcs, then swept the series. In 2009, the skanks swept the twins, went a close series with us, and if i recall swept the world series. Arod was hotter than hell that october for once.

Its not an excuse, but for the most part weve been knocked off by a hot team that won it all. It is what it is.

As per the other thread where it shows our record against playoff teams, its a fair point. But it needs some context (that would take a ton of research). Did we play the better teams once we got our shit together, or when we started off slow? Like how we dominated oakland late in the year, but struggled against them early on. And the same would go for every other team.

[Kevin]

this. And in 04, after beating the skanks, boston swept the cards. Ths chisox swept boston, had karma to beat us 4-1 in the alcs, then swept the series. In 2009, the skanks swept the twins, went a close series with us, and if i recall swept the world series. Arod was hotter than hell that october for once.

Its not an excuse, but for the most part weve been knocked off by a hot team that won it all. It is what it is.

As per the other thread where it shows our record against playoff teams, its a fair point. But it needs some context (that would take a ton of research). Did we play the better teams once we got our shit together, or when we started off slow? Like how we dominated oakland late in the year, but struggled against them early on. And the same would go for every other team.

The World Series in '09 went six games I think.

[Ohtaniland]

A thread title of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" was more appropriate for this entire conversation. We had the best record. We had home advantage. We had two terrific home starts from Weaver and Shoemaker. We didn't get it done. End of story.

[Stradling]

100% correct.

[stormngt]

The Angels were the best team in baseball that year. Best run differential and best record with the toughest schedule (post season included). That they happened to be the wild card is irrelevant. This KC team would be unlikely to make the playoffs in the vast majority of seasons without the existence of the wild card.

Am I reading this right?

 

In 2002 the Angels did not have the best record.  Oakland had  a better one.  They don't even make the playoffs without the wild card.  So how the hell is it irrelevant?

[Guest]

That isn't really that surprising.

Seems pretty logical to me that we have a better winning percentage against bad teams than good teams...

[Stradling]

Also, if we did even it out a little and won a few more games against the elite teams and lost a few more against the cellar dwellers then the people on here would be asking, "Why can't we win the games we should be winning against the bad teams".

[Hollyw00d]

Lol.

Time to face it, the angels laid down for a mediocre team

[ScottT]

The Royals look flat.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Giants 7, Buzzsaws 1, bottom of the eighth.