If we miss playoffs by one game...

[Stradling]

I'm not justifying a ten year contract. You call it stupidity I'm sure Arte calls it stability. It doesn't have to be one or the other but what would you prefer? A new manager every other year or 15 years of one. This franchise between Rigney and Scioscia averaged a manager every 18 months, something like that.

[Angel Oracle]

No brainer, one manager for long enough years is much better than one every 2-3 years.

Stability is great.

But someone being in one job for too long also isn't necessarily that great.

 

Anyway, there is no way the Halos miss the WC game by only 1 game, not with a partially worn out rotation, lackluster hitting, and a bad bullpen beyond Street and maybe Gott.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Angel Oracle

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Again the options you're giving are two extremes - switching managers every other year or the longest tenured manager in baseball who has been on the job 6 more years than the the 2nd longest tenured manager.  I'll vote for somewhere in the middle or at the very least not giving a manager or hell even players 10 year guaranteed contracts.     

[Homebrewer]

I don't think there should be any "stability" for a team, or a manager that can't win a playoff series in what is it now, 7 - 8 years?

As a fan, I don't give a crap about stability, I want a team that can win the big game when it comes along.

This team under Scioscia for the last decade or so can grind out the marathon, but it can't win once it gets to the showdown with another good team ( that did the same grind for 162 games).

[HaloNArizona]

If we miss the playoffs, why not blame the 28-39 road record

If we miss the playoffs, why not blame the piss poor offense:

Runs - 560 - 23^rd

Batting Average - .244 - 29^th

On Base Percentage - .306 - 27^th

Slugging Percentage - .388 - 26^th

 

^{We don't deserve to make the playoffs.}

[Stradling]

I don't think there should be any "stability" for a team, or a manager that can't win a playoff series in what is it now, 7 - 8 years?

As a fan, I don't give a crap about stability, I want a team that can win the big game when it comes along.

This team under Scioscia for the last decade or so can grind out the marathon, but it can't win once it gets to the showdown with another good team ( that did the same grind for 162 games).

I agree with you on what the end result should be, but I also want stability, maybe not 15 years of it, but I also don't want a manager every other year. I think there was only two years where I felt we lost to an inferior opponent, one of the Boston years and the white sox.

[Blarg]

Hey Eric, as a long time fan which do you prefer, the stability of Scioscia being here for 15 years or the merry go round of managers we had the first 40 plus years? Obviously a balance of the two would be nice, but it was basically every two years we had a new manager.

 

I prefer not to look at the past mistakes and not commit to future ones. Just because the Angels failed to have any managerial stability after Rigney left, doesn't mean they have to steadfastly stay the course with a manager that has aged out for effectiveness. 

[Guest]

I don't think there should be any "stability" for a team, or a manager that can't win a playoff series in what is it now, 7 - 8 years?

As a fan, I don't give a crap about stability, I want a team that can win the big game when it comes along.

This team under Scioscia for the last decade or so can grind out the marathon, but it can't win once it gets to the showdown with another good team ( that did the same grind for 162 games).

One playoff series win in the last 10 years, back in 2009.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

The Angels got Colorado four games this year and swept them. Your argument is pretty silly since the Angels have a losing record against the Padres and they stink and an even .500 vs the Diamondbacks that are just as bad.

 

A team doesn't have to be good for the Angels to suck against them. They were swept in a four game series at Chicago against the White Sox. They also lost four of six against Cleveland. The Angels are 23-37 against teams with records of .500 or better, and they are 11 games under .500 on the road. The opponent hasn't been the major problem. 

Edited September 10, 2015 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Angel Oracle]

The road play has been putrid....previous 4-5 road trip followed a 1-12 road stretch (or is that stench?). 

Edited September 10, 2015 by Angel Oracle

[tdawg87]

Houston faced the dodgers 3 times this year. Kershaw  and Greinke each started one game.

 

The Astros swept them. 

 

 

Texas was 3-1 vs the dodgers.

 

Beat Kershaw and lost to Greinke

 

Narrative over.

[Ohtaniland]

What if we make it by 1 game?

We still wouldn't qualify for the Medal Round.

[Lou E Ville]

You guys are all missing the point. Trout's slump, Pujols' second half, Dipoto, Hamilton, CJ....these are all in house reasons why we might not make the playoffs. Guess what? The Rangers and Twins also have these. Every team is flawed. Every team, no matter how good they are, will lose at least 65 games this season, and those flaws will show up in every one of those losses. 

 

What the league is supposed to do is make the playing field as even as possible. Why do you think every team plays 81 games at home and 81 on the road? Why do you think they went from four divisions to six divisions with two wildcards to six divisions with four wildcards? To make it more fair than it was before. Interleague play makes it unfair.  

 

You used to play every team in your division 13 times and every team in the other division 12 times. At the end of the season, the team with the fewest flaws won, fair and square, because everyone played the same teams the same number of times.

 

Now you've got Texas and Houston getting six games a year with Arizona and Colorado while we are stuck with Greinke and Kershaw, twice. You can say "we had 156 other games to overcome that" but the truth of the matter is we shouldn't have to.

 

I would like to see us sneak into the playoffs with that last wild card spot because I have seen in my lifetime the 84-win Cardinals win the World Series in 2006 and the 88-win Dodgers win the World Series in 1988. I believe we are dangerous in any one-game, five-game or even seven-game series because we have the game's best player and enough talent around him (see last year).

 

Baseball teams play 162 games, and playoff spots are still decided by one game every year. That makes strength of schedule crucial, and it should be made as even as possible.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I agree with you on what the end result should be, but I also want stability, maybe not 15 years of it, but I also don't want a manager every other year.

 

Stability is good when things are going well, not so much when they are not. Organizations need a change in leadership every so often, just for the sake of new ideas, people hearing a different voice and someone with a fresh take on things. Stability can lead to complacency, which I believe is one thing that has happened here. We have a manager with an ironclad contract, who has apparently convinced the team owner that his way is the "Angel way". That is a tough situation for a new general manager to walk into. Scioscia's comments in the article in which he was asked about his role in selecting the new GM were very telling, IMO. This is a man who fears nothing, least of all losing his job or losing his influence with team ownership. He said that he wanted to talk to the new GM to "make sure we're on the same page." In the context in which it was said, I don't believe that Scioscia saw himself as the one who would be adapting.

[Lou]

Texas was 3-1 vs the dodgers.

 

Beat Kershaw and lost to Greinke

Yep

[Lou]

Houston faced the dodgers 3 times this year. Kershaw  and Greinke each started one game.

 

The Astros swept them.

Yep

[Homebrewer]

We get to face King Felix this weekend.

[stormngt]

I'm not justifying a ten year contract. You call it stupidity I'm sure Arte calls it stability. It doesn't have to be one or the other but what would you prefer? A new manager every other year or 15 years of one. This franchise between Rigney and Scioscia averaged a manager every 18 months, something like that.

 

It always amazes me why so many people believe a WS championship six division title in 15 years is a failure.

[stormngt]

One playoff series win in the last 10 years, back in 2009.

are you in the top four in your profession in the entire world?  If not you really shouldn't complain.  A playoff series win means your in the top four of your profession.

[stormngt]

I agree with you on what the end result should be, but I also want stability, maybe not 15 years of it, but I also don't want a manager every other year. I think there was only two years where I felt we lost to an inferior opponent, one of the Boston years and the white sox.

And both those years both teams won the WS!  You should never feel a failure if you lose to the eventual world champions.  Everyone in the playoffs loses to them!

 

For those who complain about Sosh no winning a playoff series:  If I am not mistaken, only the Royals last year (there maybe another one) didn't end up being the WS champions.  The first round knockouts by the Red Sox, the White Sox, and Yankees were WS champions.  

[Homebrewer]

This MB really needs an ignore option.

[red321]

pretty sure it has one

[Homebrewer]

since you're a mod, maybe you can explain where to find it?

[QuinlansMinion]

are you in the top four in your profession in the entire world? If not you really shouldn't complain. A playoff series win means your in the top four of your profession.

This is by far the dumbest logic on this board.

[nando714]

If we miss it by one game I will think back to....

The sweep in Chicago to the white sox.