Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Mike Scioscia, Mike Trout


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I think managers are overrated in the modern game.  

They used to be the one responsible for noticing opposing player trends.  Opposing manager trends.  How to position defenses.  How to pitch to each guy.  

What do they do now except manage egos?  Call the occasional hit and run?  A pitch out?  When?  Other teams rarely even bunt or steal these days.  

They likely make the lineup.  As long as your best players are toward the top, lineup construction is pretty simple.  

The bullpen?  ok.  maybe there's some strategy there.  But everyone knows much of that is predetermined right?  In other words, every manager has an ipad that shows matchups if Felix Pena gets through 5 and who should be next.  Sure there's a little bit of feel to it.  But it's typically just set.  

Mostly, they have this nebulous job of keeping everyone together.  Whatever that means.  

Mike Trout is so much more important than Mike Scioscia.  Justin Upton and Simmons and maybe even Kinsler and Valbuena likely have more influence on the overall outcome of this season.  But that's the new game.  It never used to be like that, but it is what it is.  

A manager might turn a single game loss into a win or the other way around a couple time a year.  Maybe 5 max.  

Does anyone think that the Yankees would be worse or better with Girardi vs. Boone?  How did Ned Yost go from being a terrible manager to winning a championship?  Bud Black was a genius last year and the very expensive pen the FO gave him hasn't performed so now he looks bad.  Why is Joe Maddon in 2nd place?  Brian Snitker is brilliant.  (how many people had to look up who that is?  I did).  

Player talent rules the game.  

So, you consider a manager, especially Scioscia calling VIRTUALLY EVERY PITCH a "......nebulous job of keeping everyone together."? Including pitch outs?

I think the pitch pitched is more important than that.

Managers are still they guy who takes all the statistics and decides who faces who in the batter's box, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

So, you consider a manager, especially Scioscia calling VIRTUALLY EVERY PITCH a "......nebulous job of keeping everyone together."? Including pitch outs?

I think the pitch pitched is more important than that.

Managers are still they guy who takes all the statistics and decides who faces who in the batter's box, too.

He doesn’t call the pitches.  I’ve posted an article about Jett Bandy a few times on here, where he said it’s tough to call 150 pitches a game and that was the biggest challenge of something along those lines.  If he’s letting Bandy call the pitches he’s letting every catcher call the pitches. And yes I’ve seen him giving signals too.  Fletcher confirmed the catchers call pitches as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there's really no reason to fire ANY manager, because they are so insignificant in winning games? Might as well go with the least expensive one you can get?

Or, better yet, just run some Cat 5 cable into the dugout connected to a dumb terminal and have some computer determine the pitches, positions, plays down to the field where the bench coach relays all that?

Even if a manager only calls 50% of the pitches, that's a significant contribution to the game. 

I still think Bochy is the best manager in the game;  mostly because he uses his bullpen so well. Maddon is the great "set-piece" strategist and position player utilizer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

So, there's really no reason to fire ANY manager, because they are so insignificant in winning games? Might as well go with the least expensive one you can get?

Or, better yet, just run some Cat 5 cable into the dugout connected to a dumb terminal and have some computer determine the pitches, positions, plays down to the field where the bench coach relays all that?

Even if a manager only calls 50% of the pitches, that's a significant contribution to the game. 

I still think Bochy is the best manager in the game;  mostly because he uses his bullpen so well. Maddon is the great "set-piece" strategist and position player utilizer.

 

I love when I bring up a fact, it is responded with the jump to, "Why do we even need managers".  It is like when I say something nice about Scioscia and people automatically jump to, "Well we might as well give him another 10 year contract".  

By the way he doesn't call 50% of the pitches either.  

My list of best managers in the game

Francona

Bochy

Maddon 

A bunch of other guys that include Scioscia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Boogie Man said:

I love when I bring up a fact, it is responded with the jump to, "Why do we even need managers".  It is like when I say something nice about Scioscia and people automatically jump to, "Well we might as well give him another 10 year contract".  

By the way he doesn't call 50% of the pitches either.  

My list of best managers in the game

Francona

Bochy

Maddon 

A bunch of other guys that include Scioscia.

If that were the case, in which I don't think it is then you give Scioscia the extension for as long as you anticipate keeping trout around. Trout will bring far more victories than Scioscia will losses. However, I don't think pitch selection is the crux of Scioscias problem. Being a former catcher I think he has a good feel for the chess match taking place. His biggest issue has been lineup management and with that I include rotation and manipulation. However, the issue which I think is his fatal flaw is BP management. I shouldn't as a casual fan be saying to myself day after day and year after year, could've should've would've.  I find myself more often than not questioning his decisions irrelevant of the outcome. When given the amount of time he has had to make adjustments, there should have been a lot more to show for it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Boogie Man said:

I love when I bring up a fact, it is responded with the jump to, "Why do we even need managers".  It is like when I say something nice about Scioscia and people automatically jump to, "Well we might as well give him another 10 year contract".  

By the way he doesn't call 50% of the pitches either.  

My list of best managers in the game

 Francona

 Bochy

 Maddon 

 A bunch of other guys that include Scioscia.

What is your criteria for best managers?

Wins/Losses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Blarg said:

What if we stop all of this bullshit right now.

Trout is signed through 2020, Scioscia ends his tenure as the Angels manager this season unless Eppler decides otherwise.

No need to kick a fucking hornet's nest every day about Mike Trout.

 

images-3.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how people react so strongly to a new thread. After all this is a baseball message board & that is what happens on baseball message boards..... people talk baseball. Also if they don't like it they can choose not to read it or start a thread about something different.

 

As far as the original question. Extending Mike Trout does not necessarily correlate with winning baseball games. If signing him to a 10 year $400,000,000 contract to play in his 30's vs. trading him for a boatload of prospects and also freeing up a ton of money to sign 2 or 3 proven veteran studs may be the better way to go if that particular fan cares more about winning than extending Trout. It would be great to keep Trout.... but at what cost? Some of you on this message board seem to care more about Mike Trout than the team itself. There was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago where a lot of people would rather lose with Trout than win a WS without him.

 

When the Mariners traded Griffey they got a lot better and went 116-46.

 

As far as the manager he probably is a great manager in a lot of ways. Personally I wish he would play some veterans less & not be looking so closely at platoon splits. But whatever. Who knows if a new manager would be better..... they could be a lot worse.

 

So sorry I guess I cannot answer the question. I don't hate the manager. And while I like Trout a lot and hope he stays with the Angels.... I do not think that may be necessarily good for the Angels..... especially if Arte draws a line in the sand with not going over the luxury tax. I do not want so much money tied up into one player. In 2021 35%-45% of are money could be tied up just in Trout & Pujols. This is not basketball where one player makes enough of a difference to win you titles. Or even football with Tom Brady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

It's funny how people react so strongly to a new thread. After all this is a baseball message board & that is what happens on baseball message boards..... people talk baseball. Also if they don't like it they can choose not to read it or start a thread about something different.

 

As far as the original question. Extending Mike Trout does not necessarily correlate with winning baseball games. If signing him to a 10 year $400,000,000 contract to play in his 30's vs. trading him for a boatload of prospects and also freeing up a ton of money to sign 2 or 3 proven veteran studs may be the better way to go if that particular fan cares more about winning than extending Trout. It would be great to keep Trout.... but at what cost? Some of you on this message board seem to care more about Mike Trout than the team itself. There was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago where a lot of people would rather lose with Trout than win a WS without him.

 

When the Mariners traded Griffey they got a lot better and went 116-46.

 

As far as the manager he probably is a great manager in a lot of ways. Personally I wish he would play some veterans less & not be looking so closely at platoon splits. But whatever. Who knows if a new manager would be better..... they could be a lot worse.

 

So sorry I guess I cannot answer the question. I don't hate the manager. And while I like Trout a lot and hope he stays with the Angels.... I do not think that may be necessarily good for the Angels..... especially if Arte draws a line in the sand with not going over the luxury tax. I do not want so much money tied up into one player. In 2021 35%-45% of are money could be tied up just in Trout & Pujols. This is not basketball where one player makes enough of a difference to win you titles. Or even football with Tom Brady.

The Mariners got better but not because of trading Griffey.  They got Tomko and Cameron for a generational player.   There’s no one on here that would be ok getting a better than average outfielder and a #4 starter for Trout.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Boogie Man said:

The Mariners got better but not because of trading Griffey.  They got Tomko and Cameron for a generational player.   There’s no one on here that would be ok getting a better than average outfielder and a #4 starter for Trout.  

tenor.gif?itemid=7891541

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^It wasn't just that the Mariners had lost Griffey before that 116 win season, they had lost A-Rod the year before and Randy Johnson a couple years before that. So they lost their three best players in the two years before they won 116 games.

That said, I want Mike Trout to be an Angel for life. I'm pretty ambivalent about Scioscia and agree with the gist of Doc's post above, if think he overstates it a bit. Managers do matter. But if holding onto Trout required keeping Scioscia around, I wouldn't hesitate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically Cameron was a better player after that trade than Griffey was.

Griffey 2000-10: 8.9 fWAR (10.1 for Reds in 9 years)...and 5.4 of that was in 2000.

Cameron 2000-11: 40.3 fWAR (19.9 for Mariners in 4 years)

Griffey was essentially a replacement level player from 2001 on, with the exception of a couple years where he hit well as a DH, while Cameron was a borderline star for about a decade, although only four years with the Mariners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

The Mariners haven't made the playoffs since that 2001 season and have never won a World Series in their 41 year history.

That is literally the worst example you could possibly make.

ODU.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

When the Mariners traded Griffey they got a lot better and went 116-46.

Never heard from again. That's really not the fate I want for the Angels. Trading away the Babe Ruth of our times and having nothing but a 116 win banner to show for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, True Grich said:

tenor.gif?itemid=7891541

If you guys want to act like jerks that's cool.... but at least bring some intelligence to the conversation. Tomko was nothing. The Mariners did not get a lot in return since Griffey would only consider a trade to the Reds. 

 

The point I was making is that one player in baseball does not define a team. With Mike trout in his 20's the Angels have never won a playoff game. What makes you think Trout will be better in his 30's. You guys whine & cry like a bunch of girls on here about Pujols imagine Trout getting paid twice as much. 

 

It's more about freeing up $40,000,000 in payroll than any number of prospects that come back to the Angels..... I would rather have 4 Simmons on the team & 2 Sean Newcomb than 1 Simmons & 1 Trout.

 

As I said above it's a bad combination to go through in life to be an ass & be stupid.

 

You think your funny when you post pictures because the sad thing is you have nothing intelligent to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

You think your funny when you post pictures because the sad thing is you have nothing intelligent to say. 

image.png.c13424e888d8467dfae038ebfb937247.png

I can laugh at myself... obviously, you can't.  I'll have to remember that from now on.  First time on a message board?

Oh and calling @EnglishCop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I think managers are overrated in the modern game.  

They used to be the one responsible for noticing opposing player trends.  Opposing manager trends.  How to position defenses.  How to pitch to each guy.  

What do they do now except manage egos?  Call the occasional hit and run?  A pitch out?  When?  Other teams rarely even bunt or steal these days.  

They likely make the lineup.  As long as your best players are toward the top, lineup construction is pretty simple.  

The bullpen?  ok.  maybe there's some strategy there.  But everyone knows much of that is predetermined right?  In other words, every manager has an ipad that shows matchups if Felix Pena gets through 5 and who should be next.  Sure there's a little bit of feel to it.  But it's typically just set.  

Mostly, they have this nebulous job of keeping everyone together.  Whatever that means.  

Mike Trout is so much more important than Mike Scioscia.  Justin Upton and Simmons and maybe even Kinsler and Valbuena likely have more influence on the overall outcome of this season.  But that's the new game.  It never used to be like that, but it is what it is.  

A manager might turn a single game loss into a win or the other way around a couple time a year.  Maybe 5 max.  

Does anyone think that the Yankees would be worse or better with Girardi vs. Boone?  How did Ned Yost go from being a terrible manager to winning a championship?  Bud Black was a genius last year and the very expensive pen the FO gave him hasn't performed so now he looks bad.  Why is Joe Maddon in 2nd place?  Brian Snitker is brilliant.  (how many people had to look up who that is?  I did).  

Player talent rules the game.  

Reds 3-15 with price 

after he was  fired they’re 29-30

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CanadianHalo said:

What a stupid question

Seriously. One has to be incredibly stupid to believe that any player would make $400 million decisions based on the manager they play for. Can you imagine Trout telling Arte he’d accept $400 million only if Scioscia stays, and if not, he’d reject the money? Yeah, me neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...