AP: Scioscia downplays rift with Dipoto

[Lifetime]

Great logic Vladdylonglegs. 

[T.G.]

All I know is that the Stoneman/Scioscia combination transformed the Angels organization. That combination set a tone and put together a specific plan for the kind of players they wanted and for how the game should be played.  It's clear to me that both the GM and manager have to be on the same page and they have to share the same vision. 

 

Given that idea - I'll go with Scioscia's vision over Dipoto's.  I liked the way the Angels forced the action with aggressive play.  I'll take that over guys who likes to leave their bat on their shoulder any day.  Right or wrong - it's more fun to watch and it worked for this organization for quite a while.  The 2005 team and the 2008 and 2009 teams were good enough to win World Series' - but the play-offs didn't go their way.  I can accept that with those teams.  You never know what's going to happen in the post-season.

 

I don't think Scioscia should call all the shots - but I do believe that the Angels need to hire a GM who fits what Scioscia wants to do.  I like his style of play and the way his better teams played. 

 

Maybe Dipoto has a better plan.  I don't think I'm in a position to judge and I doubt most, if not all of you are either.  I do know what has worked before and I liked the fact that it was in contrast to the moneyball philosophy.  I loved the fact that in the years when the team played well - the players outperformed their projections much to the head shaking of the sabermetrics community.

 

Again - I'm not saying one plan is better than another - I just know what I like and I'm going to back Scioscia everytime.

Edited August 26, 2013 by True Grich

[mrwicked]

Needing to get 3-4 singles an inning to have any hope of scoring is not more fun to watch.

[YouthofToday]

Needing to get 3-4 singles an inning to have any hope of scoring is not more fun to watch.

But it's gritty. Why do you hate grittiness? You a racist or something?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Mickey Hatcher was offered a job as his son's little league coach.

 

Validation.

 

But they're not letting him coach hitting.

[full circle]

Needing to get 3-4 singles an inning to have any hope of scoring is not more fun to watch.

Haha ya I was scratching my head on that one too. "Forcing the action" = making mind numbing outs on the base paths. "No bats on the shoulder" = hacking at anything and everything. Awful baseball to watch.

[Docwaukee]

Just compromise and get MS a good pen.  Trade the hackers for pitching.  Let Trout be Trout. 

[mtangelsfan]

Needing to get 3-4 singles an inning to have any hope of scoring is not more fun to watch.

 

Winning is and those teams did exactly that much more often than not.  I'll take that any day over what we are watching now.  If you believe this team is fun because some of the guys can hit home runs, I don't know what to say.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Scoring ten runs and losing by four isn't my idea of entertainment.

[mtangelsfan]

winning is

[full circle]

Winning is and those teams did exactly that much more often than not. I'll take that any day over what we are watching now. If you believe this team is fun because some of the guys can hit home runs, I don't know what to say.

He didn't say this team was fun.

Those teams won because of pitching, period. Not aggressiveness on the bases and at the plate. Obviously the goal here is to combine the pitching prowess of those teams with the offense of these past two years teams, kinda like 08 and 09.

[Mark68]

Needing to get 3-4 singles an inning to have any hope of scoring is not more fun to watch.

Wrong. It's two singles and the contact play. Or the suicide squeeze. Or any other "productive" out.

[mp170.6]

Wrong. It's two singles and the contact play. Or the suicide squeeze. Or any other "productive" out.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the fallacy of the "productive" out. 

[Stradling]

There's nothing wrong with a productive out if you are trying to get a hit. I'm even ok with a sac bunt from time to time.

[Docwaukee]

There's nothing wrong with a productive out if you are trying to get a hit. I'm even ok with a sac bunt from time to time.

agree, but those situations where a sac bunt is ok are pretty infrequent. 

[FireThemAll]

Full Circle is absolutely right. Scioscia's philosophy of "just make contact", and not working the count, and looking to take walks and drive the ball was ridiculous. We won because of pitching those years. We won despite the awful plate approaches that Hatcher/Scioscia had instilled. Striking out doesn't matter. I don't care if you strike out 250 times, if you get on base 36% of the time and hit for power.

Edited August 27, 2013 by FireThemAll

[mtangelsfan]

They were winning.  Isn't that all that matters?  Not only were they winning, but according to most saber-nerds, they were playing above their statistical norms.  So they were winning and overachieving.

 

Anything else is just decoration

[Docwaukee]

yes.  winning is paramount.  I don't care how ugly the wins are.  Regardless of how we did it in the past, the offense now is reliant upon Trout and hopefully Albert and Josh.  If those guys perform, regardless of who's around them, we won't have to rely on slappy mcpopups to help us squeeze across the occasional run.  Guys like Conger, Green and Calhoun are also somewhat more selective and have some decent pop so it's kind of a moot point. 

[mtangelsfan]

That is what always struck me about earlier critics of Sosh.  It wasn't enough that the team was winning.  They were supposed to win a certain way.  (not the way the were winning, clearly).

[Docwaukee]

That is what always struck me about earlier critics of Sosh.  It wasn't enough that the team was winning.  They were supposed to win a certain way.  (not the way the were winning, clearly).

I never gave a shit how they won.  I would take that back in a heartbeat.  That's why I'd rather see them err on getting as much pitching help as they can.