krAbs

yeah, not a huge fan of kendrick at 3 just because it would be soul crushing to see him batting into double plays with trout at first. MAYBE if he was higher up in the order with trout batting 3rd. or, just swap hamilton and pujols (still leaves pujols in a place where he can do some damage if he finds his bat, but right now hamilton is putting up perfect numbers for a 3).

Here's the thing:

 

An "ace" is someone who can count on a certain pitch to get an out when he absolutely has to. For most "aces", it's a ridiculous fastball, for some, it's a wipeout slider, for others, it's an extreme yakker.

 

Weaver has none of these. He relies on deception and pinpoint control. When you hear scouts or other talent evaluators talk about prospects' future projections, they talk about pitchers who rely on deception and pinpoint control, and put labels on them like "#3 or #4" starter. 

 

As for pitchers I would rather have than Weaver, right now, that list includes King Felix, Verlander, Scherzer, Strasburg, Bumgarner, Kershaw, Lee, Cole, Latos, Price, Jarrod Parker (when he gets back), Ryu, Iwakuma, Tanaka, Yu, Sale, Jose Fernandez, and Wheeler. Last year, I would have added Harvey to that list (and probably next year as well, along with Archie Bradley and Jon Gray--although that might not happen until 2016).

 

Weaver is not an "ace", he just happens to be our #1 (there is a difference), but that may no longer be true, either.

 

This is not a knock on Weaver at all. He has certainly done his job over the years, but with someone who never had much velocity to begin with, any decline in that aspect of his game is going to narrow the margin of error significantly, We may be seeing the results of that now.

Came here to say basically this (though this is said better than i ever could).

basically, weaver is probably not an ace in the traditional sense of the word anymore. he is not that guy who is going to come out every game he pitches and dominate. he's probably not going to be a cy young candidate. but that doesn't make him a bad pitcher, and that doesn't mean the angels are screwed. he is still a solid #1 (very different form an ace, imo- basically that means he's a top 30 starter). and, from that mentality, i would say we don't NEED an ace. its great to have one, but not all teams are going to have one. if our 2-5 is competitive (which, watching richards and skaggs, i'm starting to think it may be...granted, sample size, and astros), with our hitting, we are still going to be in a great spot. just my 2 cents. so...yeah, weaver may not be a true ace, but no, thats not the end of the world.

Skaggs had pretty good control in the minors, I don't understand why he has struggled so much with it at the big level. 

i'm guessing it has to do with his new delivery. hoping he'll be able to clean that up soon? maybe some time in AAA wouldn't hurt.

https://twitter.com/BillShaikin/status/445302226731274240

Or not...pretty weird.

Also worth noting, Skaggs appears to have picked up some velocity, Richards seems to have found some control (granted, pretty small sample size, but still), and Weaver's velocity is looking nice. I'm getting a little nervous about our relief pitching situation though, between Burnett being questionable and De la Rosa's arm imploding. Still, all around, better than expected.

No one we have gotten from SL has gotten a hit yet this spring.....

Can someone explain why everyone expects to see such a huge regression with Santiago? He has put up pretty solid numbers over the last couple years, and he is moving to a more pitcher friendly park. Why are we expecting much more regression this year then he saw last year (his sophomore year).

the 12 year old in me cant wait for the Bucholz vs Pujols match-up.

hu....did you guys know that...

frieri, era 3.16

downs, era 2.16

khon, era 2.30

coello, era 2.57

obviously era doesn't tell the whole story, and also you have richard's era screwing up our bullpen, but...this is not a bad looking set of numbers. especially if you add williams, 2.56.

holy mother of inconsistent innings, hanson

does that mean we gain more ground then we did on an average win over the 8 game streak? (.5 games/1 loss=.5 games gained for this loss vs 3 games / 8 wins=.375 games gained per win, on average)

CJ=Buttercup

honestly, its just this team. this game...it was like, win 8 games just to f*ck with the fans, and then run badly, pitch badly, throw away the lead, and let the only laughing stalk bigger then us dominate the game. at this point, i'm 90% sure they are just screwing with us...

but, yes, turn the page. i mean, who knows? blanton did well last time...he's gotta know his number is just about up. angels are lenient with pitchers, but he has been a special kind of bad, and when weaver gets back we will find ourselves with a slight excess of starters. hopefully he is feeling the heat and he pitches a bit better. and if he doesn't...hopefully we won't see him pitch much more.

i think the dodgers just because they had a more solid team coming in. they had offence and pitching, and there didn't seem to be any way they could screw it up. at least with the angels, we knew that there was a chance the ship would go down with our pitching.

hey, i'm crAbs. long time lurker, first time poster, bla bla bla bla. love the angels, always followed them, and really...really trying to still love them this year.

scoring 2 in the ninth. it obviously wasn't enough, but it seems like they didn't COMPLETELY throw in the towel late in the game. its something...