Angels

It's hilarious and kind of creepy how a certain few members go batshit crazy whenever someone mentions anything negative about Scioscia. They'll go as far as devoting their entire day just to defend him on a message board.

Some team will give him a big contract...I just hope the Angels don't. He's overrated and already showing signs of decline. And he'll be 33 and almost 34 by the end of next season. Pass

Of course we wouldn't be. But the fact that it was such a horrendous call that failed is the reason people are still talking about it. Had it worked it would've been a horrendous call that worked, that's it. But Scioscia's horrible decision significantly decreased the odds of anything positive happening that inning.

It could've worked out. Calhoun could've properly executed that bunt...and Pujols could've had a huge hit to bring in the go-ahead run. All of those things could've happened.But it still wouldn't change the fact that it was one of the worst calls you'll ever see a manager make in regards to the sac bunt.

Congrats on the award? But it still means nothing. Only the managers that have a lot of talent to work with have a chance to win this subjective award. How do we know that the best manager in baseball wasn't someone that managed a lousy team?

He has his strengths and his weaknesses. But yeah. I don't think any good manager does that. Bunting on a 3-1 count was bad enough...but knowing your MVP was just going to get walked intentionally made it even worse. It was a double whammy in such an important moment of the game.

Your reply was to CF8 regarding the bunts. All I did was interject by saying that if you're going to bring up the total number of sac bunts each team had, shouldn't you at least offer some context? Are all rosters alike? Offenses? In-game situations and scenarios? Not all bunts are bad. It's just up to a manager to know when to apply it correctly. The 3-1 bunt with Trout due up was (obviously) one of the worst managerial decisions you'll ever see as it pertains to the sac bunt. And that wasn't a mistake to him. He believed it was the right call. I don't think any smart/good manager does that.

I wasn't the one bringing up the total number of sac bunts each team had... and thinking that proved something without context, though. Some bunts are justified. The one Scioscia called for sure wasn't.

You just can't handle different opinions from your own. Especially ones regarding Scioscia. And psstt, you're the only one here throwing insults around at other posters.

Pointing out the total number of bunts each team had does nothing without context.

That happened in Game 1. Good to know that you think it's ok to take the bat away from the best player in the world, though.

Here's where your logic fails... Not all bunts are alike. Some bunts actually make sense. Not all bunts are bad. Also, you are not even taking rosters into account (talent level of hitters). Or in-game situations and scenarios.

Exactly. While it was a mistake, he didn't believe that it was a mistake. He actually believed that bunting Calhoun on a 3-1 count was a good idea. And guess what? That "strategy" would've essentially taken the bat out of Trout's hands to boot since first base would've been open.A good/smart manager doesn't do that.

Not true. I blamed the offense for collectively sucking and Scioscia at the same time. They both deserved the blame.

Lol. Methinks you're giving a wee bit too much credit to a man who sits on his ass in the dugout and too little to the actual players who, you know, actually played on the field. This award is only given to managers managing teams full of talent. That's a fact. You will never see a manager win this award if their team is devoid of talent. This award really means nothing.

Shoemaker pitching like an ace and Rasmus putting up zeroes certainly helped. Not to mention the shutdown pen that Dipoto gave him.That's the point! The Twins stunk and had no talent. Had Scioscia been managing the Twins he would not have won this award because managers don't win this award while managing teams devoid of talent. And Beane would never hire someone like Scioscia to begin with.

Anyone who watched him manage during the postseason should be able to tell what a farce this win is. The Angels had one of the highest payrolls in baseball with some amazing talent this year. Would Scioscia have won this award had he been managing the Twins?

Nope

? I sure don't expect Pujols or Hamilton to perform to the value of their contracts. They're both massive busts already. The thing is, with such a large deal comes large expectations and a much longer leash. Regarding Hammy... do you think that it's OK to expect a league average player (at best) who is set to make $83 million for the next 3 years? $83 million over 3 years for a part-time league average player..? Does that sound ok? And because of his name and contract he has a longer leash. If he sucks they're stuck with him unless they just release him.

Likewise! You're making some non-trollish posts all of a sudden! I'm just wondering if it's because you're not in character anymore and/or decided to hang 'em up for good or is it because you wanted to mix some non-trollish posts with the trollish posts to make yourself seem less obvious?

Bullpen? Richards? Shoemaker? Weaver? Rasmus? Santiago for some period? Aybar? Kendrick? The catchers? Pujols? Freese? Some of the bench guys? Did you forget about them? The Angels had the best record for a reason. It wasn't because of two guys, that's for sure.

And yet the Angels IF was still better than theirs.

Not really. You only make trades if they make sense. Do the Angels have someone ready and capable enough to replace Aybar? How about Kendrick? Iannetta? Freese? Do they have a good farm system with excellent and ML ready prospects that I'm not aware of? These guys are cheap also and bargains. Not like they're killing the payroll. So, who replaces them? Keep in mind that the Angels are trying to win (and have a team good enough as it stands to do just that)

That's an insignificant piece of information. 2 of the 4 players (Kendrick and Aybar) on the Angels in the IF were some of the best at their positions this year and are consistently good every year. Pujols is above average (top-4 WAR this year in AL among 1B) despite being a shell of his former self. Freese was serviceable. The Angels infield was awesome. They were a big reason why they were so good this year. How many teams even had an all 30+ IF since 2001? And as good as the Angels one? Would it make you feel better if Freese got moved and someone like Green or Beckham took over? Hey, they wouldn't have a 30+ IF anymore. They may get worse.. but younger. I guess that move would improve their odds in the postseason?

But why would the Angels trade them, though? And who exactly would they replace them with? You can't move Kendrick, Aybar, Iannetta, or even Freese without expecting a massive downgrade whoever replaces them. That would weaken the team. They were huge reasons why the Angels were so good this year. Aybar had the highest WAR in the AL among shortstops. Kendrick was also one of the very best at his position. Freese was serviceable. Beckham would be a huge downgrade. And Green is someone I don't see as a starting player. Iannetta? Solid job.