Jeff Fletcher

Just talked to a scout yesterday who saw Cowart this year. He was very down on him. As for Green, his arm doesn't really play on left side of IF.

Scisocia says that, all thing being equal, he prefers Frieri closing because Smith is more able to handle two "ups." That means he came come in the seventh and come back in the eighth. He says Frieri is only good for one, so Smith-then-Frier is the way you maximize the outs you get out of the two of them. If you maximize Smith's ups by bringing him in the eighth and back in the ninth, you are just taking away an out from Frieri, so the two of them still only combine for six. But if you can bring Smith in the seventh, have him also pitch the eighth and then Frieri in the ninth, then you can get seven or maybe eight outs from the two of them. Obviously this is only even a question if both pitchers are pitching well, which is not the case at the moment. Now he feels Smith is better so Smith pitches the ninth. But that's why, if Ernie starts pitching well again, he wants Ernie in the ninth. Agree with it or not, that's his logic.

Maybe that's because this board has unlimited space and hundreds of writers to post on anything they want at any time?

He's better than Frieri, but is he $20M better? (Maybe $33M if his contract vests, which I believe it will) The Angels are 36-2 when leading after 8. Phillies are 26-3.

Not true about the Royals. Howie has a partial no trade clause. I believe 6 or 8 teams he can put on a list. Maybe the Royals were already on his list and that's what Buster reported. But there was never a trade brought to Howie for his approval. If a team is on a players no-trade list it doesn't mean he can't be traded there. Just that he has to approve it.

Is this a good time to mention that Papelbon has the same career save percentage as Frieri? No?

Doesn't work that way. You can't create your own save situation. It either is or isn't when you enter the game.

I don't know where you heard that but it never happened.

By "never critical," you mean "never says 'this player sucks," then yes, you're right. I'm not. Pretty much the same as I am with what I write in the OCR. It's not my job. I just come here to answer questions and explain why things happen. By definition, I can't explain why the Angels do things without giving the Angels side. They are the ones doing them.

Also looked up Cron's career minor league numbers vs RHs and LHs Much better vs LHs throughout minors in each full season.

I don't even know which of the many threads on Frieri to put this in.... I just looked it up and he's thrown his slider 20 pct of the time and change 4 percent, which are both about double the rates from last year.

You're right tdawg. I don't care at all whether the Angels win or lose. I prefer for them to win just because that means more people are reading, but I get paid the same either way. And sometimes there are a lot better stories on losing teams. The game yesterday was a great story, from my standpoint.

TJ Simers was a columnist, not a beat reporter. His job was to have an opinion. A beat reporters job is to get information. You get information by asking questions. We asked Scioscia all the relevant questions about why he did what he did and we all pointed out in our stories where the facts (Morin's workload, Bedrosian's recent failures) may have contradicted his logic. You won't last very long in this job if you start sniping at guys with your opinion because you'll find out very quickly that they know a lot more than you do. Also you won't get along with people very well. I'm sure you all have jobs that you know better than some outsider and if that outsider came in and started telling you how to do it (rather than asking why you do what you do), you wouldn't care much for that guy.

Maybe my memory is faulty but wasn't Cam Bedrosian to answer to all that ailed the Angels bullpen a few weeks ago? Didn't everyone want Jepsen released because you were so sure Bedrosian was ready?

When do you ever see a full Q&A in print?

After that comment, sure. Anything for you

He didn't get a blown save in Atlanta because it wasn't a save situation.

I think there was some confusion. But no one would say publicly.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize any of you were in the room to hear what we asked him.

Let me boil this down to the only real point I'm trying to make... I understand that Frieri is not great. I understand he's not the best closer in baseball. He's not even in the top 10. However, he is not that bad. He may have some memorable blowups that drive you crazy, but if you look at the big picture, he gets the job done at a good enough rate that it's not that easy to improve. Getting someone else involves a larger risk (in terms of prospects dealt in trade or money spent in free agency) for possibly no improvement at all. The seasons for Jansen, Romo, Jim Johson, Balfour, Nathan, etc., are proof that you can't just go get a "money in the bank" closer. They don't exist, outside of Craig Kimbrel (IMO). You get the best you can and cross your fingers. The way to have a good bullpen is to develop lots of options, so as soon as one guy starts to falter you can plug in another guy who you already have. That's what the A's have done. The Angels are building that, with guys like Smith, Morin and Bedrosian (and eventually Alvarez). I don't think they'll hesitate to try one of those other guys if Frieri hits another rough strech, and by rough stretch I mean more than just one game. Let's not forget he was lights out for 6-7 weeks before the game the other night. When evaluating how a closer is pitching, you have to look at what he's done lately, not cherry pick the bad games. You can't look at the other night and say "Frieri has had 3 awful games this season!" Because in between the 2nd and 3rd he had 19 good ones.

Papelbon 88 pct Kenley Jansen 85 pct Sergio Romo 83 pct You can look up the rest on your own

You mean like the Grant Balfour that everyone here wanted so badly instead of Frieri? There are very few closers who are really elite. Pretty much Craig Kimbrel and that's it. Otherwise, all of them are going to have a few bad games. Maybe one guys awful games will be once in 9 outings and another guys will be once in 11 outings, but that's sort of splitting hairs. Go around the majors and look at closers. It's hard to find one who hasn't had 2-3 awful games. I think the Angels plan is to develop Bedrosian or Morin into the next closer. But they aren't there yet. In the meantime, appreciate the 88 percent of the time Frieri gets the save.

His playing for the big inning was not bunting. The steal was to 1. Stay out of DP 2. Get into scoring position 3. Maybe get 1st and 3rd if you find a hole.

In my opinion, which wasn't in that story, Scioscia biggest screw up was in not challenging. I saw a couple replays and it looked really close. Considering the overturned HR on Trout last week, there's no guarantee that replay officials will see things the way you see them, so there's no risk in trying. Even if you lose your challenge, the umpires can still look at replay on their own if another play comes up later since it's past the sixth. Technically they don't have to, but they'd look like idiots if they didn't look at a close, important play in the 9th. They want to get the calls right too. If they blew a call in the 9th and chose not to even look at the replay, they'd look terrible and probably be fined. Now, about pinch running. I agree with Scioscia's contention that he would not have wanted Calhoun to face either of the 2 Indians lefties. You can't just say "Calhoun can hit lefties" as if all "lefties" are the same. These guys had allowed lefties to hit .135 and .160. They are nasty. I assume that Scioscia decided before the game he wasn't going to let Calhoun face them, which is a reasonable decision. However.... As the eighth inning began as he saw neither of them had even gotten up, he should have realized "hey, maybe Francona doesn't want to use them tonight," which was the case. He should have gambled that they weren't coming in and used Cowgill to run. Now if Scrabble or Outman pops up right after Cowgill comes into game and then you get stuck with Calhoun facing them, you got worked by Francona. But that's a risk worth taking. Maybe if you run Cowgill you're already tied or leading by the time Calhoun comes up. Also, I agree with Scioscia's point that Carrasco-Kottaras were pretty slow and they thought they could get by. If you look at it, the throw was perfect and Ibañez still almost beat it. So Ibañez is probably safe 7 of 10 times and Cowgill would have been safe 9 of 10. I'd still have run Cowgill, not just to steal but to have a better chance of scoring, once I saw Scrabble and Outman not warming up.

The point is sometimes pitchers give up hits because they made a bad pitch, and sometimes they give up hits because of good hitting/bad luck. It happens all the time to every pitcher. That's why you can't judge a pitcher based on 5 batters or even 50. That's why you need to look at Frieri's big picture. In the big picture, he's not as bad as you think.