ADHB

16 hours ago, thebloob said:

They have been using him almost exclusively as a platoon guy.  No starts against righties.  Starts against lefties and comes in to ph against lefties. 
 

he had an interesting thing happen though. Appeared in the box score as a pinch hitter with zero bat, with no walk, no hbp, no sacrifice. 

He was announced as a PH, then the game got delayed and eventually called.

Already have no bench, so when a middle infielder goes down, they replace him with a third catcher.  Sounds about right for this team.

Cishek has actually had 5 scoreless appearances in a row. Pray that he found something, because he couldn’t have been any worse the first month.

Seeing that Eppler drafted a ton of college pitching in rounds 3 and up while he was here, hard to believe not one of them (that I know of) has developed into a major league reliever, or is on the cusp of being a major league reliever.  Seems like when you have that many possibilities, one or two would have worked out.

Pretty dumb to put a shift on a guy and then pitch him outside. It’s something they tend to do a lot.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/tacos-el-patron-anaheim

He was never a power hitter but would always be able to drive mistake pitches either down the line or occasionally over the fence. He’s so predictable these days. It’s an automatic take on the first pitch, which is almost always right down the middle because there is no fear of him swinging and doing any sort of damage. If you’re behind in the count 90% of the time like he is, the results are predictable.

Don’t know if this is a mandate from the staff or if this is his idea of being a “leadoff hitter.” Same question regarding whether he’s making a conscious effort to spray the ball as opposed to trying to drive it. Regardless of the reasoning, he needs to change his approach and not just stare at pitches right down the chute to begin every AB, and subsequently flip his bat at any pitch that’s close in an effort to maintain his reputation as a contact hitter.

If the umps think the deciding factor is whether the ball hit the runner or not, they need new umpires.

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Maddon doesn’t really value defense.  

He doesn't value offense either by using Rojas so often.  Rengifo looks terrible at the plate, but at least he has proven he can hit major league pitching in the past.  And although he's not exactly reliable defensively, at least he has some sort of defensive skill.

Rojas looked like a cartoon character going after that ball.  It was only about 6 feet away from him and he took like 5 steps before he dove.

Mayers just threw 1 2/3 yesterday.  No reason at all to go to him today, especially against Gallo.

Just unlucky. That ball doesn’t hit Walsh and he scores.

The ump could be heard yelling “I called strike 3!” Yeah buddy, you called strike 3 when the ball was already at the backstop after like 2-3 seconds. Good job.

I just don’t understand the slide rule then, because yes technically he still touched the base. But you’re allowed to kick your legs out Bruce Lee style to upend the shortstop? I thought that’s what they were trying to eliminate, to make a guy have to slide directly to the base.

28 minutes ago, Bronson said:

One thing I noticed watching J-Ups home run is that Raisel wasn’t in the bullpen.

 

So I guess there was no chance at all of him coming in to close it out.

 

I always thought relievers sat in the bullpen even if they weren’t going to pitch that day. Where was Raisel sitting? Did he even show up to the game?
 

Also, I’m really high so I’m like really overthinking this. 

The broadcast showed him kicking back in a lawn chair.  Sutton made some comment about how he looked like he was watching his kid's soccer game.

Just now, jsnpritchett said:

...and just called strike 3 on someone when it was strike 2.   He also said a count was "3-2" when it was in fact 0-2.

Yep, was just editing that in to my post and you beat me to it ha.

Terry Smith just said that frozen rope that I think one-hopped the wall "fell in."  Glad we have him to describe the action!

edit: And now just said a guy struck out after missing an 0-1 pitch, at which point the next pitch was the 3-2 pitch.

53 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Terri Smith consistently says "foul tip" on a foul ball and it drives me nuts. 

For me it’s when he says every hit “drops in” even when it’s a 110 mph rocket into the outfield.

1 minute ago, ScottT said:

That's absurd

It's not.  He's not calling the game half the time.  And when he does, he's usually behind.  Every game there are at least 50 instances of there already having been several pitches in an at bat, or the ball has been put in play (because you can either hear it or hear the crowd's reaction), and he hasn't said a word about it.

Not having listened to every other MLB radio announcer, I can't say this definitively, but I can't possibly imagine anyone worse than Terry Smith.

Not only does he not pay attention to the game half the time, even when he does, he either talks too slowly to keep up with the play or describes it in such a way that no one has any clue what's going on.  I wish there was a clip of the triple play that was turned on the Angels in 2019 available somewhere.  It was like listening to a person with dementia.

I find it hilarious that anyone would consider him not only a competent announcer, but one that was worthy of getting bumped up to the TV gig.  I have no idea how he is still employed on the radio unless those in charge just don't care, because he's a nice guy.

The Torres article basically said the Angels were never in on Bauer, and never seriously considered him.

I specifically remember, however, Luba saying somewhere... Youtube, instagram video, twitter, who the hell knows these days... that the Angels were "in there" or "involved" or something to that degree, at some point maybe a month ago or so.  Granted, she could be full of shit too.  She could also mean that the Angels simply made initial inquiries.  But I would believe something from her more than from "someone familiar with the Angels thinking."  I've seen that phrase used before by plenty of writers, and never understood it.

I don’t think she knows what a prospect is. The only “prospects” who aren’t high risk are guys who have already performed reasonably well in the majors. Those aren’t prospects.

1 minute ago, Trendon said:

Yeah. The article is stated as if everyone should've known this, yet an article indicating such was never posted before today.

Yeah, I mean... Callaway has been the pitching coach for over a year. If him being here was a non-starter for Bauer, why wasn’t this public information all along? Heck, Arte himself should have said or had someone say Bauer wasn’t likely an option, since we know how much he hates the Angels being used as leverage in negotiations.

Also, if the Angels were “never” a good fit for Bauer, why wasn’t this published 2 months ago? The premise of the article in combination with the timing doesn’t make any sense.

As to her saying all the Angels’ top prospects are high risk, not even sure what that means. I suppose they are high risk, but no more high risk than any other prospect except for maybe the top 2 or 3. And I doubt any team is demanding a top 2 or 3 prospect for a starter, unless she’s talking about guys like Castillo, who were likely never available anyway.

Yeah, sounds to me like someone in the organization gave her the go ahead to publish this now that they know they’re out on Bauer. This way, they can say that they were never in on him so the fans don’t get as disappointed when he signs elsewhere.