Mark PT

Cool, give him a book then

This is the result of the stats only manager. They forget that alot of decisions require insight and a feel. Use the stats but also your experience and knowledge of the game.

I agree. If he i s your #4 or #5, you are doing ok. Its just when he is your number 1 or 2 that you have problems. Unfortunately, that's were we are at.

Ya, on 0-2 pitches. This staff cant hit their spots. This is the source of the problem.

Unfortunately, I dont think they are much better than what they have already shown. I think they will be inconsistent at best marked by strings of 3-4 good outings and 3-4 bad ones. I hope I am wrong but dont think so.

Have they tried Ohtani with his left arm yet?

No, need better pitching to sustain a playoff run.

If he is the # 4 does that make Cahill the #8?

That's what happens when the play an Angels Game at Dodger stadium

The savior cant come from Upton, it has to come from pitching. As you said two guys are north of 7 ERA. I think Scaggs and Heaney are no. 3-5 pitchers at best. We have no 1-2 starters on this team.

Is Cahill gone yet?

2nd only, I am tired of mediocrity. Why cant he be first.

The question is, if Cahill threw a ball toward the event horizon would it enter or miss entirely?

How much longer do they need to see that he does not have major league stuff. He has zero control of any pitch.

He is doing fine. Can do too well with this starting pitching.

Correct. He is like Cahill, no control. He is just a guy who can throw hard and has good movement on his breaking ball but no control.

Both, but I think the starting pitching is a little more at fault. Cahill sucks, not a pitcher. He has zero control of any pitch causing him to fall behind in the count and forcing him to pipe a fastball. He is not even a #5 pitcher on a bad staff.

Too earl y to tell. Let see what he does by the end of July. But I agree with trading him for good pitching.

Really? Do you know baseball at all. Have you ever played beyond the little league level? Baseball is constant adjustments, by pitchers and hitters. Hitters will see a steady diet of pitches they have difficulty with until they adjust. Then the pitches must adjust. Come on do better than that.

Players in the lineup in front of a hot or great hitter will, in general, see more fastballs and balls in the zone. Pitchers fear having guys on base when the great hitter is up so they attack the zone more frequently. Notice the pitches Trout gets when there is no one on base compared to what he gets when runners are on.

Your right. It takes discipline by the batter to leave pitches alone if they coax you into hitting toward the shift. This is out the window with two strikes however. But this is the chess match between the pitcher and the batter that makes every game great, in my opinion. The game gets boring watching every hitter try to maximize their launch angles when they are better served with putting the ball in play. Player now do not allow the manager to activate the run game because the hit to miss ratio is so far out of wack that its risky. I think that this is what our 2002 team did so well.

thanks for the explanation. Personally, I think this approach sucks. This, in my view, leaves too many runners on base.

Absolutely, agree. But a bunt can get you a hit and it opens up the middle a little more.

Explain the 3 true outcomes to me, I'm ignorant of this. But I dont care what they say. I would bunt until they came out of the shift.

I dont understand the controversy here. This is a no brainer. Shift and bunt. Hitters need to be better and change their, homer or nothing approach. Look at Calhoun over the last 2-3 weeks. He starts trying to hit where the ball is pitched instead of trying to pull everything and now he is a legit threat.