And the Figgins goes to...

[crashtest]

goes to.......Fnckin' Figgins himself!!

This game reminds me of those old days when we'd play the LA Dodgers and I'd tuck the radio under my pillow and, no matter what come midnight, Manny Fnckin' Mota would get a hit to beat us.

[jamesa46]

Like I mentioned before. If we all just assume that it's the 1963 Colt .45's playing, we'd enjoy these games more. There would be no pressure to try to win a division because this team doesn't have the talent to win a wildcard much less a division title in the weakest division in baseball.

Carlos Lee is turning into a one hundred million dollar version of Walt Bond (Hit around .230 for the month of June so far) and Lance Berkman runs the bases like John Bateman! ;D

This teams outfield is about as strong as the '63 Colt .45's (not counting Jimmy Wynn of course).
I'd say that the pitching staff looks about like the '63 staff. Roy Oswalt pitches like Turk Farrell. Goes out there and fires 200 fastballs over 6 innings and to hell with actually "pitching".
And, the bullpen pretty much has the same jeckyll and hyde look as the '63 Colt .45's although I'd put Hal Woodeshick at the top of the list as better than anything this current team can run out there from the bullpen.

Oh...and of course we can't forget Craig "The Flea" Biggio

Yep....let's root for our Colt .45's!!!

[redbaron]

I don't remember the Colt .45s having players as dumb as Berkman and Lee. You hit the nail on the head with Berkman's baserunning. Bateman had to have given him tips.

[chandler44]

I must've missed those starts where Oswalt only threw fastballs up there.

[crashtest]

jamesa46 said:

Like I mentioned before. If we all just assume that it's the 1963 Colt .45's playing, we'd enjoy these games more. There would be no pressure to try to win a division because this team doesn't have the talent to win a wildcard much less a division title in the weakest division in baseball.

Carlos Lee is turning into a one hundred million dollar version of Walt Bond (Hit around .230 for the month of June so far) and Lance Berkman runs the bases like John Bateman! ;D

This teams outfield is about as strong as the '63 Colt .45's (not counting Jimmy Wynn of course).
I'd say that the pitching staff looks about like the '63 staff. Roy Oswalt pitches like Turk Farrell. Goes out there and fires 200 fastballs over 6 innings and to hell with actually "pitching".
And, the bullpen pretty much has the same jeckyll and hyde look as the '63 Colt .45's although I'd put Hal Woodeshick at the top of the list as better than anything this current team can run out there from the bullpen.

Oh...and of course we can't forget Craig "The Flea" Biggio

Yep....let's root for our Colt .45's!!!

James, I'm sure you remember Gene's signature "....it's all over" whenever Mota would do that to us. I think the '63 team was better than this one.

C - Bateman --- actually a much better run producer than Ausmus
Jerry Grote was on the roster too.

1B - Staub ---- Berkboy is marginally better, if that

2B - Ernie Fazio, essentially equivalent to what Biggio gives us these days

SS - The Flea = The Wingnut, same player, different generation

3B - Aspro --- better fielder, better stick than anything since Moberg's best years, which years are well behind him now.

LF - Spangler - the man hit .281, the next best regular was Carl Warwick at .254.

CF- Warwick -- as good or better than Burke. Pence will probably end up with a similar career value as Wynn.

RF - Howie Goss. OK, nod to 2007. Even Jason Lane was better.

James already compared the pitching staff.

Morgan, Wynn and Dierker were to join the team in '64.

I'd like to recalibrate the '63 player's stats based on league average and play a Strat-o-matic WS with the 2007 team. I'd put my money on the '63 team.


~Crash

[chandler44]

Just a disclaimer I'm not trying to pick apart what you said, just saw some things to have a baseball discussion about.

crashtest said:

1B - Staub ---- Berkboy is marginally better, if that

Ok, I know there's some hate for Berkman and he's not having his best year, but I'd call Berkman's line in 2007 (.255/.388/.385) a bit more than 'marginally better' than what Staub hit in 1963, which was .223/.309/.308.

I'd like to recalibrate the '63 player's stats based on league average and play a Strat-o-matic WS with the 2007 team. I'd put my money on the '63 team.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. You're talking about a team that only scored 464 runs in a full season. The team batting average was .220, the OBP was .281 and the SLG was .301. That doesn't compare well with the current version's .258/.327/.404. I'd put my money on 07, as flawed as they may be.

This is all IMO, of course.

[jamesa46]

chandler44 said:

I must've missed those starts where Oswalt only threw fastballs up there.

Apparently you missed Oswalts last start.

[chandler44]

You're right, I didn't see most of it.

[jamesa46]

Just to let everyone know...The "Figgins" is tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be a topic in which one operates by the iron rule of statistics.

I used Oswalt as a comparison to Farrell after watching his last start.
By the 5th inning, Oswalt was simply throwing and not pitching. He had a comfortible lead and all he was trying to do was stretch it to the 6th or so and hand it over to the bullpen.
You can tell when Oswalt has lost his focus. He wanders all over the mound and all over infield when the catcher tosses the ball back to him.

That is one of the things that keeps Roy from being a great pitcher as opposed to a very good pitcher - which is what he is. Roy tends to wander mentally and tries to overpower hitters with nothing but heat instead of pacing himself and staying focused. I think he'd already thrown something in the neighborhood of 120 pitches by the 6th inning.

Turk Farrell was the kind of pitcher whose "stuff" was good enough to beat anybody on a given day but Turk many times just didn't stay focused. He was playing for a bad ballclub and when the dog days of summer start rolling around, the ballplayers tend to focus on personal stats and winning becomes secondary.

Farrell could beat anybody when he was on his game just as Oswalt can beat anybody in the league when he's got his best "stuff".

[chandler44]

I'm going to have to disagree with you about Oswalt. I think he's already a great pitcher. If you look at his pitch counts and his strike out totals, he's no longer trying to strike out every hitter like he did when he first came up. He's become much more economical in his pitch choices. I have seen the vast majority of his outings, and I have to say that I've never noticed him wander mentally or just try to overpower hitters. One of the most remarkable things about watching him work is how quickly he pitches a game, be it with a 2 run lead over down by 3. He doesn't implode like some; he keeps doing his job.

In this era of baseball, when a pitcher has a career ERA of 3.09, including 4 seasons under 3 and never over 3.49 over a whole season, that's pretty special. That said, so far 2007 is his 'worst' season to date, though it is one that 90% of pitchers in baseball would kill for. One bad sign is that he's only one walk shy of his 2006 total, despite pitching 113 fewer innings so far.

[redbaron]

Oswalt is not pitching nearly as well as he has the last two years. This idea of his about letting them hit the ball to keep his pitch count down has bitten him in the butt more than once. He needs to go back to setting hitters up, get key strikeouts, etc. Just throwing the ball in the strike zone isn't getting it done these days.

[mikegallo]

Agreed Barron. This has been Oswalt's worst year o his career. Hopfeully, it's not a sign of things to come....

[crashtest]

chandler44 said:

Just a disclaimer I'm not trying to pick apart what you said, just saw some things to have a baseball discussion about.

crashtest said:

1B - Staub ---- Berkboy is marginally better, if that

Ok, I know there's some hate for Berkman and he's not having his best year, but I'd call Berkman's line in 2007 (.255/.388/.385) a bit more than 'marginally better' than what Staub hit in 1963, which was .223/.309/.308.

I'd like to recalibrate the '63 player's stats based on league average and play a Strat-o-matic WS with the 2007 team. I'd put my money on the '63 team.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. You're talking about a team that only scored 464 runs in a full season. The team batting average was .220, the OBP was .281 and the SLG was .301. That doesn't compare well with the current version's .258/.327/.404. I'd put my money on 07, as flawed as they may be.

This is all IMO, of course.

Agreed, I used a bit of hyperbole, but the '64 Colt .45s weren't all that far behind considering the context of offensive stats then and now. I don't know if you ever saw a game at Colt Stadium. It was 360 down the lines. 390 to the power alleys and 410 to CF. The games were played in 90 degree heat with 90% humidity and 90 mosquitos per cubic foot. Dante could not come up with a more miserable circle of hell. The Colt .45s had to play 81 games in those conditions. I'm surprised ALL of them did not just stand there and take a Gibson or Drysdale fastball to the skull to end their misery much less that ANY of them could hit over .250 or hit a dozen HRs. As a kid, I was in heaven just being at a ballgame there. My Dad and I even sat through 16 innings of that infamous day doubleheader versus the Dodgers that convinced MLB to allow Sunday night games. I was willing to go all 18 innings, but the heat had driven my Dad to the verge of insanity and we simply had to go. No sooner were we in the parking lot driving off that Norm Larker drilled a HR. We still lost both games, but I got my first taste of the brutal and sadistic vindictiveness of the BBGs and they haven't let up since. Fnck you BBGs. Fnck you right in your goat a$$ you sh!teating peterpuffing mo'fo's. You can't hurt me anymore BBGs ---- I am as immune as Sisyphus resigned to his ordeal. You'll never win win, BBGs --- you fnckin' losers.

[crashtest]

Quote:"I think I like the cycle a little bit more," Figgins said. "It's tough because the cycle was in a loss, and the six hits was in a win, so it's kind of hard to say."

What an asshat. I was ready to give a where credit is due tip of the cap to Figgins, then I read that. The cycle is a complete aberration. I think Kevin Bass had a double, triple and HR when he came to bat late in the game. He hit a flair to right and hustled hard to just make it into second with a double. Nobody would have said a thing if he had held at first and collected kudos for his "cycle". As long as "hitting for the cycle" carries the potential that it would cause a hitter NOT to hustle a triple into an inside-the-park HR or a double into a triple or a single into a double, it is a piece of sh!t accomplishment fabricated out of statistical straw. The fact that Figgins had to actually contemplate the choice and then STILL come up with the wrong answer (to take a cycle in a loss rather than a 6-for-6 performance in a WIN) makes him a Grade A US Prime Asshat. If it had been Berkboy or Bagwell responding, the sarcasm would have been obvious. But this was from the Angels own site. I guess self-promotion and the "I always goes before E and TEAM" concept runs rampant in La-La Land.

houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070619&content_id=2036546&vkey=news_ana&fext=.jsp&c_id=ana