Matt Angle DFAed

[atomic]

I can't find a single thread in any Dodgers message board about their thoughts on the Matt Angle pick up. It's probably because it's not a big deal, and he's not that great of a player. Plus Matt Kemp.

The dodgers have only one season since world war 2 ended as bad as the Orioles had last season. That is probably why their fans aren't scanning every waiver wire pick-up with hope that this will be the guy to save the franchise. Obviously the Dodgers Organization thought Angle had the ability to be a decent player or they wouldn't have made the pick-up.

[atomic]

Jones should play left if the combination of all of the attributes of (Jones + a left fielder) is less valuable than all of the attributes of (Jones in left + a center fielder). I have serious doubts that Angle and Jones is a more valuable combination than Jones and Reimold. Angle is unlikely to much more than a replacement level player, while both Jones (in center) and Reimold were better than that in 2011, with good hope for at least some improvement in '12.

Back-of-the-napkin I'd guess that putting Jones in left and Angle in center would cost the O's a couple of wins they'd get with Jones in center and Reimold in left.

That is your opinion but I believe fielding is a very important part of the game. The team did start playing better with Angle in center and Reynolds at first.

[Enjoy Terror]

Obviously the Dodgers Organization thought Angle had the ability to be a decent player or they wouldn't have made the pick-up.

Not necessarily true. They may have had a vacancy in AAA to fill, and the price was right. Do you think VandenHurk was a good player we messed up on keeping because he was picked up by a different team? Or Kyle Hudson? Or Jo Jo Reyes? Or Brandon Snyder? or Danys Baez? Or Cesar Izturis? Or Corey Patterson? Or Jay Gibbons? Or... the list goes on.

[DrungoHazewood]

The dodgers have only one season since world war 2 ended as bad as the Orioles had last season. That is probably why their fans aren't scanning every waiver wire pick-up with hope that this will be the guy to save the franchise. Obviously the Dodgers Organization thought Angle had the ability to be a decent player or they wouldn't have made the pick-up.

Talent isn't evenly distributed in baseball. And it's not static. Great teams often have holes where terrible teams have strengths. The Dodgers thought Angle has more potential value than someone else on their 40-man roster. That doesn't mean the O's were stupid or the Dodgers were brilliant. Just that the Dodgers had more of a current use for a defense-first reserve outfielder than the O's.

That is your opinion but I believe fielding is a very important part of the game. The team did start playing better with Angle in center and Reynolds at first.

Nobody said fielding wasn't important. But you need to put that in context. It strains credibility to suggest that adding a .177 hitter to the lineup, even a .177 hitter who fields pretty well, was driving the O's to victory. The 2010 O's rolled down the stretch with Ty Wigginton and Josh Bell in the lineup, but I'm not going to suggest they're the reason.

[Frobby]

That's not much of an analogy. The vast majority of World Series winning teams were good hitting teams, almost all above average in hitting. That would imply hitting is extremely important to winning. But if you look at common speed-related metrics like stolen bases, triples, they have almost no correlation to winning. In modern baseball steals are probably negatively correlated to winning.

I was merely taking issue with your logic that the St. Louis Cardinals didn't have much speed last year, so speed must not be important. I think that's a bad argument. Your other arguments are better.

Don't disagree with anything here, except the first sentence. Speed is often overrated because people look at a guy with a .700 OPS and 50 steals and almost automatically assume he's better than a similar player with a .700 OPS and 5 steals. That's not necessarily true.

I think speed becomes one of those BS dumps, almost an intangible that is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable decisions. Think of the talk about Roberts and Angle, and how they could be valuable off the bench because they could be used as pinch runners. Oriole pinch runners scored 12 runs last year, the entire league saw 160 runs scored by pinch runners, or about one out of every 100 runs. Speed is a nice-to-have, but it's often treated as crucial.

I think you are underselling the many ways in which speed can be helpful. Defensively, speedy players can cover more ground. Offensively, they can beat out infield grounders, they can pressure infielders into making errors by hurrying them, they can take an extra base on a single or a double or on a tag-up play, they can steal bases, and they can bother the pitcher by being a threat to steal.

Of course, this presumes that the player knows how to make use of his speed. I'd bet Felix Pie is at least as speedy as Matt Angle, but he wasn't as good at using his speed to his advantage.

By the way, if you had said that some people overrate speed, I would have agreed with you. But I don't think it is overrated in general.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I was merely taking issue with your logic that the St. Louis Cardinals didn't have much speed last year, so speed must not be important. I think that's a bad argument. Your other arguments are better.

I think you are underselling the many ways in which speed can be helpful. Defensively, speedy players can cover more ground. Offensively, they can beat out infield grounders, they can pressure infielders into making errors by hurrying them, they can take an extra base on a single or a double or on a tag-up play, they can steal bases, and they can bother the pitcher by being a threat to steal.

Of course, this presumes that the player knows how to make use of his speed. I'd bet Felix Pie is at least as speedy as Matt Angle, but he wasn't as good at using his speed to his advantage.

By the way, if you had said that some people overrate speed, I would have agreed with you. But I don't think it is overrated in general.

The only thing I'd add is that speed is basically incorporated into the defensive and offensive stats. The real impact is the base running and it's pretty hard for that to count for anything when you're not getting on base.

[atomic]

The only thing I'd add is that spped basically incorporated into the defensive and offensive stats. The real impact is the base running and it's pretty hard for that to count for anything when you're not getting on base.

Well the kid only had 79 at bats. I think that is pretty quick to give up on someone. I think he has promise. He had a good obp in the minors. Actually his stats are similar to brian roberts in the minors.

[Frobby]

The only thing I'd add is that spped basically incorporated into the defensive and offensive stats. The real impact is the base running and it's pretty hard for that to count for anything when you're not getting on base.

Well, let's just look at Angle. His OBP sucked, but because of the way in which OBP is calculated, it didn't take into account that he got on base via an error an amazing five times in 95 PA. That's up to 50 points of "true" on-base percentage that presumably resulted from his speed (I can't say I've reviewed the video of the five plays). He stole 11 bases and was caught only once. He took an extra base on a single or double 67% of the time; league average is 41%. Those are little things that are useful.

I don't want to drone on because I don't think Angle was anything great; I'm just concerned that Jai Milller (who, by the way, also has good speed but doesn't use it as well on offense) may not be as good an overall player. But I haven't seen Miller play, so I will reserve judgment.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Well the kid only had 79 at bats. I think that is pretty quick to give up on someone. I think he has promise. He had a good obp in the minors. Actually his stats are similar to brian roberts in the minors.

Actually the point is you do have to give up on some guys, especially when they have such little upside and when you have someone better. His age/track record and lack of power all play into his ML projections. Guys with that little power don't typically project. I'd rather have Chavez as the 4th outfielder and while Jai Miller may have his issues, I'd rather have Miller on the 40 man and getting the AB's over Angle.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Well, let's just look at Angle. His OBP sucked, but because of the way in which OBP is calculated, it didn't take into account that he got on base via an error an amazing five times in 95 PA. That's up to 50 points of "true" on-base percentage that presumably resulted from his speed (I can't say I've reviewed the video of the five plays). He stole 11 bases and was caught only once. He took an extra base on a single or double 67% of the time; league average is 41%. Those are little things that are useful.

I don't want to drone on because I don't think Angle was anything great; I'm just concerned that Jai Milller (who, by the way, also has good speed but doesn't use it as well on offense) may not be as good an overall player. But I haven't seen Miller play, so I will reserve judgment.

I'm pretty sure you can assume he would not maintain that error rate and maintain a 100% SB rate. I'll conceed he could end with an obp around .300. I really just don't see all the hubub about Matt Angle. If we were a playoff contender the case for Angle being better than Miller immediately might make some sense...but we're not. Miller clearly has the better upside (ridiculous K rate considered). He's the clear choice, as was Chavez as the 4th outfielder.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, let's just look at Angle. His OBP sucked, but because of the way in which OBP is calculated, it didn't take into account that he got on base via an error an amazing five times in 95 PA. That's up to 50 points of "true" on-base percentage that presumably resulted from his speed (I can't say I've reviewed the video of the five plays). He stole 11 bases and was caught only once. He took an extra base on a single or double 67% of the time; league average is 41%. Those are little things that are useful.

Angle was among the top 10 or 15 players in the majors in reaching base via error last year, despite playing 1/5th or 1/7th as much as a regular. That 5/95 rate will not continue, guaranteed.

[Frobby]

Angle was among the top 10 or 15 players in the majors in reaching base via error last year, despite playing 1/5th or 1/7th as much as a regular. That 5/95 rate will not continue, guaranteed.

Just to be clear, I agree with you 100%, and said the same thing in other threads this offseason. I'm just using this to illustrate ways in which speed is helpful.

[Tony-OH]

Talent isn't evenly distributed in baseball. And it's not static. Great teams often have holes where terrible teams have strengths. The Dodgers thought Angle has more potential value than someone else on their 40-man roster. That doesn't mean the O's were stupid or the Dodgers were brilliant. Just that the Dodgers had more of a current use for a defense-first reserve outfielder than the O's.

Nobody said fielding wasn't important. But you need to put that in context. It strains credibility to suggest that adding a .177 hitter to the lineup, even a .177 hitter who fields pretty well, was driving the O's to victory. The 2010 O's rolled down the stretch with Ty Wigginton and Josh Bell in the lineup, but I'm not going to suggest they're the reason.

Are you suggesting that Matt Angle will be a .177 hitter in the majors? If you are, then I can agree with your thought process. However, Angle to me can be a great 4th outfielder because he can play center field, steal bases, bunt, move runners over, and do all the little, things that don't always show up in the box scores. If you have three everyday good OFers, Angle is a great guy to have on your bench because he does so many of things you need done in close games late in the game. This is why I liked him a lot more than Kyle Hudson even though they had similar hitting statistics last year. Hudson doesn't do any of those little things particularly well while Angle does them all well. I haven't seen Miller play live so I can't tell you how he does the little things, but we know that he's going to make Mark Reynolds look like a contact hitter if his AAA stats translate.

I like to have guys like Angle on my bench and I bet if he ever gets a prolonged chance to play, he'll end up hitting around .280 with a .340 OBP. His lack of power will probably hold him back as a reserve/bench player, but I bet he has a nice long career in that role.

[Frobby]

Are you suggesting that Matt Angle will be a .177 hitter in the majors?

* * *

I like to have guys like Angle on my bench and I bet if he ever gets a prolonged chance to play, he'll end up hitting around .280 with a .340 OBP. His lack of power will probably hold him back as a reserve/bench player, but I bet he has a nice long career in that role.

I think that is about what he'd need to hit to be a useful 4th OF. I think it is somewhat debatable whether he will do that well in the majors. He has a .266/.343/.326 line in AAA and I expect he'd do a little worse than that in the majors.

[33rdst]

I was mildly disappointed when Angel was DFA'd and subsequently picked up by the Dodgers. That's primarily because I'm a sap for players like this (undersized scrappy types) who trying to beat the odds to make it.