T.J. Simers, writer for the LA Times, recently wrote an article entitled "Angels' demise rests mostly on Scioscia's shoulders". Now it is my duty to tell you why this guy doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
But I blame the Angels' quick playoff exit on Scioscia's athletic arrogance
Really, you don't think it had anything to do with only ONE hitter with more than three at bats hitting higher than .250(Maicer Izturis). No correlation with Jon Lackey and Ervin Santana having ERA's of 6.00 and 5.40, respectively? Or what about that home run K-Rod served up to Manny in game 2? Of course not, when all else fails, **** Mike Scioscia.
The Angels played their game the best at home this season.
So did the Red Sox(51-30), the Indians(52-29), and the Yankees(52-29)
If baseball teams do everything they can to get an edge, maybe pinch-hitting a right-handed batter for a left-hander, then why not go all out for home-field advantage, the most decisive edge to your advantage?
It has been proven that while home field advantage doesn't add a huge boost in the playoffs, it has consistently resulted in giving the home team a 4% increase in chance of winning. Not by any means "the most decisive".
But instead, Scioscia blew it
If Mince Meat Mike didn't strike out those 80 times during the postseason................
Two weeks ago Sunday, the Angels, Boston Red Sox and Cleveland Indians each had 92 wins, the Angels clinching and soaking themselves with champagne after securing a playoff berth.
What f*ckin a*****! You seriously celebrated after you clinched the division? Way to rub it in everyone's face that you made the playoffs. If you ever celebrate.........ehhhh, those Angels make me want to puke.
And, you forgot to mention that while they all had 92 wins, the Red Sox had 64 losses, the Indians 63, and the Angels 65.
They played 156 games to get that far, and although they didn't exactly quit, it's Scioscia who sets the tone around here on everything, and he shrugged when asked about the importance of locking up the home-field advantage with a week to play.
157 for the Angels, 156 for the Sox, and 155 for the Indians. They were already at a disadvantage for home field advantage. Maybe Mike knew that there was only a 4% increase in your chance of winning with home field advantage. Anyway, you sure as hell didn't.
For days, in fact, the question had been raised -- the Angels win, and what do you do? Celebrate or buckle down? The answer was always the same from Scioscia: "If we play our game, we can beat anyone."
I can see the press conference now:
" Mr Scioscia, now that the Angels have clinched, do you intend to celebrate, or buckle down?
Mike: If we play our game, we can beat anyone.
Well sir, that didn't answer my question.
Mike: If we play our game, we can beat anyone."
See, that question, lined up with that answer, doesn't f-in make sense. You make no sense, you're retarded.
Six games to play, time to go all out to give themselves the best chance of winning it all, and they proved my point -- unable to play their game effectively on the road,
Six games to play, you're already in the playoffs. Do you tire your players out in a hellacious race for home field advantage with two teams that already have better records than you, or do you give your players some rest and wait for the playoffs to exert some energy? Well, I understand this guy's logic since it was Scioscia making the decision, what a senseless piece of **** that idiotic Angels manager is.
Scioscia insisted that some of his players needed to rest, suggesting it might very well have meant season-ending injuries to some of them if pressed on, and just maybe they might get hit by a truck too on the way back to the hotel.
I like your logic here. You were comparing the odds of a season ending injury in late September to the odds of getting hit by a truck walking down the street. Your logic, to say the least, is flawed, idiotic, and not even funny.
Once they clinched, and Scioscia turned off the competitive afterburners, the Angels went 2-7 to finish the regular season and playoffs.
Scioscia: Alright team, Listen up!!! I was just back in the control panel tinkering around with the competitive afterburners, and I've decided to shut them down for the rest of the year. We're gonna go 2-7 from here on, understand? Damnit Vlad, ENGLISH!!!!!!!!
Surprisingly, we don't always agree. Scioscia likes to say he never looks at the standings, and I like to say that makes no sense, baseball being his only job, and he doesn't even take a look to see how his team is faring in comparison to everyone else?
Your the one who said they had identical records to the Indians and Sox when the were at 92 wins. Look at the standings you dumbhead.
He thinks he can win playing small ball; I believe the Angels need someone who can hit home runs and protect Vladimir Guerrero in the lineup before his stay here in an Angels uniform comes to an end.
No, your way off. Scioscia has expressed need for another power hitter, but sadly, he can't hit home runs, strike batters out, manage the team, AND be the general manager as well. Doesn't he do enough already?