Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Teams That End in "Sox" For $500, Alex

Last night showcased the latest proof of the dominance of the AL East, though not in the form you might have anticipated in April. But while the Rays' storybook run may be stealing many of the headlines, there's another story that deserves further inspection: the inability for the Angels to beat teams named "Sox".

It's really not a pithy consideration. Since 2002, the Angels have been one of baseball's model organizations, consistently winning their division and entering the playoffs among the favorites. They topped 100 wins this year and were clearly the AL's answer to the Cubs.

Yet, like the NL regular season runaway champs on the North side of Chicago, the Angels went meekly into a chilly night in Boston never to be seen again, as recorded in immaculate detail by Dave here. While Dave may have correctly picked the Red Sox win their ALDS series, there were plenty of media heads who were tripping over themselves to call it an Angels-Cubs World Series a week ago, before the playoffs got rolling.

What's gone wrong for the Halos? Well, as Dave reminds us here, there's a reason the cliche about how "pitching wins championships" has stuck for so long. With that in mind, I did a bit of anoraking, comparing the Angels' four postseason series wins since 2002 with the four series they've lost, all against either the Red or White Sox. Here's how the Angels' pitching staff panned out in those contests:

Angels vs. Red Sox or White Sox since 2002:

Overall series: 0-4
Total record: 2-13
2004 ALDS (vs. Red Sox) 6.18 ERA, 19 earned runs, 20 walks, 23 strike outs
2005 ALCS (vs. White Sox) 3.43 ERA, 17 ER, 16 BB 36 K
2007 ALDS (vs. Red Sox) 6.66 ERA, 19 ER, 16 BB, 22 K
2008 ALDS (vs. Red Sox) 4.19 ERA, 18 ER, 15 BB, 28 K

Now, here's how LA of Anaheim of California of the World fared in their other four series since 2002 (including the 2002 World Series title):

Angels vs. any team not named "Sox" since 2002:

Overall series: 4-0
Total record: 14-7
2002 ALDS (vs. Yankees) 6.17 ERA, 24 ER, 16 BB, 25 K
2002 ALCS (vs. Twins) 2.45 ERA, 12 ER, 7 BB, 38 K
2002 WS (vs. Giants) 5.75 ERA, 39 ER, 30 BB, 50 K
2005 ALDS (vs. Yankees) 3.89 ERA, 19 ER, 24 BB, 32 K

What can we take from that? On first glance it appears that the Angels have twice broken free of Dave and baseball folklore's altruistic claim of pitching begetting titles. The 2002 ALDS saw the Halos put up freakish offensive numbers and that year's World Series including a pretty stunning turnaround in games 6 and 7, which helps explain why those series ended up in Anaheim's "W" column.

Keeping that in mind, the series that really stands out is the 2005 ALCS. It's not too often that a team puts up a 3.43 ERA yet still manages to lose a seven-game series in five. You have to dig deeper to really find out how it happened. Like this year's ALDS loss to the Red Sox, a series of key plays -- and most notably, Anaheim's inability to hit with runners in scoring position -- spelled its fate. When we look back on those two series a decade from now, the most notable plays will almost certainly be the little ones that went against the Angels. In 2005, it was the A.J. Pierzinski strike out that turned into the game winning run when he beat the throw to first and eventually circled the bases, while last night's Jason Varitek tag on a failed suicide squeeze in the ninth already stands out for 2008.

What's more important in the big picture was the Angels' complete inability to get runners home. In the 2005 ALCS there wasn't a single Anaheim hitter with 3 or more RBI, and then-shortstop Orlando Cabrera chalked up those RBI on a homer. This year? Only Torii Hunter came through, with 5 RBI in the series, including the two that tied last night's game. Sure, Mike Napoli had 4 RBI himself, but like Cabrera before him those came entirely on two Game 3 dingers.

This might seem like a statistical oddity, but in fact it both re-affirms and supports what Dave wrote earlier. Pitching may win championships, but a lack of clutch hitting loses them. Why don't the clutch hits come, you ask? Maybe it was because the other team had great pitching. That was certainly the case in both the 2005 ALCS (White Sox 2.20 ERA, 11 ER, 4 BB, 22 K) and the 2008 ALDS (Red Sox 2.54 ERA, 11 ER, 15 BB, 34 K).

What do people think? Are the Angels doomed to more of these postseason shortfalls? Will they overcompensate and spend big money to bring in the likes of CC Sabathia? Will the Yankees add a "Sox" to the end of their name if they face the Halos in next year's playoffs?

By Cameron Smith  |  October 7, 2008; 11:05 AM ET
Categories:  Angels , Red Sox , White Sox  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On Dominance
Next: Rivera Has Shoulder Surgery

Comments

Who cares? Professional sports are a colossal waste of time.

So are game shows.

Posted by: The Rodentman | October 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Game shows are great!

Posted by: bah. | October 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"Who cares? Professional sports are a colossal waste of time."

Hence the name "pass-time" ... What do you expect?

Posted by: JohnW | October 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The why are you reading and posting about?

Posted by: HatRodentman | October 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

To Rodentman:

Then why in heaven's name are you reading articles about professional sports?

Posted by: Annon | October 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

... says the man who just read a three page column of sports statistical analysis.

Posted by: blinky | October 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Because I CAN read, unlike you people who need someone to read the column to you and type your asinine response.

If it's so meaningful to you, why don't you post a response to the article instead of attacking me?

Are you all Sarah Palin?

Posted by: The Rodentman | October 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

do not ignore defense when analyzing the 2008 ALDS. The one game the LAA of Anaheim of California of the United States of America of the Earth in the Milky Way had a defensive advantage was game 3. Their only defensive lapse led to 3 runs, but Tex and Figgins were awesome, and Aybar had a nice play on the Ellsbury steal / tagout.

Posted by: PTBNL | October 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

If "clothes make the man", do "sox" make the team? There are no "Sox" in the National League..but there are gloves.

Posted by: phillyman | October 7, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Good research - Jeopardy doesn't have a $500 clue...

Posted by: chris | October 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Good research - Jeopardy doesn't have a $500 clue.

It did before an inflation adjustment several years ago.

(Of course, back in the Art Fleming days it didn't either.)

Posted by: ThresherK | October 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I blame the media for over exposing teams like the angels and cubs. A prime example of hype and over exposure is kimbo "garbage fighter" slice . everyone was up his ass and now hes working at subway making me a delicious sweet onion chicken teriyaki . mmmmmmmmm.... Yes kimbo i d like it toasted.

Posted by: gil | October 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Cameron Smith are you serious with this last line "Will the Yankees add a "Sox" to the end of their name if they face the Halos in next year's playoffs?". What are you smoking? The Yankees would never ever use that at the end of their name. BOSTON SUCKS! I don't care if they are in the post season they will and forever suck!

Posted by: NYY | October 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

It would have to Yankees Sux

Posted by: BRS | October 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Wow. these out-of-towners are seriously snark-challenged.
Reminds me why I'm glad to be here.

Posted by: Section 3, my couch | October 7, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Second that, Sect. 3.

Posted by: natsfan1a | October 8, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company