I read Scioscia's comments on that. He said that the first he felt like Delcarmen had to throw a strike. When asked whether he thought that the first two pitches inside were a clue that the Red Sox might have been expecting a squeeze, Scioscia responded that he thought that Delcarmen was just pitching hard inside and missing. The world will never know. . .
Well John and Torii... when in half the games you score ZERO earned runs off the opposing starting pitcher do you expect to go very far? How about when your overrated closer gives up 2 run homers? Or when your ace gives up 2 run homers to blow a 6th inning lead? Or when your team plays defense like a Little League team? What a couple of idiots. I guess all that time they spent playing the JV in the West makes them a better team.
The comments from Lackey are absolutely sour grapes and do indeed make him sound like a prick. But let's realize where this is coming from. He just worked his ass off for 8 months and pitched a hell of a game, only to see it slip away again against the same team for the third time in five years. And this time, the Angles absolutely had the upper hand on paper. If I had just lost the way he did, I would be pretty fucking upset too. As for Hunter, that quote seems taken out of context. What he said actually sounds like a bit of a compliment towards Boston and a shot at his teammates: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/better-year-team-2183068-angels-red
I take issue with the idea that they were better on paper. The Sox finished better in the following categories: Runs per game, Runs allowed per game, AVG, OBP, SLG, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, SB%, ERA, K (pitching), shutouts, SB allowed, BAA, SLGA, and F%. I still don't see where the idea came from that the Angels were so much better. They won 5 more games in a far, far, FAR worse division. Big fucking deal.
Alright, maybe the Angles are not exactly superior to the Sox on paper. I understand that the Angels trailed the Red Sox in all of those categories and they even had a run differential almost a 100 runs worse. But there's also this: I realize that over 162 games Boston accumulated better statistics .But, considering Anaheim's starting rotation, their very good primary relief pitchers, and the fact that the Angles best (not-pitching) player only was on the team for 1/3 of the season, I would have given them the upper hand going into the series.
The problem I have with that is, 6 of the 9 games head to head were during the peak of the Manny issue, and the team was playing like crap because of it. That's why I don't put any stock into the head to head record. Over the course of the season, the Red Sox were a better team. Period. And in the playoffs, they proved it.
To be fair to those guys, I bet the comments came right after the loss. Just pure frustration coming out in the form of bitterness. I bet they would think differently in a few weeks.
you just don't get it. And by the way, the Angels were 30-16 against the AL East. I think they were a little better during the regular season, but they had a poor series.
This is a random bump. EDIT: Makes a little more sense after reading the other thread, but still kinda random.
