if it had worked, the announcers would have fallen over themselves fawning Sciosia's genius and the Angels' small-ball abilities.

Like the NFL, good call = one that works, bad call = one that does not. Life is tough.

The decision to squeeze wasn't a bad one. The decision to squeeze before taking at least one strike was.

Yes, but couldn't someone on the bench have gotten you a sac fly against Delcarmen? A fly ball is all that was needed there, and you could have PH for Aybar, I think. Would Wood have been a better option to produce at least a fly ball? (Keep in mind a fly ball to CF is basically a guaranteed run, given Ellsbury's arm.)

I thought the squeeze was a horrible call with 1 out. With 2 outs, it's worth trying... And you'd have had Figgins up there to do the bunting; presumably he's just as capable as Aybar.

Would Wood have been a better option to produce at least a fly ball? (Keep in mind a fly ball to CF is basically a guaranteed run, given Ellsbury's arm.)

I'd have to say enough guys get stranded at third with less than two outs over the course of the season _ how many do the Sox strand in a given week? _ to think that a fly ball is never that much of a certainty. I think Shredder is right. Squeeze after Delcarmen shows he's willing/capable of throwing a strike.

I thought the squeeze was a horrible call with 1 out. With 2 outs, it's worth trying... And you'd have had Figgins up there to do the bunting; presumably he's just as capable as Aybar.

A squeeze with 2 outs isn't a squeeze, it's a bunt single attempt. And I disagree on the "wait til he throws a strike" It was a 2-0 count, and you're Erick Aybar, he's gonna throw you something good. If it goes to 2-1, you're not necessarily gonna see a buntable again that AB.

How about the sacrifice before the squeeze. Is a second to third sacrifice ever a good idea?

How about the sacrifice before the squeeze. Is a second to third sacrifice ever a good idea?

To set up a squeeze in the 9th inning of a tied, low scoring, must-win playoff game? It's very defensible.

It was a 2-0 count, and you're Erick Aybar, he's gonna throw you something good. If it goes to 2-1, you're not necessarily gonna see a buntable again that AB.

It wouldn't have gone to 3-0. If the squeeze isn't on, that's ball 3. Clearly, throwing a strike to Aybar was not a high priority.

Would Wood have been a better option to produce at least a fly ball?

Brandon wood have been a better candidate for a strikeout. He strikes out ~30% as it is. Add in the pinch hitting penalty, a cold October night (he's from Arizona, this might have been the coldest baseball he's ever played), a reliever throwing 97, the platoon disadvantage...

Robb Quinlan would be the guy most likely to get a fly ball, but I wasn't complaining about sticking with Aybar, he seemed to have the best chance of making some kind of contact.

At least it wasn't a sweep, and at no point did the Angels roll over and die. This series was winnable, the Angels can hold their heads high for making it a good series. Time to jump on the Tampa Bay bandwagon.

It wouldn't have gone to 3-0. If the squeeze isn't on, that's ball 3. Clearly, throwing a strike to Aybar was not a high priority.

And everything was inside and hard. The Sox were playing for the squeeze. I think he would have walked him, or come damn close.

Yes, but couldn't someone on the bench have gotten you a sac fly against Delcarmen?

Bunting is at least mostly a skill maneuver. Fly balls are pretty much luck. And you'd either be asking GMJ, who sucks, or Brandon Wood, who strikes out a lot, to do it. I think you usually just kinda hope for a sac fly (actually, you hope for a hit, but would be happy with a sac fly). The squeeze is a play. The sac fly is a result.

With 2 outs, it's worth trying

Huh? With two outs, you just pick the ball up and throw the guy out at first.

How about the sacrifice before the squeeze. Is a second to third sacrifice ever a good idea?

You only need one run, and if you don't sac bunt there, you're asking a guy who was clearly not mentally in the series to provide a hit or a productive out. The way Kendrick was going, the chance that he'd strike out or somehow fail to get the runner over was far greater than the chance of him doing something productive. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't find a way to turn it into a double play.

Add in the pinch hitting penalty, a cold October night (he's from Arizona, this might have been the coldest baseball he's ever played), a reliever throwing 97, the platoon disadvantage...

Plus, he hadn't had an at bat in over a week.

At least it wasn't a sweep, and at no point did the Angels roll over and die. This series was winnable, the Angels can hold their heads high for making it a good series.

I wish I could agree. It was an epic failure. Fourth time in a row. I just hope, for their sakes, Rodriguez and Teixeira find teams who know how to keep playing when the calendar turns to November.

Really? I thought the Angels played like ####. there was very little doubt in my mind the Red sox would win. they were clearly better. They executed wayyyyy better.

And yet, the Angels were damn close to taking the thing back to Anaheim. You might have been certain, but I sure as hell wasn't. The Angels scared the crap out of me, and that was the least confident I've felt in any winning series since the 2004 ALCS.

Aybar gets that bunt down, and we're playing game 5. It's that simple.

So, Aybar was going to score 2 runs on that play then?

I think AROM is saying Rodriguez pitches the ninth instead of Shields. Which, of course, is exactly what would have happened.

Really? I thought the Angels played like ####. there was very little doubt in my mind the Red sox would win. they were clearly better. They executed wayyyyy better.

Hilarious. The Angels "played like ####" against the "Greatest. Team. Ever." and still three of the games came down to the last at bat. You'd think the "Greatest. Team. Ever." playing a team who "played like ####" would have swept and won every game by eight runs. But kevin (I assume) has never been one for logical consistency.

So, Aybar was going to score 2 runs on that play then?

Man, what an idiot.

if they score that run K-Rod enters, so AROM is probably right.

doh, why do I bother, cokes given.

And yet, the Angels were damn close to taking the thing back to Anaheim. You might have been certain, but I sure as hell wasn't. The Angels scared the crap out of me, and that was the least confident I've felt in any winning series since the 2004 ALCS.

Yeah, this really should have been the squad to break through. They had starting pitching, their bullpen pitched well, and they had plenty of opportunities. It's not like in previous seasons, when the Angels just got steamrolled. They should be playing Game 5 today. They just didn't execute, and the Red Sox did.

You have Figgins up with 2 outs, Kotsay at 1B, Youkilis at 3B, and Delcarmen on the mound, who is probably average as a fielder. I'll wager Figgins has bunted for a base hit against better defenses than that. Hell, in the 2003 ALDS Durazo bunted in a similar situation and won the game. The surprise factor would have been huge, as I'm guessing neither Kotsay or Youkilis would have been playing in expecting the bunt with 2 outs.

I'm just saying that if you felt Aybar wasn't going to get a sac fly or a hit, think about PH. If that doesn't work, try the bunt then with 2 outs if you think Figgins can't get a hit.

I had forgotten about the giveaway out to get the guy to 3rd base. Defensible, sure. But to me Soscia's whole mindset there looking at the Kendrick/Aybar/Figgins batters coming up with 0 outs and a speedy guy on 2nd was: squeeze first, everything else a distant second. To me that's a screwy mindset.

It wouldn't have gone to 3-0. If the squeeze isn't on, that's ball 3.

I assume you mean it would have gone to 3-0. Still, the pitch was eminently hittable. Aybar looked like he missed a sign or something, like he thought it was the safety squeeze. He didn't come close to getting the bat on the ball, when the only thing he could have done wrong in that situation was miss the pitch entirely.

Figgins was on deck, right? I don't think the Red Sox were pitching around Aybar in any meaningful way. Figgins would have been awfully hard to double up.

They almost swept.

They almost lost in four. Two of the three wins came in their last at-bat.

I assume you mean it would have gone to 3-0.

Yeah, I initially wrote 2-0, then went back and corrected the wrong part.

I assume you mean it would have gone to 3-0. Still, the pitch was eminently hittable. Aybar looked like he missed a sign or something, like he thought it was the safety squeeze. He didn't come close to getting the bat on the ball, when the only thing he could have done wrong in that situation was miss the pitch entirely.

Figgins was on deck, right? I don't think the Red Sox were pitching around Aybar in any meaningful way. Figgins would have been awfully hard to double up.

I don't think they were pitching around Aybar. I think they were pitching around the suicide squeeze.


Kevin, I was planning to write a post contending No. 23, but you're either being willfully ignorant or just trying to piss off Angels fans, neither of which is worth responding to.

Hell, in the 2003 ALDS Durazo bunted in a similar situation and won the game.

It was Ramon Hernandez, and it was in a tie game. It can be worth a shot in a tie game. It was also in game one. There's a big difference between being tied in game one and down a run in an elimination game. It's certainly not the way you want to lose a game. Plus, Hernandez isn't exactly the bunting threat that Figgins is, so you lose a lot of the element of surprise if you're Figgins.

I'm just saying that if you felt Aybar wasn't going to get a sac fly or a hit, think about PH. If that doesn't work, try the bunt then with 2 outs if you think Figgins can't get a hit.

They really didn't have a markedly better option, and they would have weakened an already terrible defense.

Hell, in the 2003 ALDS Durazo bunted in a similar situation and won the game.

I'm pretty sure that was Ramon Hernandez, and it was with the bases loaded, and it was in extra innings, Oakland. And I'm right!

And I owe someone a Coke!

That should say "at Oakland" in my post, BTW. The significance being it actually won them the game, and didn't just give them the lead.

Aybar never strikes out though; 14 Ks in 346 ABs this year. The infield was in; any type of decent contact probably scores the run. And Delcarmen was having trouble finding the plate; if Aybar walks you've got the impossible-to-double-up Figgins on deck.

Calling for the squeeze strikes me as a very bad decision by Scioscia.

I am against the squeeze in general, but especially against it with a 2-0 count. It wasn't a bad idea going into that at bat, but that changed as the count went into Aybar's favor.

Because that pitch was certainly going to be 3-0.

If you think Figgins can put the ball in play, its a terrible play. Figgins is too fast to get doubled up on all but 1/10 ground balls.

Shame on me for not consulting Baseball Reference before posting.

But Shredder, the Angels weren't down a run in an elimination game, the game was tied in the top of the 9th. I'll grant you a bunt try by Figgins isn't as surprising as one by Martinez in the 2003 ALDS, but I don't think the Red Sox would have played the corners up in that particular situation, and even if they do, that helps if you think Figgins can get a hit by slapping it past them.

My main point is that Soscia's whole mindset was on the suicide squeeze play from the moment he PR Willits at 2nd with 0 outs, and to me that mindset is really screwy, as there are a number of different ways to play that situation out that would work at least as well--and probably better--than a suicide squeeze. And all of this doesn't even take into account that the Red Sox did seem to think a squeeze was coming, and pitched accordingly to make the play harder, knowing that a walk to Aybar isn't the worst thing to have happen in that situation.

Sorry, but Soscia gift-wrapped that win with his small-ball world view. I'll take it, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear some Angel players are pissed that he went that way.

They won 3 of the 4 but they almost lost in 4. Right.

Glad you could recognize that. The Red Sox are really going to have to ramp up their game if they're going to beat Tampa Bay.

you ant me to write something factually false just so Angels fans can feel a little better about themselves?

Wait, has someone been requesting the "factually false" posts? Can I ask you to stop?

The Red Sox, in every game, had a multirun lead at some point before the 7th inning.

So in order to avoid one of those factually false posts, you're ignoring Game 1 for the purpose of this entry.

And I owe someone a Coke!

To be fair, I had initially type "Ramon Martinez" and changed it after I saw your post.

But Shredder, the Angels weren't down a run in an elimination game, the game was tied in the top of the 9th.

You're right. My bad. We'll agree to disagree on the whole thing, though. I think the squeeze was a good play, with the right guy at the plate. They just didn't execute. Story of the series. Funny how the "Greatest. Team. Ever." needed to be gifted a bunch of runs and outs to beat at team who "played like ####".

Wait, has someone been requesting the "factually false" posts? Can I ask you to stop?

You can ask, but the next factually true post you see from kevin will be the first.

And Delcarmen was having trouble finding the plate

No, he wasn't. He was pitching up and in on purpose.

You're right. My bad. We'll agree to disagree on the whole thing, though. I think the squeeze was a good play, with the right guy at the plate. They just didn't execute. Story of the series. Funny how the "Greatest. Team. Ever." needed to be gifted a bunch of runs and outs to beat at team who "played like ####".

Well, here you've nailed it for me. The Angels played a very sloppy series. They made multiple mistakes on the basepaths and in the field, and had their pen take the loss in 2 games. They didn't play as crisply as the Sox did and they lost the series because of that. The Sox outplayed them because they didn't make as many mistakes. Not much else to say.

And Delcarmen was having trouble finding the plate

Are you kidding? He was throwing the ball exactly where he wanted to throw it. He threw five pitches, two of which were balls, three of which were thrown out of the strike zone. But those three pitches were thrown out of the zone intentionally. The first two were high and tight, exactly where you pitch to a guy you suspect of squeeze bunting.

If you think Figgins can put the ball in play, its a terrible play.

Delcarmen is a fairly good strike out pitcher. Figgins struck out six times in 21 at bats in the series. I think he could put the ball in play. I'm not confident he would have.

Plus, a ground ball at an infielder isn't an out at first. Ask anyone who watches the Angels on a regular basis, and they'll tell you that the Angels simply do not hold runners at third on infield grounders. They waste more outs via the contact play than any team I've ever seen.

Look, there's all sorts of things that could have happened that would have been preferable for the Angels compared to what happened. But they had a good bunter at the plate, a fast runner at third, and they only needed one run. You have to have faith that your guy can execute a skill play there. He didn't get it done. That's the way it goes.

It's threads like this that really, really make me dislike kevin.

But then I guess that's his point.

Let me descend to his level by saying that I hope he's smiling when the Rays obliterate the Red Sox in four or five.

All the Red Sox have to do is play their normal game to beat the Rays in 5 or 6 games. They outscored them 87-67 this year.

All the Rays have to do is play their normal game to beat the Sox in 5 or 6 games. They beat them 10 out of 18 this year.

It's threads like this that really, realy make me dislike kevin.

That's why there's an ignore list. Fortunately I only have to read his crap when other people quote it.

Shredder -

I just can't bring myself to put anyone on ignore. Just. Can't. Do. It.

Would that I weren't so weak.

Hell, esoteric, I don't post much here but I've put 3 posters on ignore just this week.

Come to the dark side, it's fun.

Shredder -

I just can't bring myself to put anyone on ignore. Just. Can't. Do. It.

Me neither, though I apologize for providing the backdoor entry around your k-chip.

Me neither, though I apologize for providing the backdoor entry around your k-chip.

No worries. Sometimes I'm curious to see just how lame he can be.

I can't believe I fell asleep and missed this. Anyway while I dislike Scioscia quite a bit I think that the suicide squeeze is a great play and was good managing in that situation.

That's why there's an ignore list. Fortunately I only have to read his crap when other people quote it.

Pretty cool. I've never used the ignore list before, but life is better not reading its filth.

I just can't bring myself to put anyone on ignore. Just. Can't. Do. It.

Me neither. Never even considered it actually.

I, like most people who are not Red Sox fans, will be rooting for the Rays. But if I had to put money down, I would say Red Sox in 6.

John, your team is not as good. Your team can't hit. They do stupid #### on the basepaths and in the field. The regular season does not equal the playoffs.

I would cut Lackey some slack here. This is the kind of thing players say sometimes when they are frustrated and pissed off, as the Angels must be.

Shredder is just pissed his team was bent over a table and bumblasted by the Sox again.

Wow, you're an #######.

I would cut Lackey some slack here. This is the kind of thing players say sometimes when they are frustrated and pissed off, as the Angels must be.

I dunno; the actual quote is pretty damning:

"[On Monday], they score on a broken-bat ground ball and a fly ball anywhere else in America [except in Fenway Park]. And [Pedroia's] fist-pumping on second like he did something great."

That's a arsehole thing to say, honestly, not to mention inaccurate. I know it's tough to take when you're season's just come to an end, but Lackey looks like a prick here. And the way he was stomping around on the mound last night looked pretty bush as well. I'm sure his fielders must not appreciate him showing them up like that.

Wow, you're an #######

You're just realizing that? Kevin has been the biggest piece of crap on this site for years. It's not a coincidence that even Red Sox fans think he's a total d-bag. There's a reason he's on more ignore lists than anyone else on this site, by far.

That's a arsehole thing to say, honestly, not to mention inaccurate.

I know that everyone hates the cliche "Nuke LaLoosh" answers but in this instance, cliches or shutting up is the better option. Were the Angels a better team? I would say that they might have been. But they weren't in this series.

Sorry John. The Red Sox beat you in 3 outta 4 contests. Next time, just say we played hard and had a really good team but we didn't get the breaks in this series. It says the same thing but you don't come sound like a dick if you say it.

The only guy I have on ignore is Bernal Diaz. I can read the Lounge in half the time.

Shredder, I agree to agree on disagreeing. I admit to seeing the logic on both sides; I guess my world view is closer to Earl Weaver's than Mike Soscia.

On another topic, the Lackey quotes did seem a bit over the top, though perhaps dead-on honest (for which we should credit Lackey for speaking his mind instead of giving weak cliches). That said, who the better team is doesn't matter here, since it's not like folks get to vote on this and then they award the WS trophy to the highest vote-getter. They have to play the games, and sometimes the "better" team doesn't win. That's true in baseball, it's true in all sports, its true in life.

You're just realizing that? Kevin has been the biggest piece of crap on this site for years. It's not a coincidence that even Red Sox fans think he's a total d-bag. There's a reason he's on more ignore lists than anyone else on this site, by far.

I stopped commenting here a while ago. I still lurk, but I just don't pay attention to a few selected posters.

I didn't watch a lot of the Angels series because the games seemed to run late. Even being on the west coast, 8pm comes early with a 4 month old baby. While the Angels got handled in the first couple of games, the last two were exciting and close. I wouldn't call the series an arse kicking.

I don't expect Lackey's immediate emotional response to hold up to objective analysis.

I am glad there is fire in this team. I hope they hold onto that, and come back for vengeance next year. Hopefully with Teixiera and at least one more solid bat in an outfield corner.

Better than the lackadaisical end to last year, where Garret Anderson with the eye infection takes BP under the stands, and doesn't find out his eye can't handle the outfield sun until halfway through the game.

Hopefully with Teixiera and at least one more solid bat in an outfield corner.

There are times that I really dislike the Angels (it's more the media than the team). That said, I hope, hope, hope they hold on to Big Tex.

I'm sure his fielders must not appreciate him showing them up like that.

Maybe his fielders ought to make a damn play once in a while. What he said about Pedroia was dumb, but I probably would have said something like that too right after the game. The game wasn't played in any park in America, it was played at Fenway, and at Fenway, that's a double.

But if Aybar and Kendrick are upset that Lackey was demonstrative, then too bad. Make the damn play and you don't have to worry about it. Actually, just make some of the plays. I think he showed the type of frustration that builds after error upon error.

Congratulations Red Sox fans. I know I've made some distasteful comments about your team in the past, but once I put a certain member of your tribe on ignore, I'm reminded that most of you guys are OK. So congratulations, your team beat mine in a series of close games and intense baseball (if not always well played fundamentally by the Angels, the effort was there).

Of course I'm still rooting for Tampa Bay to reach the WS.

Thanks AROM (assuming you can see this).

But if Aybar and Kendrick are upset that Lackey was demonstrative, then too bad. Make the damn play and you don't have to worry about it. Actually, just make some of the plays. I think he showed the type of frustration that builds after error upon error.

I suppose that's true. But the most egregious gaffe in the series, letting the popup fall for 3 runs, happened on Sunday night, and the Angels went on to win that game, and it wasn't even Lackey's start. Seems odd to mention it at all.

But I agree that Lackey was simply very upset after the game and reacted emotionally. Kendrick in particular seemed to have an awful series in the field.

EDIT: and thanks to AROM as well.

I doubt that anyone has you on ignore, SOSH.

No, you aren't on ignore, SOSH. I'm sure you can guess who is.

Maybe his fielders ought to make a damn play once in a while. What he said about Pedroia was dumb, but I probably would have said something like that too right after the game. The game wasn't played in any park in America, it was played at Fenway, and at Fenway, that's a double.

Willets should have played that on the bounce instead of going all Jimmy Edmonds on the play. By giving himself up like that and missing the ball, that could have been an inside the park HR had the ball not bounced into the stands. Willets pulls up and plays the angle, and chances are he holds Bay to a single.

Congratulations Red Sox fans. I know I've made some distasteful comments about your team in the past, but once I put a certain member of your tribe on ignore, I'm reminded that most of you guys are OK.

Its interesting that you think you've made distasteful comments since in my impression ARom is a model of class and dignity. Always a fan but never a fanboy.

and it wasn't even Lackey's start.

So? I didn't start any of the games and I was pissed off. He still saw them all.

Plus, if this happens against, say, the A's, who Lackey typically b!tchslaps, he probably lets it go. He'll just get the next guy. But it's against a team that has had his number. There's that sense of impending doom, and when the at bat ends with a weak grounder up the middle, he has to feel like he's escaped another inning, only to have his teammates screw it up and put him in more danger. He's an emotional guy. I think he can turn the page and say "hey, stuff happens". But when it happens, and happens, and happens, and happens again, disappointment turns to frustration turns to anger. I can't blame him. I was pretty damn angry, too.

By giving himself up like that and missing the ball, that could have been an inside the park HR had the ball not bounced into the stands.

The ball bounced like ten rows back into the stands. It wasn't close at all to being an inside-the-parker. But yeah, he should have played it on the hop and kept the runner at first.

The ball bounced like ten rows back into the stands. It wasn't close at all to being an inside-the-parker. But yeah, he should have played it on the hop and kept the runner at first.

I suspect most rightfielders, even those who remain upright, would have had difficulty keeping that ball in the park. If you don't catch that ball, a double's damn near inevitable.

I'll take Lackey and his bad attitude on my team any day

I suspect most rightfielders, even those who remain upright, would have had difficulty keeping that ball in the park. If you don't catch that ball, a double's damn near inevitable.

Is Bay that slow? A pop up down the line in right (granted, it wasn't deep) to a fielder with a relatively weak arm (although he actually made a pretty strong throw to the plate), couldn't Bay have still ended up with a double there? With one out, it wouldn't have been the end of the world if he hadn't made it I guess. I figured he would have tried for two anyway.

It's not about what Bay would have done, but the ball itself. Based on the direction the rightfielder is approaching the ball from and the bounce that such a flyball always takes upon contact with the ground in that corner, I don't think Willits or any other rightfielder would have prevented that ball from bouncing into the stands. If he could have positioned himself on the appropriate side of the ball to stop its bounce into the stands, he could have caught it in the first place.

If he could have positioned himself on the appropriate side of the ball to stop its bounce into the stands, he could have caught it in the first place.

Exactly right. To stop the momentum of the ball going toward the line and subsequently into the stands, Reggie would have needed to be near the foul line to make the play - if that was possible Bay would have been trotting back to the dugout after an F-9.

It's not about what Bay would have done, but the ball itself.

I get that. My point is that even if Willits could have done all of this stuff to stop the ball from going into the stands, couldn't Bay have still ended up with a double?

If he could have positioned himself on the appropriate side of the ball to stop its bounce into the stands, he could have caught it in the first place.

I haven't seen the replay since last night, but I am not so sure about that. If Willets takes the angle to play the bounce, I thought it was a shorter route -- or did the ball skewer further to his left? Without diving, wouldn't he have had more time to play the ball on the bounce?

I don't think the squeeze was a good decision there, as Aybar is someone who can slap the ball past a pulled-in infield. But I understand where Scioscia is coming from with it, and the pitch was buntable, and if Aybar executed Sciosci is a genius, so there you go.

kevin, three of the four games were damn close and decided in late innings. This was a close series, lost in part due to a handful of unusual mistakes made by the Angels. I thought the teams were close in quality coming in, and nothing I saw made me change my mind on this. But your behavior and bizarre commentary sure make you hard to defend against the hordes that can't stand you.

Lackey's comments aren't, by and large, exactly what I would have liked him to say, but his frustration and anger is justified. He pitched his ass off in two games (well, I assume he did last night, though due to the wonder that is Time Warner Cable I was only able to see the game from the fifth inning forward) and left everything he had out there. I think you gotta cut a guy some slack in that situation.

I get that. My point is that even if Willits could have done all of this stuff to stop the ball from going into the stands, couldn't Bay have still ended up with a double?

Yeah, that's true. I just think the idea that Willits could have held Bay to a single in this case are off the mark. That ball is either an out or a double, with the only possible variation is if Willits gets a piece of the ball and redirects it into the corner.

my take on it is that the fielder had to try to catch it, he had no other option. he was running as hard as he could, still had to dive for it, and still came up short. he couldn't have played it on the hop in a million years. lucky for him the english on the ball sent it into the stands. if it had stayed fair, its a triple or walk off IPHR.
to me the series looked pretty darn close, the angels kept throwing away their chances and that's the story.

I was yelling at Scioscia for not pinch hitting Aybar, figuring that they shouldn't press their luck with Aybar after he came through Sunday evening.

Anyway, sorry Angels fans. But I bet that your team has the highest odds of being in the 2009 playoffs.

You know, kind of lost in all the Monday morning quarterbacking about Scioscia's decision is the fact that the umpire got the call completely right on the tag on Willits.

I know it's his job to get that call right, but umpiring so routinely gets blasted in the post-season it seems just to point out when an ump got it right on a pretty tough call. It would have been easy to blow that one after the ball bounced away, but Welke nailed it. Nice job there.