Rivera’s Implications

Following up on Eric Seidman’s piece today. Beyond my own skepticism on the wisdom of taking a three-year flyer on Juan Rivera, I would like to delve a little further into the defensive impact this has on the Angels.

Garret Anderson is gone, but with Rivera now signed, the Angels have Torii Hunter, Vladimir Guerrero, Rivera and Gary Matthews Jr. hanging around as the likely suspects to man the starting outfield and designated hitter spot. There’s a chance the Angels demote Matthews out of full-time duty, but that’s a tough $33 million pill to swallow.

Assuming they don’t do that, the Angels are left with a defensive problem. Guerrero has been a stiff in the field for awhile now and his knees could really use the rest from tramping about the outfield grass. Hunter isn’t the fielder the Angels thought they were buying, as a three-year weighted UZR rates Hunter as about average for a corner outfielder. Similarly, Sarge Jr moved from an above average fielder in center to now well below average in a corner according to UZR.

Their “ideal” alignment looks like Vlad at DH, Rivera in LF, Hunter at CF and Matthews in RF. Using our above (and Seidman’s) estimates on defensive prowess, that alignment would be roughly 25 runs below average, and that’s assuming none of this post-30-year-old group gets any worse, which is optimistic to say the least. This puts some pressure on the roster flexibility, since DH gets locked up in this situation, but also on the infield to hopefully make up for the deficiencies of the outfield.

Unfortunately, if the Angels fail to re-sign Teixeira, they’re faced with another plus defender leaving and there’s already some questions as to how well they defend up the middle. In short, the Angels were lucky to win as many games as they did in 2008 and if they lose out on Tex, a big chuck of offense and defense goes away and they might be caught resting on their laurels too much.

Matthew Carruth is a software engineer who has been fascinated with baseball statistics since age five. When not dissecting baseball, he is watching hockey or playing soccer.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
13 years ago

Pure luck. Luck, luck, luck. It’s been all luck. The lucky 100 wins in 2008 was preceded by lucky 94 wins in 2007. Of course a lucky .580 winning percentage during the past 5 lucky seasons represented 810 games of being just plain lucky. For a team that can’t pitch, field, or hit yet manage to win the division 4 out of the last 5 years, it can only mean one thing; luck. And that World Series championship; don’t get me started. Lucky fastballs, lucky catches, lucky hits. Why they’re even luckier than Pauly Shore.

13 years ago
Reply to  Blake

You’re kind of in your own little world, aren’t you? Show me where in the article he said the Angels were lucky prior to 2008. Show me where he said their World Series title was lucky. Show me even one mention of their hitting or pitching. You can’t, can you? Stop projecting your own insecurities on others.

13 years ago
Reply to  Blake

The angels certainly aren’t lucky. They have been the best team in the division in recent years. But saying that they are an elite team is like… Having four people in a room , 3 of which have learning disabilities, thus concluding that the 4th person who is does not have a learning ability is really smart.

13 years ago
Reply to  Blake

Face it, Blake. The Angels have won arguably the worst division in baseball the last few years. I mean, where did the 100 wins in ’08 get you? The division title, yes, but the Angels proceeded to stink it up in the playoffs.

And Trent is right. Matthew didn’t claim any sort of “luck” for the Angels prior to ’08.

13 years ago
Reply to  Blake

The Angels were 10th in the AL in runs scored and 5th in runs allowed. An above-average team, but surely not a 100-win team. They were maybe the fifth- or sixth-best team in the AL last year.

The 2002 Angels, on the other hand, were awesome.