Ernesto Frieri has gone from unhittable to untrustworthy for the Angels

9 Comments

Ernesto Frieri was absurdly good for the Angels after they acquired him from the Padres on May 3, allowing zero runs in his first 26 appearances while some people asked things like “how can someone with a 0.00 ERA not make the All-Star team?!”

In those first 26 shutout appearances for the Angels he had a ridiculous .096 opponents’ batting average and 45 strikeouts in 26.1 innings.

Since then Frieri has made 23 appearances with a still-great .206 opponents’ batting average and 12.9 strikeouts per nine innings, but his ERA is an ugly 5.79 because he’s served up seven homers in 21.2 innings.

That includes a pair of homers to blow the save and take the loss Sunday and a two-run homer to Adrian Beltre to take the loss last night. The latter bomb came after Zack Greinke tossed eight innings of one-run ball and all but killed the Angels’ playoff chances.

Frieri’s great strikeout rate and low batting average against show that he’s still been dominant much of the time, but as one of baseball’s most extreme fly-ball pitchers he’s always going to be susceptible to serving up homers in bunches and unfortunately for the Angels those bunches are coming at the worst possible time.

Red Sox owner: “spending money helps”

Getty Images
4 Comments

The other day Rob Manfred said, as he and other owners have said often in the past, that there is no correlation between payroll and winning. He said that defensively, in response to criticism of the slow free agent market of the past two offseasons.

As we have noted in the past, Manfred is not being honest about that. While, yes, in any given year there can be wild variation between payroll and win total — the Giants stunk last year, the A’s won 97 games — common sense dictates otherwise. What’s more, a recent study has shown that there is a pretty strong correlation between winning and payroll over time. Yes, you can fluke into a big season with a low payroll — Deadspin compared it to a cold snap occurring during a time of climate change — but if you want that “sustained success” teams claim they want, the best way to ensure it is to spend more money over time.

If you know anything about baseball labor history, though, you know well that the Commissioner and the owners will continue to mischaracterize the dynamics of the business as it suits them. Mostly because — present lefty sportswriters notwithstanding — very few people push back on their narratives. Fans tend to parrot ownership’s line on this stuff and, more often than not, baseball media acts as stenographer for ownership as opposed to critic. That gives owners a far greater ability to shape the narrative about all of this than most institutions.

Which makes this all the more awkward. From David Schoenfield of ESPN:

In apparent contradiction to his own commissioner, Boston Red Sox owner John Henry said Monday that, while there is not a perfect correlation between a bigger payroll and winning, “spending more money helps.”

Which is right. The correlation is not perfect — teams can spend a lot of money on a bad team if given the chance and a low payroll team like the Rays can bullpen their way to 90 wins — but you’re way more likely to win year-in, year-out if you’re spending than if you go cheap all the time and hope for a miracle season.

Which is not to say that Henry is some labor activist owner. He and his fellow front office officials have a long history of backing the league office on just about everything that matters and will no doubt do so with labor matters in the runup to the next CBA negotiation. The owners tend not to have a solidarity problem.

But Henry does seem to draw the line at peddling baloney, which is a shockingly necessary thing when the league and the union’s relationship turns acrimonious.