Angels are still a bit short on offense

The Angels dust off the Red Sox in three straight, and Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy writes, "So why is this not a matter of concern in Red Sox Nation? Because the Angels can't beat the Red Sox in October, that's why."

And just like you, I'm outraged because Shaughnessy nails it, the season already over for the Angels if this is all they've got on offense.

A Boston scribe puts everything in perspective, but wasted on a Boston audience that already knows it has more firepower in baseball, basketball and football than we have here.

And here I am in Phoenix with the Dodgers for the weekend because the granddaughter moved to Arizona and not Anaheim, which means leaving the Angels under Dwyre's watch. My apologies.

Dwyre is used to covering jockeys, so I figure he'll feel right at home in the Angels' clubhouse, but he's also been writing about a dying sport, so it's not surprising to find him so excited at the prospect of scribbling about a baseball game.

"This is why you go to the ballgame," he begins, while going on to gush about the Angels just because they have the best record in baseball and "are quietly special this season," as he puts it.

They don't seem all that different to me, a bloop single here, a stolen base, an RBI Willits single, and then give the ball to the closer. Didn't they do the same thing a year ago, finishing 26 games above .500 before losing every playoff game to Boston?

"They had beaten the 2007 World Series champion Red Sox on Friday and Saturday," Dwyre writes in praising our local heroes. "A Sunday victory would, to some, be a sure indicator of postseason success."

Obviously, I hurry back to town as fast as I can to set the record straight, arriving in time for Manager Mike Scioscia's pregame media chat Tuesday.

"You're probably sitting here right now fat and sassy," I say.

"Did you say fat?" Scioscia asks, and so at least we're agreed he's a little sassy today.

A year ago the Red Sox overwhelmed the Angels in postseason play, much of it Scioscia's fault, although we seem to also disagree on that point.

He elects to rest his starters down the stretch, as you recall, the home-field advantage swinging in Boston's favor, and the Angels going down 2-0 in games in Fenway. Why give the opposition any advantage?

They lose all three games to the Red Sox, score in only two of the 27 innings they play and hit less than .200. Thanks for the memories.

But then aren't they always a little shy on offense -- the best regular-season team because they can throw five quality starters out there, which makes them well-constructed for a 162-game schedule?

"I agree with our pitching we're well-constructed for the regular season," says John Lackey. "But with the people we have here, knowing their track records, I think we'll be fine on offense too.

"The biggest thing I take out of the series with Boston is the number of runs we were able to score off [Josh] Beckett. That should give our offensive guys a lot of confidence."

The Angels have five quality starters but will need only three, or at the most four, in the playoffs. That works in Boston's favor, which can do a pretty good job matching the Angels starter for starter under those conditions.

As for offense, "I think we have some bats emerging," Scioscia says, which is his wishful way of saying maybe Juan Riviera will start hitting the ball out of the park.

The Red Sox have five players capable of hitting third in the Angels' lineup: J.D. Drew, Kevin Youkilis, MannyRamirez, David Ortiz or Mike Lowell. The Angels have MaicerIzturis hitting third.