Los Angeles Angels Topics

Gameday Thread: Dodgers vs Angels (9/25/2020)

This may not be everyone's cup of tea.  If you don't have interest in more advanced stats, then look away.  This exercise in only meant to provide a little insight into the future and how things might not be what you think or what you see.  Granted, the outcome of each game is always going to be what's most important because wins and losses are what ultimately what determine whether you make the playoffs.  But sometimes, especially in a 60 game season, the outcomes can be severely impacted by a small sample size and what was 'expected' may not actually align with what happened.  

So with that being said, I give you 'baseruns'.  This has been mentioned in several threads on the board but I thought it might worthy of it's own discussion.  Again, take it for what you think it's worth, but I find it valuable in helping to assess the future.  

Here is a link to how baseruns work:

https://library.fangraphs.com/features/baseruns/

It a nutshell, it's an exercise of what should have happened vs. what we know happened.  

The current AL WEST standings would be as follows if things went as expected.  

Oakland 29-25 .539
Angels 30-26 .528
Astros 27-28 .490
Mariners 22-33 .403
Rangers 20-35 .370

So the Angels and Oakland would be in a dogfight for the division title going into the last 4 games with Houston having and outside shot.  The Angels have 5 less wins than they should and the A's have four more wins than they should.  

The Angels should have scored 5.04 runs per games vs. the 4.96 runs per game they did score.  Not a huge difference.  

They should have allowed 4.75 runs per game and have allowed 5.32.  A big difference and likely related to poor defense as many have mentioned with @Inside Pitch ringing the bell on this very early.  

So what do I think this means?  

To me, it means that we are probably better than we all might think.  Still not great or without needed upgrades but we could improve our record more quickly that it might appear.  What it also means to me is that the A's probably aren't as good as their record shows and that the division is truly wide open for next year.  

We very well could have an opportunity here to open a window of success for the next few years without needing an act of God for it to happen.  

 

Gameday Thread: Padres vs Angels (9/23/2020)

https://nypost.com/2020/09/21/steve-cohens-mets-decision-angels-dombrowski-interest-sherman/

Just posting the article that @khouse referenced in another thread

A topic that resurfaces every so often; I felt like revisiting it. As I see it:

ELIGIBLE (10+ Years)

Definites (already in, if they packed it in right now): Pujols, Trout, Cabrera, Kershaw, Scherzer, Verlander, Greinke, Cano.

Maybe-to-Probably (needs to pad stats, or wait a bit for induction): Votto, Molina, Posey, Longoria, Donaldson, Goldschmidt, Stanton, Freeman, Cruz, Altuve, McCutchen, Strasburg.

Hall of Very Good (no cigar, but good career): Upton, Pedroia, Braun, Gardner, Hamels, Lester, Bumgarner, Wainwright.

Of the above, the middle category could go either way, depending upon the player. Some of those guys will be voted in years after their five-year eligibility, others never.

NOT ELIGIBLE (<10 Years)

Definite (once get to 10 years, barring catastrophe) : Betts.

Maybe-to-Probably (has a decent or better chance, but too soon/need to see how career goes): Machado, Harper, deGrom, Rendon, Arenado, Lindor, Ramirez, Sale, Bieber, Yelich, and lots of younger guys.

Mookie is a great player and will make it once he earns eligibility in 2023, when he'll be entering his age 30 season with over 50 WAR. If Trout is Mantle, Betts is DiMaggio - he's that good.

Probably missing some guys that deserve mention.