Now back to the Angels...

[Torridd]

If we get to the Series, do you envision the teams as tough as the ones we went through in 2002?

 

I think this would be somewhat easier because we'll have homefield for all series. Also, I can't think of any team being harder for us to beat than the Yanks except for maybe the BoSox.

[Blarg]

The 2002 Angels beat the 2002 Jeters so this crop of playoff teams are much easier.

[DoubleOffTheWall]

I think the road is easier perhaps this time in terms of level of competition, but this time we have severe injuries to too many key players, so I'd say overall it will be a tougher road back to the WS. 

[Torridd]

As far as "severe," we're only talking about Richards and Skaggs. It's questionable how much impact Skaggs would have.

 

It's possible that our starters may be on par with 2002's team as is. Is our offense as good?

[Angel Oracle]

Two biggest worries are starting pitching health, and the O's/Nats.

 

But again, who knows what will happen this post-season.   It's truly a crapshoot, where a host of teams could win it all.

 

The O's are most similar to us, expect for hitting 50 more HRs.

The Nats have the deepest pitching staff.

[T.G.]

I have a hard time with the idea that the post-season is a "crap shoot."  That seems to dismiss the idea that sometimes the best team actually wins it all.  It's not that random.

Edited September 26, 2014 by True Grich

[WallyWorld]

Geez, I kind of feel the opposite. I think this year's path is filled with better teams/more talent than '02 was.

 

In 2002 the Yankees were a damn good team, so that was an impressive win. But Minnesota in the ALCS? Meh. No dominant starters, decent offense. And the Giants? Who was the toughest pitcher we had to face, Jason freaking Schmidt? Yeah there was an in-his-prime Bonds and their lineup could put up runs, but I don't think that team was amazing.

 

I look at this year and I see an Oakland team that's struggling, yes, but with starting pitching better than any team we faced in '02 (except maybe the Yankees). An ALCS match-up would be Detroit or Baltimore. Both of those teams are way more impressive to me than that '02 Twins team. And say we had to face the Dodgers in the World Series. Kershaw and Greinke? We didn't see a duo that tough at all in '02. The Nats? Probably on par with the '02 Giants, though I'd say better SP.

 

Maybe I'm just feeling anxious because of the state of our current rotation, but this year's field looks tough to me.

[Jay]

It's going to be hard no matter who we face, our pitching is so depleted.

[DoubleOffTheWall]

Geez, I kind of feel the opposite. I think this year's path is filled with better teams/more talent than '02 was.

 

In 2002 the Yankees were a damn good team, so that was an impressive win. But Minnesota in the ALCS? Meh. No dominant starters, decent offense. And the Giants? Who was the toughest pitcher we had to face, Jason freaking Schmidt? Yeah there was an in-his-prime Bonds and their lineup could put up runs, but I don't think that team was amazing.

 

I look at this year and I see an Oakland team that's struggling, yes, but with starting pitching better than any team we faced in '02 (except maybe the Yankees). An ALCS match-up would be Detroit or Baltimore. Both of those teams are way more impressive to me than that '02 Twins team. And say we had to face the Dodgers in the World Series. Kershaw and Greinke? We didn't see a duo that tough at all in '02. The Nats? Probably on par with the '02 Giants, though I'd say better SP.

 

Maybe I'm just feeling anxious because of the state of our current rotation, but this year's field looks tough to me.

 

I agree, but I think the 2014 Angels also have more raw talent than the 2002 version.

 

Unforutnatley, we are straddled with injuries and worse, underperformers like Wilson and Hamilton. In 2002, every guy was having a good to above average season in the context of their overall talent level. 

[stormngt]

It's not a cap shoot in regards as random luck. However a team could get hot or a couple of pitchers get hot and the dynamics change.

I have a hard time with the idea that the post-season is a "crap shoot." That seems to dismiss the idea that sometimes the best team actually wins it all. It's not that random.

[Adam]

The road is easier for sure, but the Angels are not nearly as good as the 2002 bunch

[WallyWorld]

I agree, but I think the 2014 Angels also have more raw talent than the 2002 version.

 

Unforutnatley, we are straddled with injuries and worse, underperformers like Wilson and Hamilton. In 2002, every guy was having a good to above average season in the context of their overall talent level. 

 

agreed. it's funny how similar the two teams are in terms of structure. Great offense, lockdown BP, and oh-my-god-please-just-get-through-5-innings-without-imploding SP.

[Torridd]

I think winning the WS will be very tough as many have surmised. It will probably be the Dodgers (Greinke, Kershaw), Nats (tough all around) or perennial no-lose Cards.

 

The team that bothers me the most is the O's.

[Torridd]

The road is easier for sure, but the Angels are not nearly as good as the 2002 bunch

I have to admit when you look at the 2002 lineup and compare to this year's we don't win many matchups.

 

Aybar over Eckstein is arguable.

Even Trout over Erstad is understated because of all Erstad brought to the team.

Kendrick over Kennedy?

Pujols over Spiezio, but w/o Spiezio we don't win.

 

I guess we'll have to be more the sum of our parts.

[WallyWorld]

I think winning the WS will be very tough as many have surmised. It will probably be the Dodgers (Greinke, Kershaw), Nats (tough all around) or perennial no-lose Cards.

 

The team that bothers me the most is the O's.

 

yeah, the O's have seemed to have our number the last couple seasons. Bud Norris is like our kryptonite, and unless I'm wrong, Miguel Gonzalez also owns us. Seems like Adam Jones hits a HR against us in every game and Camden makes me feel like every fly ball is a HR.

[WallyWorld]

I have to admit when you look at the 2002 lineup and compare to this year's we don't win many matchups.

 

Aybar over Eckstein is arguable.

Even Trout over Erstad is understated because of all Erstad brought to the team.

Kendrick over Kennedy?

Pujols over Spiezio, but w/o Spiezio we don't win.

 

I guess we'll have to be more the sum of our parts.

 

yeah, like DoubleOfftheWall said, that 2002 team was basically every guy 1-9 peaking at the same time. This year's team is all over the place, with youngsters on their way up, and veterans on the downside. 

[Chimi]

The Orioles will be the toughest team we would face in the AL. Hopefully they get bounced in the ALDS by the Tigers. Detroit doesn't really bother me and we've proven this year that we can beat them.

As for the Wild Card team, I rather face th A's over the Royals but I doesn't really matter. They both have good pitching but both of their offenses are awful and I don't think either one is suddenly going to get hot over the next three games. Both teams have problems scoring runs.

[NJHalo]

I like the experience this team has vs the 2002 team.

 

The ones without experience (Trout, Calhoun) bring a level of exuberance that the vets will feed off of.

[ukyah]

no matter what, the angels are going to have to earn their way there. let the chips fall where they may.

[Torridd]

Good point, NJ. I didn't think of that. Hopefully, that will help us a lot.

[hats4bats]

I would love to see this Angels team steam roll their way to a title. While I was happy and forever grateful to see them win it all in 2002 I knew that it was more of a fluke thing and it's always left me wanting more. The Giants were a way better team top to bottom that year. Knowing that they are the best during the season and in the end winning it all would be the greatest moment as a fan I could have.

[stormngt]

It's not a cap shoot in regards as random luck. However a team could get hot or a couple of pitchers get hot and the dynamics change.

I have a hard time with the idea that the post-season is a "crap shoot." That seems to dismiss the idea that sometimes the best team actually wins it all. It's not that random.

[Torridd]

I would love to see this Angels team steam roll their way to a title. While I was happy and forever grateful to see them win it all in 2002 I knew that it was more of a fluke thing and it's always left me wanting more. The Giants were a way better team top to bottom that year. Knowing that they are the best during the season and in the end winning it all would be the greatest moment as a fan I could have.

I disagree. We had better relief than the Giants and the team was centered around Bonds. The key was getting everyone else out in crucial times.