Pitcher List on Angels starters in 2020

[Stradling]

Oh and you have those starters having ERAs of 6.36.  So once again, instead of calling me an ass, please look in the mirror when you are accusing someone of exaggerating.  

[Pancake Bear]

8 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I figure guys like Bundy, Teheran, Heaney and Canning will be good for 5.2 innings a night and 4 ER. Across 30 starts, that's like 172 innings. Canning and Heaney likely won't get that many but I do believe Bundy and Teheran will. 

So the bullpen will be forced to cover 4.1 innings a night, while giving up an average of 2 runs, which comes out to a 4.38 ERA. That's about standard for an MLB bullpen.

So I've got the numbers to back up my predictions.

Stop being an ass and come up with quality reasons why I'm exaggerating.

 

4 ER for < 6ip? Who is projecting that? Everything I’ve seen has put most of them in the 4.5/9 range. 

Maybe stop yelling about other people when you’re either making up numbers or incapable of basic math?

[Docwaukee]

31 minutes ago, Second Base said:

No no.....it is terrible, at least comparatively. I think the team that most resembles the Angels would be the Twins. Solid bullpen, good defense when Buxton is in CF and Donaldson is at 3B, great offense, and a pricing staff that's mostly so-so. 

They have Berrios and we have Ohtani. Ohtani is better but Berrios is healthy. They have Odorizzi, who isn't a very good #2 starter, but feasibly a solid #3/4. But it could be worse, just look at the Angels, who will roll out Andrew Heaney as they're #2 starter. Twins will use Homer Bailey as their 3rd starter, not exactly inspiring confidence in anyone and the Angels respond with an equally as unexciting Julio Teheran. 4th in their rotation for most of the year figures to be Michael Pineda, who is better than Bundy, just not as many innings. And rounding it out is Rich Hill. He's old, but when he's actually on the mound he's good. And the Angels have Canning, who is better than Hill.

So when comparing the Angels rotation to what is considered a bad contending rotation, the Angels are marginally worse.

So yes, the Angels rotation is BAD.

But the silver lining here has to be the number of innings they'll cover. That should make an already solid bullpen unit even better.

you are overestimating the quality of other starting staff's across the league because the Angels didn't address their pitching issues to your liking.  I get it, I am not a huge fan either and don't think the staff will be good but they're not terrible.  Even comparatively.  

[Stradling]

Ok here’s my quality reason why you’re exaggerating, you suck at math, or are simply irrationally upset about the moves they’ve made, or both.  

[floplag]

51 minutes ago, Second Base said:

No no.....it is terrible, at least comparatively. I think the team that most resembles the Angels would be the Twins. Solid bullpen, good defense when Buxton is in CF and Donaldson is at 3B, great offense, and a pricing staff that's mostly so-so. 

They have Berrios and we have Ohtani. Ohtani is better but Berrios is healthy. They have Odorizzi, who isn't a very good #2 starter, but feasibly a solid #3/4. But it could be worse, just look at the Angels, who will roll out Andrew Heaney as they're #2 starter. Twins will use Homer Bailey as their 3rd starter, not exactly inspiring confidence in anyone and the Angels respond with an equally as unexciting Julio Teheran. 4th in their rotation for most of the year figures to be Michael Pineda, who is better than Bundy, just not as many innings. And rounding it out is Rich Hill. He's old, but when he's actually on the mound he's good. And the Angels have Canning, who is better than Hill.

So when comparing the Angels rotation to what is considered a bad contending rotation, the Angels are marginally worse.

So yes, the Angels rotation is BAD.

But the silver lining here has to be the number of innings they'll cover. That should make an already solid bullpen unit even better.

Therenothing anyone is going to say to affect your view here, but i dont agree with it.

[Second Base]

Yup, made a miscalculation in my math. Thanks for pointing that out gents. And @Stradling and @Dochalo, you keep accusing that I'm throwing this got because I'm not pleased with the way Eppler built the rotation, yet you two are the same talking heads that thought Harvey and Cahill would be just fine, and I'm still predicting 89 wins for this Angels team. 

I'm frequently accused of homerism, butt you all any realistic non-Angels fan if the rotation sucks, and they'll still you point blank that it does. And yet the only ones dating it doesn't, are die hard Angels fans.

If your looking for a dose of reality, I think I'll go with the non-Angel fans on this one, because there isn't a kool-aid strong enough to convince me that the Angels rotation is as good as Minnesota, or any contending team at all in 2019.

My miscalculation is an honest mistake, but you thinking the Angels pitching staff isn't bad.... That's blissful ignorance.

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Yup, made a miscalculation in my math. Thanks for pointing that out gents. And @Stradling and @Dochalo, you keep accusing that I'm throwing this got because I'm not pleased with the way Eppler built the rotation, yet you two are the same talking heads that thought Harvey and Cahill would be just fine, and I'm still predicting 89 wins for this Angels team. 

I'm frequently accused of homerism, butt you all any realistic non-Angels fan if the rotation sucks, and they'll still you point blank that it does. And yet the only ones dating it doesn't, are die hard Angels fans.

If your looking for a dose of reality, I think I'll go with the non-Angel fans on this one, because there isn't a kool-aid strong enough to convince me that the Angels rotation is as good as Minnesota, or any contending team at all in 2019.

My miscalculation is an honest mistake, but you thinking the Angels pitching staff isn't bad.... That's blissful ignorance.

Well you think the team ERA will be 6, (4 runs from starters and 2 from the pen) so I’ll side with math on this one, you side with non Angel fans.  Oh I’m a homer, no doubt, and you’ve been a homer for as long as you’ve posted here, until this off season.  

[tdawg87]

11 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Yup, made a miscalculation in my math. Thanks for pointing that out gents. And @Stradling and @Dochalo, you keep accusing that I'm throwing this got because I'm not pleased with the way Eppler built the rotation, yet you two are the same talking heads that thought Harvey and Cahill would be just fine, and I'm still predicting 89 wins for this Angels team. 

I'm frequently accused of homerism, butt you all any realistic non-Angels fan if the rotation sucks, and they'll still you point blank that it does. And yet the only ones dating it doesn't, are die hard Angels fans.

If your looking for a dose of reality, I think I'll go with the non-Angel fans on this one, because there isn't a kool-aid strong enough to convince me that the Angels rotation is as good as Minnesota, or any contending team at all in 2019.

My miscalculation is an honest mistake, but you thinking the Angels pitching staff isn't bad.... That's blissful ignorance.

Well said.

[Second Base]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

Well said.

I know, I'm transitioning away from Gboard back over to a Samsung board. I like the ability to slide type/text. But unless you specifically go over everything afterward, there are bound to be mistakes that render it almost unreadable.

[Pancake Bear]

Um, the independent blog whose link I posted had far more optimistic a view of the Angels than you expressed, Scotty. I’m just using public projections. Yet somehow you and others are so down on the Angels’ pitching that you don’t even trust places like Zips or the analysis from the link above that are not from Angel fans. 

You've said in the past that Szymborski at Fangraphs hates the Angels, but his projections put us in the high 80’s wins-wise. In other words, that’s if anything a pessimist perspective. It certainly isn’t an optimistic one. 

My own opinion puts roster and coaching change effects slightly higher. I calculate as constructed we’re around 88-92 wins. An addition like Jon Gray likely bumps our low end to 90, imo. 

[floplag]

20 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Yup, made a miscalculation in my math. Thanks for pointing that out gents. And @Stradling and @Dochalo, you keep accusing that I'm throwing this got because I'm not pleased with the way Eppler built the rotation, yet you two are the same talking heads that thought Harvey and Cahill would be just fine, and I'm still predicting 89 wins for this Angels team. 

I'm frequently accused of homerism, butt you all any realistic non-Angels fan if the rotation sucks, and they'll still you point blank that it does. And yet the only ones dating it doesn't, are die hard Angels fans.

If your looking for a dose of reality, I think I'll go with the non-Angel fans on this one, because there isn't a kool-aid strong enough to convince me that the Angels rotation is as good as Minnesota, or any contending team at all in 2019.

My miscalculation is an honest mistake, but you thinking the Angels pitching staff isn't bad.... That's blissful ignorance.

Its not bad, its the very definition of average. 
Perhaps slightly better if they meet he innings goals both otherwise, yeah, average. 

[Second Base]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Well you think the team ERA will be 6, (4 runs from starters and 2 from the pen) so I’ll side with math on this one, you side with non Angel fans.  Oh I’m a homer, no doubt, and you’ve been a homer for as long as you’ve posted here, until this off season.  

Even so, not every game will be 7-6. Will a lot of them? Yeah, probably. Why? Because the rotation does suck. It has the potential to not suck, like if Bundy and Teheran change their pitch selection for the better, Heaney and Ohtani stay healthy and Canning reaches his potential. 

But the chances of all that happening is slim. In all likelihood, the rotation will be well below average. That's just the personnel the Angels have. 

[Second Base]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Its not bad, its the very definition of average. 
Perhaps slightly better if they meet he innings goals both otherwise, yeah, average. 

By what measure? 

[Second Base]

4 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Um, the independent blog whose link I posted had far more optimistic a view of the Angels than you expressed, Scotty. I’m just using public projections. Yet somehow you and others are so down on the Angels’ pitching that you don’t even trust places like Zips or the analysis from the link above that are not from Angel fans. 

You've said in the past that Szymborski at Fangraphs hates the Angels, but his projections put us in the high 80’s wins-wise. In other words, that’s if anything a pessimist perspective. It certainly isn’t an optimistic one. 

My own opinion puts roster and coaching change effects slightly higher. I calculate as constructed we’re around 88-92 wins. An addition like Jon Gray likely bumps our low end to 90, imo. 

Hey, guess how many wins I predicted the Angels will have.

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Second Base said:

By what measure? 

Already gave it to you, they are all projected to be almost dead on the league average from last year ERA wise while giving over 160 innings.   Not great, not terrible, average. 
Im not trying to say they will be great, just that they are not as you say, bad.
Last year was bad, if you truly think this years shouldn't be much better, not sure what to tell you.
 

[Stradling]

12 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Hey, guess how many wins I predicted the Angels will have.

Scotty if you think they will have a  staff that gives up close to 6 runs a game but you think they’ll win 85-90 games then you’re saying they’ll score 1100 runs. Or 350 more than last year.   So either you aren’t thinking this through or you think the bats are going to be scoring 200 more runs than the Twins last year. 

[Inside Pitch]

3 hours ago, Blarg said:

Lots of stat geek information used to base the authors article on. 

Which is why it will be dismissed at hello by many here.

[Second Base]

19 minutes ago, floplag said:

Already gave it to you, they are all projected to be almost dead on the league average from last year ERA wise while giving over 160 innings.   Not great, not terrible, average. 
Im not trying to say they will be great, just that they are not as you say, bad.
Last year was bad, if you truly think this years shouldn't be much better, not sure what to tell you.
 

If you were to say innings pitched, I think if have to agree with you.

[tdawg87]

I'm basically at that point where every fart could be a shart. I'm playing Russian Roulette in my pants.

[Second Base]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Scotty if you think they will have a  staff that gives up close to 6 runs a game but you think they’ll win 85-90 games then you’re saying they’ll score 1100 runs. Or 350 more than last year.   So either you aren’t thinking this through or you think the bats are going to be scoring 200 more runs than the Twins last year. 

Nice straw man argument. I said a lot of games will be 7-6. Not all. Not most.

Strad of you think the Angels pitching staff is good, then I'd say the Orioles and Mariners should be pretty average. 

[Glen]

All I'm gonna say about us being long overdue for our pitchers to outperform expectations is...nothing.

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Nice straw man argument....

Strad of you think the Angels pitching staff is good

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Nice straw man argument. I said a lot of games will be 7-6. Not all. Not most.

Strad of you think the Angels pitching staff is good, then I'd say the Orioles and Mariners should be pretty average. 

I haven’t said they would be good.  Should I quote what you wrote, again?  

[Dtwncbad]

Decent debate on if the rotation sucks or not.

I am going to go with it sucks until it actually proves that it doesn’t suck.

[Inside Pitch]

BTW..   

The AL average ERA for SPs last year was 4.76.   http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/127/league/al  

The Angels getting to league average isn't the insurmountable obstacle that some of you may believe...  They need  the two innings eaters to do what they have been doing and for their young guys to pitch to their abilities.

But a 4.76 ERA combined from the SPs would be a world better than the 5.64 they got out of them last year.