Pitcher List on Angels starters in 2020

[Lou]

[Second Base]

I just have a really difficult time buying into this optimism when the same exact group of gentlemen were right here one year ago celebrating Matt Harvey and Trevor Cahill signings, talking about the difference they'll make, how shrewd Eppler is, the playoffs, etc...

Harvey's fastball velocity and Cahill's ERA clearly indicated they'd be pretty good. And Bundy's sinker and Teheran's ERA both say the same thing. 

I have a difficult time seeing how these guys are different, other than the IP. Are we supposed to be optimistic because the Angels got themselves Joe Blanton and Joel Pineiro all over again? 

[Stradling]

Good thing it’s not a math debate.  Scotty step away.  Take the loss.  This simply isn’t your day.

[rafibomb]

[ettin]

43 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

You guys murdered Scotty.

I didn't because I have had him on mute for a comfortable period of time now.

[Lou]

[Stradling]

On 12/23/2018 at 6:51 PM, Second Base said:

First, I read this article - https://theangelsavenue.com/2018/12/22/angels-appraisal-on-matt-harvey-and-trevor-cahill/

Then, I went to one of my favorite past times, building graphs using FG's graphing format. Mainly just velocity, off-speed usage and heat maps. But here's the basic conclusion....

- Matt Harvey's spin rate recovered to near peak levels to finish 2018.

- Harvey's average velocity reached back up to 96 to finish the season. The last time he generated that velocity was 2015, before TO surgery. 

- Trevor Cahill's numbers were almost identical to Nathan Eovaldi's, who generated a much more expensive contract. 

- In fact, as far as success as a starter and reliever go, there really isn't much separating Nate Eovaldi and Trevor Cahill. Eovaldi throws 5 mph harder but Cahill generates 15% more ground balls.

- In fact, Trevor Cahill is throwing harder and generating more ground balls than he ever has before as a starter. That year as a reliever in Chicago really changed his career arc. 

I know when you're wearing rosy red Angel goggles, you can take any signing and convince yourself of the validity of it. But from where I'm standing right now, I'm not convinced Harvey and Cahill are simply back of the rotation starters. Pitching in front of that defense, ending the season they way they did, these two signings look to me like they have a better than small chance of being something significantly more than one year signings. 

 

On 12/23/2018 at 9:10 PM, greginpsca said:

If the Angels are in the hunt for a playoff spot, we will more than likely trade for someone at the trade deadline.

 

On 12/23/2018 at 9:25 PM, Second Base said:

If Harvey and Cahill are healthy, they may not need to. 

 

On 12/24/2018 at 3:33 PM, Second Base said:

Addding Yusei Kikuchi would give the Angels a very formidable rotation in 2019. Kikuchi, Heaney, Skaggs, Cahill and Harvey. And more importantly Barria, Pena, Canning and Suarez as depth. The Angels would finally have the pitching necessary to get them into the playoffs if the hitting can take a step forward, though that in itself would be difficult because it would require performances from Calhoun and Cozart that's above any likelihood.

 

46 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I used the most recent year for FIP, doc. Just because it doesn't fit your homer narrative that we are amazing doesn't mean it's wrong. It's the most up to date actual performance information available. 

And you're defending a system that says Frankie Montas, Sean Manaea, Jesus Lazardo and AJ Puk won't be better than than Ohtani, Heaney, Bundy, Teheran and Canning. 

If this were a common sense debate, you'd get laughed off stage. Why? Because that's fucking stupid and everyone who knows anything about pitching knows it. The Angels rotation isn't as good as the A's, it the Twins. Or the Red Sox, Yankees, Rays, Indians, Astros or Rangers for that matter.

If you can't wrap your mind around that, then I just feel sorry for you. The Angels rotation just isn't that good. The only lense in which it is that good is a Rosy red one that requires you to squint. You ask for numbers, I give them to you. And now I'm offering common knowledge and you're still blind to the truth.

 

@Lou I agree.   

[tdawg87]

10 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I just have a really difficult time buying into this optimism when the same exact group of gentlemen were right here one year ago celebrating Matt Harvey and Trevor Cahill signings, talking about the difference they'll make, how shrewd Eppler is, the playoffs, etc...

Harvey's fastball velocity and Cahill's ERA clearly indicated they'd be pretty good. And Bundy's sinker and Teheran's ERA both say the same thing. 

I have a difficult time seeing how these guys are different, other than the IP. Are we supposed to be optimistic because the Angels got themselves Joe Blanton and Joel Pineiro all over again? 

I'm calling you Scooter from now on.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

 

@Lou would you like to do the honors.  

Be me guest . . . 

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, Lou said:

Be me guest . . . 

Thank you

[Docwaukee]

43 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I used the most recent year for FIP, doc. Just because it doesn't fit your homer narrative that we are amazing doesn't mean it's wrong. It's the most up to date actual performance information available. 

And you're defending a system that says Frankie Montas, Sean Manaea, Jesus Lazardo and AJ Puk won't be better than than Ohtani, Heaney, Bundy, Teheran and Canning. 

If this were a common sense debate, you'd get laughed off stage. Why? Because that's fucking stupid and everyone who knows anything about pitching knows it. The Angels rotation isn't as good as the A's, it the Twins. Or the Red Sox, Yankees, Rays, Indians, Astros or Rangers for that matter.

If you can't wrap your mind around that, then I just feel sorry for you. The Angels rotation just isn't that good. The only lense in which it is that good is a Rosy red one that requires you to squint. You ask for numbers, I give them to you. And now I'm offering common knowledge and you're still blind to the truth.

 

yet again, your arrogance has clouded your ability to comprehend what people are even arguing.  

go find a post where I said that we are amazing.  go find another where anyone makes an argument that we have a good starting staff.  anyone.  using one year of anything to draw a conclusion is just dumb.  

I'm defending a system that tends to be more right than wrong and one where you can easily know where it could be right or right based on knowing how it works.  

The Angels rotation likely isn't as good as any of those teams you mentioned.  I have had my mind wrapped around that for awhile now.  The rotation isn't that good but again, it's not terrible.  Last year it was terrible.  horrible.  awful.  

you gave me a number salad of virtually meaningless info and you pivot to your opinion as opposed to fact when you are losing ground in any discussion because you don't understand.  I am sorry this is going nowhere because of that.  

[tdawg87]

[Lou]

[mmc]

[ScruffytheJanitor]

17 hours ago, Second Base said:

So to summarize....

The Angels have four #5 starters. Two of them are the inning eater types (Teheran and Bundy), one of them should be better (Heaney) and the last figures to be better someday (Canning). 

The Angels are probably going to have the worst rotation in baseball, among teams that will contend. I mean the Yanks, Red Sox, Rays, Twins, Indians, White Sox, Astros, Rangers, A's.... They're all better than the Angels on the mound. 

The real reason why the Angels will contend is that offense. They figure to be every bit as good as any team in the AL outside of Minnesota.

Eh... I think it's more like 2 #4s  (Heany/Bundy) and 3 #5s.

But your point stands. You put two bonafide aces at the top, and that would be workable. However, since we don't have that, we look like an injury  or a drop-off away from.... last year again.

[floplag]

23 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

Eh... I think it's more like 2 #4s  (Heany/Bundy) and 3 #5s.

But your point stands. You put two bonafide aces at the top, and that would be workable. However, since we don't have that, we look like an injury  or a drop-off away from.... last year again.

This is so unrealistic though, especially now.  Where do you propose to get 2 bonafide aces?  Especially at this point?  
4 guys projected over 160 innings... 4.  Want to guess how many we had last year?  pick up that donut your eating and notice its shape. 
Now it may or may not happen, time will tell, but it would take multiple injuries to even get close to last years debacle.  To suggest this rotation isnt improved or wont be any better is just plain silly.
I'm sorry but you can argue many things around here, this is not one of them logically. 

[ScruffytheJanitor]

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

yet again, your arrogance has clouded your ability to comprehend what people are even arguing.  

go find a post where I said that we are amazing.  go find another where anyone makes an argument that we have a good starting staff.  anyone.  using one year of anything to draw a conclusion is just dumb.  

I'm defending a system that tends to be more right than wrong and one where you can easily know where it could be right or right based on knowing how it works.  

The Angels rotation likely isn't as good as any of those teams you mentioned.  I have had my mind wrapped around that for awhile now.  The rotation isn't that good but again, it's not terrible.  Last year it was terrible.  horrible.  awful.  

you gave me a number salad of virtually meaningless info and you pivot to your opinion as opposed to fact when you are losing ground in any discussion because you don't understand.  I am sorry this is going nowhere because of that.  

This is where I am at.  Our current rotation is a punch in the gut, but last year our rotation was a punch in the nuts with brass knuckles. Certainly not ideal, but I think we should avoid major testicular damage.

Could I be wrong? Could be. I am sorta just assuming that Tehran runs out of magic juice and has like an era of 6. But I also think it's probable that we have 5 pitchers (Ohtani-Canning-Bundy-Sandoval-Heany) that are average-ish or better. (Remember: the average starter is roughly 4.30 ERA.) Is that good enough? Hell no. Even if all five pitchers had an ERA of 4.00, that rotation is not exactly the most durable. But it is better than last year.

[ScruffytheJanitor]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

This is so unrealistic though, especially now.  Where do you propose to get 2 bonafide aces?  Especially at this point?  
4 guys projected over 160 innings... 4.  Want to guess how many we had last year?  pick up that donut your eating and notice its shape. 
Now it may or may not happen, time will tell, but it would take multiple injuries to even get close to last years debacle.  To suggest this rotation isnt improved or wont be any better is just plain silly.
I'm sorry but you can argue many things around here, this is not one of them logically. 

I don't know where to begin.

1) I wasn't suggesting that are definitely going to get two great pitchers. I was simply saying that there is enough in our rotation NOW that two aces would make our rotation look "deep" rather than "fairly suspect."

2) Look at that list again. Ohtani, Bundy, Canning,Tehrean and Heaney don't have perfect track records of health. It wouldn't shock me if only two or three of those guys broke the 160 inning limit. I don't think that our health will be that bad, but there are going to be plenty of starts made by pitchers not in the rotation.

3) Our having a talented (if limited)#2 (Ohtani), 2 solid #4s, and a pile of good #5 pitchers IS a massive improvement over last year. NEVER FORGET CHRIS STRATTON.

Remember, this was a response to a post about CONTENDING rotations; compared to average, we probably have a #2, a low-end #3, and a couple of #4s.   It's just not enough to make us legit WS contenders.

[Stradling]

Bundy and Teheran both have a track record of health.  Teheran is the most durable starter in baseball.  There are maybe 3-4 teams that have two Aces, Yankees, Astros, Nats, Dodgers.  

[floplag]

22 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

I don't know where to begin.

1) I wasn't suggesting that are definitely going to get two great pitchers. I was simply saying that there is enough in our rotation NOW that two aces would make our rotation look "deep" rather than "fairly suspect."

2) Look at that list again. Ohtani, Bundy, Canning,Tehrean and Heaney don't have perfect track records of health. It wouldn't shock me if only two or three of those guys broke the 160 inning limit. I don't think that our health will be that bad, but there are going to be plenty of starts made by pitchers not in the rotation.

3) Our having a talented (if limited)#2 (Ohtani), 2 solid #4s, and a pile of good #5 pitchers IS a massive improvement over last year. NEVER FORGET CHRIS STRATTON.

Remember, this was a response to a post about CONTENDING rotations; compared to average, we probably have a #2, a low-end #3, and a couple of #4s.   It's just not enough to make us legit WS contenders.

Well, youre entitled to that view, but the game does have more than just a pitching aspect. 

[UndertheHalo]

I think it’s obvious that the Angels won’t win a lot of games where they don’t put up 4+ runs.  But I think that the line up can deliver that frequently and the staff and bullpen we have can keep us in games.  The biggest issue last year was innings.  That’s been substantially addressed.  With some luck the pitching will be decent enough.  There’s a lot of unfulfilled upside in this group that could be realized.  
 

i don’t think it needs to be explained that the Angels don’t currently have reliable shut down pitchers.  I think it’s pretty well understood.

Edited January 29, 2020 by UndertheHalo

[Taylor]

1. Create an Angels fan message board.
2. Post an article that's positive about the Angels.
3. ???
4. Profit!

[Inside Pitch]

11 hours ago, Second Base said:

I used the most recent year for FIP, doc. Just because it doesn't fit your homer narrative that we are amazing doesn't mean it's wrong.

It's wrong because it's a one year sample.  Go back a year and Cahill had put up a 3.54 FIP (your chosen stat), Harvey 4.33..   The projections for both players were by comparison awful -- particularly Harvey who they were flat out putting in the mid 5s.

Also, you seem to be putting a lot of stock into Frankie Montas PED season and not enough into his career prior to that.  Montas had a career ERA of 4.00 as a minor leaguer, and an ERA+ of 85 for his career before last season.  In light of the suspension it's hard to say whether or not it was a case of his having figured something out or it it was greatness in a bottle.  There are a lot of similarities between the A's current rotation and the Angels rotations of 2016+.   Guys who had flashes, guys coming off TJ, guys still trying to prove their worth.  Luzardo being the one guy that stands out as relatively worry free, and everyone's favorite ex+Astro.

Anyway there is no need mischaracterize what people are saying about the current state of the rotation, or what they said about guys like Harvey and Cahill last year.  I think most everyone is simply hoping for the two new additions to give the team innings and looking at the younger guys/Ohtani to be where the real improvement comes from.

[Second Base]

11 hours ago, Stradling said:

 

 

 

 

@Lou I agree.   

Yup, I was board with Harvey and Cahill. The difference is, I've learned, something you've proven incapable of. 

[Second Base]

Again, it would appear AW has been so dumbed down that your best posters legitimately believe Bundy and Teheran are the answer.

I feel legitimately sorry for you. I provide numbers and you throw a tantrum. I offer opinion, and you disagree. I offer common sense and you cover your ears. 

Sorry guys. The Angels rotation sucks at this point in time. There's just no way around that. And if you can't recognize that, it's either because your choosing to ignore the obvious or you're just that plain dumb. I can't answer that for you.

For the most part though, what I'm seeing is a large collection of individuals that are smart enough to be stupid homers. Alas, hope springs eternal. And some things, will never change.