Jump to content

Optimism: The math version


Recommended Posts

Yup. You came to the same conclusion as I have, but by a different route: whether you look at the total of the individual performances, or at runs expected (baseruns essentially being a more sophisticated version of Pythagorean record).

This should both adjust our expectations of what is needed to be competitive next year, and (hopefully) give Arte a sense of Eppler's underlying process. As I said in another thread, this is a team that--given a full season--likely would have won 85+ games, despite the terrible start. If the Angels go into the offseason with the view that this is a "true" 85-win team, then they can think about how to improve it by 5+ games, which is a far difference approach than, say, the 15-win swing required from 75 to 90 wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Said it a couple weeks ago and ill say it again. The Angels aren't a bad team. 

There are areas that need improvement, but I could easily see them contending for the division title next year.

I think the most overlooked part of this is the rest of the division.  Houston won 100 games three years in a row.  That's insane.  Oakland is good team, but they're not 100 wins three years in a row good.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

We’ve definitely got a couple of rays of sunshine from several new guys.  And that is much needed.  We just need to carry over.  If Barria and Canning keep this going and if Walsh proves to be the answer at 1B.  The Angels problems obviously seem manageable.  Stassi I think is a huge X factor.  If he can replicate or be reasonably close to what we saw this year that would be incredible.  Hope for the best with these guys.  Hopefully we get some pitchers this off season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I think the most overlooked part of this is the rest of the division.  Houston won 100 games three years in a row.  That's insane.  Oakland is good team, but they're not 100 wins three years in a row good.  

Oakland is also starting to tread very close to their cycle where they start flipping stars or good players for prospects too. 

I called their resurgence a few years back - you could see how good Chapman and Olson we’re going to be, and they always find pitching. 

I’m calling their re-tooling phase now too. They’ll flip Laureano or Olson this offseason, this season, or next winter if their young starters keep getting hurt, and it’ll start the next cycle for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was discussed in another thread, but part of it too is that it was likely going to take some time with our coaching staff to work with our players and help them along.

We saw a number of players struggle from the start, but then come back and perform better.  Walsh and Ward are often discussed, but Ohtani is looking better now after his recent "off" period, Barria has looked pretty good (today aside), Mayers has been great, etc.

A lot of these guys can go into the offseason, armed with the knowledge the coaching staff has provided them with, and hopefully continue to advance their games accordingly.

We still have more room to improve, and we definitely need at least one significant FA SP, but we are trending in the right direction and "have hope," so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thread. Good conversation. Breath of fresh air.

Great insight. Gives me a bit of hope and some optimism - something we could all use.

But all the math isn't going to fix the culture. My optimism is tainted a bit by the owner's inability to let smart people do what they do best. 

I hope he proves me wrong.

In any case - it will be an interesting off season... yet again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Nice thread. Good conversation. Breath of fresh air.

Great insight. Gives me a bit of hope and some optimism - something we could all use.

But all the math isn't going to fix the culture. My optimism is tainted a bit by the owner's inability to let smart people do what they do best. 

I hope he proves me wrong.

In any case - it will be an interesting off season... yet again.

I want to be optimistic (god knows there's enough bad news in literally every other aspect of the world these days), but I'm still finding it hard to be.  Seems like there have been threads similar to this one (or AngelJunky's, or...etc.) every year for the past few years--yet the end results are still the same: mediocrity.  Whether it's "culture," bad talent assessment, poor financial resource management, something else altogether, or a combination of things, I honestly have no idea at this point.  I'm all for stats, data, deep analysis, etc. (data is a huge part of my career), but for whatever reason, it seems like we're always looking for some silver-lining, saying that FIP or baseruns, or whatever other metric someone wants to cite actually shows that the Angels should have been better.  But they aren't.  So there's a disconnect somewhere.

I fully realize I'm just rambling at this point.  Not having a great week and genuinely looking for hope somewhere.  Clearly struggling to find it.  Ha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

I want to be optimistic (god knows there's enough bad news in literally every other aspect of the world these days), but I'm still finding it hard to be.  Seems like there have been threads similar to this one (or AngelJunky's, or...etc.) every year for the past few years--yet the end results are still the same: mediocrity.  Whether it's "culture," bad talent assessment, poor financial resource management, something else altogether, or a combination of things, I honestly have no idea at this point.  I'm all for stats, data, deep analysis, etc. (data is a huge part of my career), but for whatever reason, it seems like we're always looking for some silver-lining, saying that FIP or baseruns, or whatever other metric someone wants to cite actually shows that the Angels should have been better.  But they aren't.  So there's a disconnect somewhere.

I fully realize I'm just rambling at this point.  Not having a great week and genuinely looking for hope somewhere.  Clearly struggling to find it.  Ha.

I agree that there have been tons of the 'it could be better soon' types of threads over the last 5 years but I haven't seen many 'it's better than you think' types.  This is the first time where our performance doesn't match our record for a while.  Right now, without doing anything, we should be better next year. 

My point is that we haven't had a real semblance that what they've been trying to do was actually working until now.    

And I said this earlier but it's also important that there isn't a 100 win team in our division.  93 wins could take the west next year.  That hasn't happened for awhile.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

I want to be optimistic (god knows there's enough bad news in literally every other aspect of the world these days), but I'm still finding it hard to be.  Seems like there have been threads similar to this one (or AngelJunky's, or...etc.) every year for the past few years--yet the end results are still the same: mediocrity.  Whether it's "culture," bad talent assessment, poor financial resource management, something else altogether, or a combination of things, I honestly have no idea at this point.  I'm all for stats, data, deep analysis, etc. (data is a huge part of my career), but for whatever reason, it seems like we're always looking for some silver-lining, saying that FIP or baseruns, or whatever other metric someone wants to cite actually shows that the Angels should have been better.  But they aren't.  So there's a disconnect somewhere.

I fully realize I'm just rambling at this point.  Not having a great week and genuinely looking for hope somewhere.  Clearly struggling to find it.  Ha.

I get what you're saying but if there is only one difference between this year and any year in the last five-seven years it's this..

Name
Age
G
GS
IP
K%
BB%
HR/9
BABIP
LOB%
GB%
HR/FB
ERA
FIP
xFIP
WAR
Dylan Bundy 27 11 11 65.2 27.0% 6.4% 0.69 .272 69.2% 40.6% 8.2% 3.29 2.93 3.73 2.0
Andrew Heaney 29 11 11 62.2 26.1% 6.6% 0.86 .297 67.1% 40.6% 9.5% 4.02 3.19 3.88 1.7
Mike Mayers 28 27 0 28.2 36.6% 6.3% 0.31 .226 69.4% 33.9% 3.4% 1.57 1.61 3.10 1.2
Griffin Canning 24 11 11 56.1 23.5% 9.7% 1.28 .307 73.4% 36.3% 11.8% 3.99 4.31 4.79 0.8
Jaime Barria 23 6 4 30.1 22.0% 7.3% 0.59 .262 73.7% 35.3% 5.1% 3.26 3.24 4.86 0.7

Thats four SPs all pitching well, and none of them are looking at surgery or recovering from surgery

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 1:45 PM, Dochalo said:

I think the most overlooked part of this is the rest of the division.  Houston won 100 games three years in a row.  That's insane.  Oakland is good team, but they're not 100 wins three years in a row good.  

Houston has definitely come back to earth. You can say it's missing Cole and Missing Verlander, as their pitching staff has given up 1/2 run more per game (vs. 2019) and without those two in the rotation, but they've also hit much worse, in 2020, they've scored 4.6 runs per game, as opposed to 5.67 in 2019, 4.92 in 2018, and 5.53 in 2017.

I wonder what the difference is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Houston has definitely come back to earth. You can say it's missing Cole and Missing Verlander, as their pitching staff has given up 1/2 run more per game (vs. 2019) and without those two in the rotation, but they've also hit much worse, in 2020, they've scored 4.6 runs per game, as opposed to 5.67 in 2019, 4.92 in 2018, and 5.53 in 2017.

I wonder what the difference is.

 

hmmm GIF

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hubs said:

Houston has definitely come back to earth. You can say it's missing Cole and Missing Verlander, as their pitching staff has given up 1/2 run more per game (vs. 2019) and without those two in the rotation, but they've also hit much worse, in 2020, they've scored 4.6 runs per game, as opposed to 5.67 in 2019, 4.92 in 2018, and 5.53 in 2017.

I wonder what the difference is.

 

is it the marine layer? I'll bet it's the marine layer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 2:36 PM, Dochalo said:

hmmm GIF

I hope you know I was being sarcastic.

Brantley, who was a successful hitter in another organization and Kyle Tucker, a rookie?, have been the main cogs behind their offense this season. Bregman has been hurt but the rest of their 2017 and 2018 team who still remain are all down. So it's obviously the cheating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hubs said:

I hope you know I was being sarcastic.

Brantley, who was a successful hitter in another organization and Kyle Tucker, a rookie?, have been the main cogs behind their offense this season. Bregman has been hurt but the rest of their 2017 and 2018 team who still remain are all down. So it's obviously the cheating.

of course.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...