The Official 2021 Los Angeles Angels Minor League Stats, Reports & Scouting Thread

[totdprods]

16 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Longenhagen has developed a particular viewpoint of the Angels system where you sort of take the good in with them bad.

The good is that he's good at finding obscure talent many of us never heard of, and the small details he gathers from instructs really do make a big difference in painting his picture. He's good at that.

The bad is that he's one of the original Mariner-loving-Angel-Hating squad members from FG. He's become quite adept at portraying systems in a more objective manner, but occasionally his fanhood shines through, as it would on any other site. That and, this is splitting hairs, but there's always a collection of small but critical errors in his scouting reports. Heights are off, ages are off, velocity is inaccurate.

But overall, he produces a product that's superior to MLB.com, and more informational than many smaller team-centric sites. He's always too low on the teams he generally disagrees with in minor league philosophy (Angels, Cards, Braves, Brewers, Blue Jays) and way too high on the teams he either likes of has contacts with (Mariners, Astros, Yankees, etc) but that's just part of his brand. 

He's decent. Could be a lot worse. Just take what he says with a grain of salt, knowing the source, that's all. 

Yup, he’s the type guy who would’ve been crazy about Jared Walsh if he were in one of those systems but was just sort of like “he’s interesting” as an Angel. 

[Vlad27Trout27]

Davis will at least end in the BP by the end of the year if we're in the race and by next year could be making a shot at a starting rotation depending on his command/control.

[Angels in 2030]

42 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Longenhagen has developed a particular viewpoint of the Angels system where you sort of take the good in with them bad.

The good is that he's good at finding obscure talent many of us never heard of, and the small details he gathers from instructs really do make a big difference in painting his picture. He's good at that.

The bad is that he's one of the original Mariner-loving-Angel-Hating squad members from FG. He's become quite adept at portraying systems in a more objective manner, but occasionally his fanhood shines through, as it would on any other site. That and, this is splitting hairs, but there's always a collection of small but critical errors in his scouting reports. Heights are off, ages are off, velocity is inaccurate.

But overall, he produces a product that's superior to MLB.com, and more informational than many smaller team-centric sites. He's always too low on the teams he generally disagrees with in minor league philosophy (Angels, Cards, Braves, Brewers, Blue Jays) and way too high on the teams he either likes of has contacts with (Mariners, Astros, Yankees, etc) but that's just part of his brand. 

He's decent. Could be a lot worse. Just take what he says with a grain of salt, knowing the source, that's all. 

OK, that makes me feel a little better -- thanks (lol)

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Meant to ask who was the last Halos homegrown reliever to accomplished anything at the MLB level?

Long gone are the days of Bryan Harvey, Troy Percival, Brendan Donnelly, Scot Shields, and Francisco Rodriguez. I was looking at the bullpens of the Aughties and, damn, the Angels had a good one (how badly do we miss Shields now?).

I really like what I've seen from Suarez of late. Between him, Sandoval, Barria, and C-Rod, we may end up with two starters and two relievers -all home grown. And then you have a bunch of guys in the mid to low minors that could be good.

 

[John Smith]

14 hours ago, mmc said:

 

 

 

 

 

MiLB-Transactions

@tombaseball29

·

2m

 

#Dodgers have signed RHP Jake Reed to a minor league contract.

[Lou]

I see the dodgers are still picking up our scraps.

[Taylor]

4 hours ago, Fourts said:

We've heard this before, so not a surprised.  Still, it's stuff like this that continues to make me question my fandom for this franchise/organization.

 

Per FG article:

"If you think the system is thin, wait until you see the scouting department. The Angels furloughed area scouts during the pandemic and didn’t bring many of them back, forcing their remaining personnel (mostly crosscheckers and above) to scout in unfamiliar parts of the country ahead of the 2021 draft. I don’t know whether this will impact their draft strategy since it’s likely they’ve done a lot of video work and have been forced to lean more heavily on data to make decisions this year."

Yeah, there was a report a few months ago that the Angels have eight total scouts, while the Dodgers have 88.

[tdawg87]

20 minutes ago, John Smith said:

 

 

 

 

MiLB-Transactions

@tombaseball29

·

2m

 

#Dodgers have signed RHP Jake Reed to a minor league contract.

Ah shit.

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

Long gone are the days of Bryan Harvey, Troy Percival, Brendan Donnelly, Scot Shields, and Francisco Rodriguez. I was looking at the bullpens of the Aughties and, damn, the Angels had a good one (how badly do we miss Shields now?).

I really like what I've seen from Suarez of late. Between him, Sandoval, Barria, and C-Rod, we may end up with two starters and two relievers -all home grown. And then you have a bunch of guys in the mid to low minors that could be good.

 

If Barria see a major pitching mound again.

[tdawg87]

34 minutes ago, stormngt said:

If Barria see a major pitching mound again.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're related to the guy.

[stormngt]

5 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

I'm beginning to wonder if you're related to the guy.

Nope:  but the post I was commenting on commented mentioned Barria as a future starter or reliever.   Since he has only pitched in the mlb 6 innings this year and none as a starter I felt my comment was appropriate. 

Barria career  ERA 4.60

As a starter:  4.06

Heaney 4.47

Canning 4.69

Bundy. 4.68

I think the bitching is warranted.  If the pitchers ahead of him were to outperform his averages or if we were winning I wouldn't bitch

Edited June 5, 2021 by stormngt

[tdawg87]

I'm fine with you having an opinion. That's your right. And I don't think you are bitching.

But you are basing your opinion on a guy's career raw ERA to suggest he's a better option for the rotation.

I think, if Barria truly were a better option, that he would be getting regular starts. Not saying the Angels' scouting and management are infallible and always correct. In fact I'd argue they suck at their jobs. But, they aren't going to use raw, random ERA to judge whether a pitcher is on the team or not. There are factors that go into these decisions that we as fans can't possibly know. 

Are they right? I don't know. Probably not. But if they were pulling up a guy's stats on ESPN to judge whether he gets starts or not, I'd laugh for 10 straight minutes then revoke my status as a fan of this team. 

Things like spin rate, ground ball/fly ball rate, velocity consistency, etc... Those are all things that management looks at. 

He could also be an asshole in the clubhouse. We just don't know.

The Angels have a reason for Barria not getting starts. It's not like you're seeing something they don't. They know what his overall performance has been. It's what they think he'll do going forward that's important.

 

[stormngt]

57 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I'm fine with you having an opinion. That's your right. And I don't think you are bitching.

But you are basing your opinion on a guy's career raw ERA to suggest he's a better option for the rotation.

I think, if Barria truly were a better option, that he would be getting regular starts. Not saying the Angels' scouting and management are infallible and always correct. In fact I'd argue they suck at their jobs. But, they aren't going to use raw, random ERA to judge whether a pitcher is on the team or not. There are factors that go into these decisions that we as fans can't possibly know. 

Are they right? I don't know. Probably not. But if they were pulling up a guy's stats on ESPN to judge whether he gets starts or not, I'd laugh for 10 straight minutes then revoke my status as a fan of this team. 

Things like spin rate, ground ball/fly ball rate, velocity consistency, etc... Those are all things that management looks at. 

He could also be an asshole in the clubhouse. We just don't know.

The Angels have a reason for Barria not getting starts. It's not like you're seeing something they don't. They know what his overall performance has been. It's what they think he'll do going forward that's important.

 

You are right.  There are probably SCOTUS who do not believe Barria stuff is nothing more than mediocre and he has a low ceiling.  Canning, Heaney and definitely Bu dy had better talent.   If they were pitching well or even if we were winning I wouldn't  bitch as much.

However we are losing and the starters are not pitching well.  Meanwhile a guy who has pitched well in 44 starts 212 innings is not rotting in AAA.

The role for a pitcher is run prevention.  Heaney, Canning and Bundy are more talented but not translating the talent in success.  Maybe we should go with a guy with less talent but has been more consistent with his success.

 

BTW ERA is the only measurement I understand.  What other measurement should I use).

[tdawg87]

14 minutes ago, stormngt said:

You are right.  There are probably SCOTUS who do not believe Barria stuff is nothing more than mediocre and he has a low ceiling.  Canning, Heaney and definitely Bu dy had better talent.   If they were pitching well or even if we were winning I wouldn't  bitch as much.

However we are losing and the starters are not pitching well.  Meanwhile a guy who has pitched well in 44 starts 212 innings is not rotting in AAA.

The role for a pitcher is run prevention.  Heaney, Canning and Bundy are more talented but not translating the talent in success.  Maybe we should go with a guy with less talent but has been more consistent with his success.

 

BTW ERA is the only measurement I understand.  What other measurement should I use).

ERA+ is a good start for people who don't really follow stats (this is the norm btw, some of us are just nerds here). It includes park factors so it can give you an idea of how they performed overall in pitching/hitting environments.

For example, a 100 ERA+ is about average. So a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA may look pretty damn good, but their ERA+ might be 100 or 99 or something because they pitched in mostly pitchers environments. On the flip side, a guy on the Rockies with the same ERA is likely going to have a better ERA+ because they pitch at Coors most of the time.

The higher the ERA+, the better. Lower? Not so good. 

[stormngt]

20 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

ERA+ is a good start for people who don't really follow stats (this is the norm btw, some of us are just nerds here). It includes park factors so it can give you an idea of how they performed overall in pitching/hitting environments.

For example, a 100 ERA+ is about average. So a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA may look pretty damn good, but their ERA+ might be 100 or 99 or something because they pitched in mostly pitchers environments. On the flip side, a guy on the Rockies with the same ERA is likely going to have a better ERA+ because they pitch at Coors most of the time.

The higher the ERA+, the better. Lower? Not so good. 

How is ERA+ different than ERA when comparing Barria, Canning, and Heaney.  They all have hsd their major league careers with the same team.

I can understand a difference with Bundy. 

[stormngt]

24 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

ERA+ is a good start for people who don't really follow stats (this is the norm btw, some of us are just nerds here). It includes park factors so it can give you an idea of how they performed overall in pitching/hitting environments.

For example, a 100 ERA+ is about average. So a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA may look pretty damn good, but their ERA+ might be 100 or 99 or something because they pitched in mostly pitchers environments. On the flip side, a guy on the Rockies with the same ERA is likely going to have a better ERA+ because they pitch at Coors most of the time.

The higher the ERA+, the better. Lower? Not so good. 

Where will find ERA+ as a starter?  I cant see it listed on baseball reference. 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

How is ERA+ different than ERA when comparing Barria, Canning, and Heaney.  They all have hsd their major league careers with the same team.

I can understand a difference with Bundy. 

They haven't all pitched in the same stadiums, the same number of times.

So one series, Heaney pitches in Seattle. Next series, Canning pitches in Texas. 

[jsnpritchett]

Adell, Stefanic, and Schebler have all homered in the top of the 1st tonight.  Salt Lake is already up 4-0 with only 1 out.

[jsnpritchett]

 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

Where will find ERA+ as a starter?  I cant see it listed on baseball reference. 

More Barria Pages > Pitching Splits (career) > Show pitching role

Doesn't appear to have ERA+ there.

[stormngt]

41 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

More Barria Pages > Pitching Splits (career) > Show pitching role

Doesn't appear to have ERA+ there.

That's where I was looking.  Didnt see it.  Only saw the era.

[stormngt]

49 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

They haven't all pitched in the same stadiums, the same number of times.

So one series, Heaney pitches in Seattle. Next series, Canning pitches in Texas. 

Gotcha 

[Docwaukee]

48 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

 

holy balls.  that was just an absolute bomb.  I can't even see where it lands.  

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Gotcha 

fangraphs has that as well.  sort by pitcher and then go to advanced.  

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=1&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31

[jsnpritchett]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

holy balls.  that was just an absolute bomb.  I can't even see where it lands.