More pitchers coming off the board, are you worried yet?

[eligrba]

4 minutes ago, Revad said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I remember when I had a basement 

Maybe that’s where the pitching was left?

[Slegnaac]

Twenty-three of the pilots who served in the all-female 588th Night Bomer Regiment of the Soviet Air Force, known as the Night Witches, were decorated as Heroines of the Soviet Union, the USSR's equivalent of the Medal of Honor.

[Angels in 2030]

1 hour ago, T.G. said:

I'm more concerned about what I'm going to have for dinner.

SpaghettiOs?

[Angels 1961]

3 hours ago, Lou said:

Which starters have signed?

Wood

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

Maybe they're a .500 team without making a move, if they're lucky. As you said, it does come down to results and the W-L record last season, which are the only results that count indicate a .500 record from this team is probably the ceiling, rather than a likelihood,

And the results of Quintana and Tanaka, are probably going to yield an 80-85 win team, in likelihood. The Angels would need some things to go right to make the playoffs with that rotation, most specifically a healthy Ohtani and a breakout from Canning. Quintana and Tanaka force the Angels into that gamble because they don't advance the rotation as much as they stabilize it. 

Stability is good. The Angels simply need more than that.

 Yah.  Last season.  There are many indicators that show the results wouldn't have been the same had they played the season again and again and again.  Their record was an outlier to what should have happened.  Not saying that's overly predictive, but neither is last year's record.  

I like metrics.  Things I can look out that help me make a more reasonable guess.  Which is what we're doing.  Guessing.  

So I'll be definitive just like you even though there's no real way to.  

This is a better than .500 team right now.  Getting lucky means they're a 90 win team.  Fangraphs currently has them at about 86 wins.  Doing nothing.   So to not be .500, they'd have to be unlucky.  They were unlucky last year.  

If two guys like Quintana and Tanaka gave expected results based on their track records, They'd win about 90 games.  A couple additional complimentary pieces and it's 92ish.  

 

[Revad]

8 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

 Yah.  Last season.  There are many indicators that show the results wouldn't have been the same had they played the season again and again and again.  Their record was an outlier to what should have happened.  Not saying that's overly predictive, but neither is last year's record.  

I like metrics.  Things I can look out that help me make a more reasonable guess.  Which is what we're doing.  Guessing.  

So I'll be definitive just like you even though there's no real way to.  

This is a better than .500 team right now.  Getting lucky means they're a 90 win team.  Fangraphs currently has them at about 86 wins.  Doing nothing.   So to not be .500, they'd have to be unlucky.  They were unlucky last year.  

If two guys like Quintana and Tanaka gave expected results based on their track records, They'd win about 90 games.  A couple additional complimentary pieces and it's 92ish.  

 

I agree

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

 Yah.  Last season.  There are many indicators that show the results wouldn't have been the same had they played the season again and again and again.  Their record was an outlier to what should have happened.  Not saying that's overly predictive, but neither is last year's record.  

I like metrics.  Things I can look out that help me make a more reasonable guess.  Which is what we're doing.  Guessing.  

So I'll be definitive just like you even though there's no real way to.  

This is a better than .500 team right now.  Getting lucky means they're a 90 win team.  Fangraphs currently has them at about 86 wins.  Doing nothing.   So to not be .500, they'd have to be unlucky.  They were unlucky last year.  

If two guys like Quintana and Tanaka gave expected results based on their track records, They'd win about 90 games.  A couple additional complimentary pieces and it's 92ish.  

 

This is how he’s been since he rejoined after his AW sabbatical 

[Revad]

Not trying to be rude but if we go into the season with Quintana and Tanaka  and that’s it, no catcher or anything, I just don’t what to say

[Stradling]

14 minutes ago, Revad said:

Not trying to be rude but if we go into the season with 

Quintana and Tanaka  and that’s it, no catcher or anything, I just don’t what to say

Well Stassi was VERY good last year.  

[BTH]

1 hour ago, Angels 1961 said:

Wood

he hadn't signed when you started the thread

[T.G.]

99 bottles of beer on the wall...

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Revad said:

Not trying to be rude but if we go into the season with 

Quintana and Tanaka  and that’s it, no catcher or anything, I just don’t what to say

say we'll win 90 games.  because we will.  

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

 Yah.  Last season.  There are many indicators that show the results wouldn't have been the same had they played the season again and again and again.  Their record was an outlier to what should have happened.  Not saying that's overly predictive, but neither is last year's record.  

I like metrics.  Things I can look out that help me make a more reasonable guess.  Which is what we're doing.  Guessing.  

So I'll be definitive just like you even though there's no real way to.  

This is a better than .500 team right now.  Getting lucky means they're a 90 win team.  Fangraphs currently has them at about 86 wins.  Doing nothing.   So to not be .500, they'd have to be unlucky.  They were unlucky last year.  

If two guys like Quintana and Tanaka gave expected results based on their track records, They'd win about 90 games.  A couple additional complimentary pieces and it's 92ish.  

 

Honest question, not trying to be snarky or anything, how often have the Angels performed where FG expected them to? I get the sense the Angels have consistently underperformed their expected win total from their metrics, but perhaps that's a misconception. 

At any rate, optimistic as I have been labeled here, I don't see the Angels as a playoff team (assuming we go back to simple WC1 and WC2) without significant additions. I don't think Walsh will keep up that tear he was on for a full year. In fact, I'd plan on him not being a major offensive factor, and right now, he's their #2 hitter. I also am not convinced we have much of an OF beyond Trout, who makes the OF amazing just by himself. But Ward, athletic as he is, hasn't found any consistent production in the majors yet. Not saying it won't come, just saying you can't count on it, and Upton isn't as bad as we thought, but he also probably won't be as good as he was when they signed him to that extension. 

It's a flawed, yet acceptable offense. 

And the pitching, I actually think from a depth standpoint, the rotation will be fine, just not from a quality standpoint. I buy Bundy's breakout, and I do think the Angels will get more from Ohtani. And if he's around, Barria would make a fine 6th starter.

I think they need someone up front before I'd consider the staff to be the quality that leads you to 90 wins. Preferably someone up front and someone in the middle. But if it's a couple #4 starters, like Quintana and Tanaka, I just don't think it moves the needle much at all. 

And the bullpen, I have no confidence in predicting one way or the other. It wouldn't surprise me if they were great or awful. I've given up trying to project relievers. Two years ago I thought Buttrey was going to be one of the better closers in the game. This time last year, Hansel Robles was elite. 

From a whole picture scenario, without any moves, I see a mediocre offense and a mediocre pitching staff, 80-ish wins. More mediocrity coming in as free agents won't change anything. I think they need some front end talent. 

As much as anything else, I think they need something that can't necessarily be calculated, which is a veteran leader behind the player to guide that pitching staff. I think Yadi Molina may be as impactful as any free agent the Angels may or may not sign. 

In order to get to 90 wins, I believe it would take something drastic, like Bauer, and Musgrove, with Musgrove beginning to make good on that potential and turning into a Zack Wheeler type of #2/3 starter, as well as bringing in someone like Yadi Molina at catcher. 

As it stands now, if they bring in Tanaka and Quintana, as well as some Castro-esque part time catcher, and a platoon RF, they're probably going to be an expensive 85 win team. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Second Base

[Revad]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Well Stassi was VERY good last year.  

Did he have a hip surgery or two. 

[angelsnationtalk]

30 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Honest question, not trying to be snarky or anything, how often have the Angels performed where FG expected them to? I get the sense the Angels have consistently underperformed their expected win total from their metrics, but perhaps that's a misconception. 

At any rate, optimistic as I have been labeled here, I don't see the Angels as a playoff team (assuming we go back to simple WC1 and WC2) without significant additions. I don't think Walsh will keep up that tear he was on for a full year. In fact, I'd plan on him not being a major offensive factor, and right now, he's their #2 hitter. I also am not convinced we have much of an OF beyond Trout, who makes the OF amazing just by himself. But Ward, athletic as he is, hasn't found any consistent production in the majors yet. Not saying it won't come, just saying you can't count on it, and Upton isn't as bad as we thought, but he also probably won't be as good as he was when they signed him to that extension. 

It's a flawed, yet acceptable offense. 

And the pitching, I actually think from a depth standpoint, the rotation will be fine, just not from a quality standpoint. I buy Bundy's breakout, and I do think the Angels will get more from Ohtani. And if he's around, Barria would make a fine 6th starter.

I think they need someone up front before I'd consider the staff to be the quality that leads you to 90 wins. Preferably someone up front and someone in the middle. But if it's a couple #4 starters, like Quintana and Tanaka, I just don't think it moves the needle much at all. 

And the bullpen, I have no confidence in predicting one way or the other. It wouldn't surprise me if they were great or awful. I've given up trying to project relievers. Two years ago I thought Buttrey was going to be one of the better closers in the game. This time last year, Hansel Robles was elite. 

From a whole picture scenario, without any moves, I see a mediocre offense and a mediocre pitching staff, 80-ish wins. More mediocrity coming in as free agents won't change anything. I think they need some front end talent. 

As much as anything else, I think they need something that can't necessarily be calculated, which is a veteran leader behind the player to guide that pitching staff. I think Yadi Molina may be as impactful as any free agent the Angels may or may not sign. 

In order to get to 90 wins, I believe it would take something drastic, like Bauer, and Musgrove, with Musgrove beginning to make good on that potential and turning into a Zack Wheeler type of #2/3 starter, as well as bringing in someone like Yadi Molina at catcher. 

As it stands now, if they bring in Tanaka and Quintana, as well as some Castro-esque part time catcher, and a platoon RF, they're probably going to be an expensive 85 win team. 

Well said. 
I would like to add that the offense I think will be a bit better than mediocre, but it's an almost spot-on assessment on everything else. 

In order for the staff to be sent over the edge with pitching talent then it will cost Bauer and one of Gray/Musgrove. Period. 

If the Angels pivot to a Realmuto and Musgrove netting then I think the Angels still might fall short. Sure, they'll score 5+ runs a game, but they'll still be giving up just as much.

Angels desperately need that front rotation arm. Like I've said all along, they need a to find a #1 and #2 guy. 

[Revad]

Dude you likely know better than me and I love Fangraghs but it’s an estimation bases on numbers.  It’s not pitching

[angelsnationtalk]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

 Yah.  Last season.  There are many indicators that show the results wouldn't have been the same had they played the season again and again and again.  Their record was an outlier to what should have happened.  Not saying that's overly predictive, but neither is last year's record.  

I like metrics.  Things I can look out that help me make a more reasonable guess.  Which is what we're doing.  Guessing.  

So I'll be definitive just like you even though there's no real way to.  

This is a better than .500 team right now.  Getting lucky means they're a 90 win team.  Fangraphs currently has them at about 86 wins.  Doing nothing.   So to not be .500, they'd have to be unlucky.  They were unlucky last year.  

If two guys like Quintana and Tanaka gave expected results based on their track records, They'd win about 90 games.  A couple additional complimentary pieces and it's 92ish.  

 

I get both sides, but I can't buy into what 2020 showed us with anyone at all. If we're saying guys like Heaney and Canning showed great improvements in 2020 then can we all say that Kris Bryant (.206avg), Francisco Lindor (.258avg) and Cody Bellinger (.239avg) are on a decline? 

I'd honestly give 2020 as a "pass" year on claiming anyone is on a decline or improving. Just to like what @Second Baseis saying.... There's going to be a lot of players going back to normal with the Angels from what 2020 showed. Walsh, Ward, etc. 

[Revad]

1 hour ago, T.G. said:

99 bottles of beer on the wall...

Where are we again?

10 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

I get both sides, but I can't buy into what 2020 showed us with anyone at all. If we're saying guys like Heaney and Canning showed great improvements in 2020 then can we all say that Kris Bryant (.206avg), Francisco Lindor (.258avg) and Cody Bellinger (.239avg) are on a decline? 

I'd honestly give 2020 as a "pass" year on claiming anyone is on a decline or improving. Just to like what @Second Baseis saying.... There's going to be a lot of players going back to normal with the Angels from what 2020 showed. Walsh, Ward, etc. 

[Lazorko Saves]

4 hours ago, Slegnaac said:

 known as the Night Witches

But do any of the witches pitch?  If so, which witches pitch?

Edited January 15, 2021 by Lazorko Saves

[Revad]

Witches are cute 

[Revad]

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, angelsnationtalk said:

I get both sides, but I can't buy into what 2020 showed us with anyone at all. If we're saying guys like Heaney and Canning showed great improvements in 2020 then can we all say that Kris Bryant (.206avg), Francisco Lindor (.258avg) and Cody Bellinger (.239avg) are on a decline? 

I'd honestly give 2020 as a "pass" year on claiming anyone is on a decline or improving. Just to like what @Second Baseis saying.... There's going to be a lot of players going back to normal with the Angels from what 2020 showed. Walsh, Ward, etc. 

who said that Heaney and Canning showed great improvements?  Individual ups and downs have little to do with what I'm talking about unless it's to prove my point.  That the metrics show we'd more likely be a couple games above .500 if you add 100 games to the season.  

 

[ukyah]

6 hours ago, Angels 1961 said:

Wood

[Stradling]

4 hours ago, Revad said:

Did he have a hip surgery or two. 

He had hip surgery last off season came back and played great.  So I’m not as concerned about catcher as most. 

[Angels 1961]

8 hours ago, Trendon said:

he hadn't signed when you started the thread

Just saying pitchers starters and relief pitchers coming off daily, does it make you worry mid January without our biggest need not addressed yet.