Angels sign Jose Quintana (1 year, $8 million)

[Warfarin]

2 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

I'm basing it on Quintana hasn't been good since 2017

He had an fWAR of 3.4 in 2019.  

Notably - the Angels have not had a single SP post an fWAR higher than this since 2016, when Matt Schoemaker had one of 3.5.

Quintana has been good.

[AngelsLakersFan]

11 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

He had an fWAR of 3.4 in 2019.  

Notably - the Angels have not had a single SP post an fWAR higher than this since 2016, when Matt Schoemaker had one of 3.5.

Quintana has been good.

Erstad Grit couldn't even read the comment he was replying to correctly (it was not even about Quintana), so no surprise that the take is bad too.

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

There is a similarity.   Nibs also gave up a lower than average number of XBHs and creates lots of hitters counts.

Except it's as similar as the comparisons to Teheran. 

Wilson ran a career BB/9 of 3.8, a career K/W of 2.09.  Six of his eleven seasons it was below 2.0 which is pretty awful.  Quintana's career BB/9 is at 2.6 and his K/W at 3.07.  As far as upside goes.... They both carry career 7.9 K/9 rates but Quintana has averaged 8.8 over his last 5 seasons while Wilson sat at 7.8 over the last five of his career.

Jered Weaver BTW had a career BB/9 of 2.4 and a K/9 of 7.1 with a career K/W of 2.94.  I mention it not because I think they are remotely similar but rather because it seems Angel fans struggle with perception.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I missed the game, only caught part on the radio. When i turned it off, it was 1-0, but the Angels sounded like they got screwed on an umpire call on a double play? Did Quintana lose it after that?

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

By the way, in still standing by my original bold prediction, that Cobb will be the Angels third best starter and Quintana, their fifth or sixth. 

Wasn't your opinion that all the SP additions were subpar number fours at best?  You had revised your opinion of Canning to being not better than a number 4 I think it was so really all you're saying is that you believed Cobb was the tallest of the pygmies. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I missed the game, only caught part on the radio. When i turned it off, it was 1-0, but the Angels sounded like they got screwed on an umpire call on a double play? Did Quintana lose it after that?

I think part of it was the 10 minute delay getting the call 'right.'

[Inside Pitch]

3 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I missed the game, only caught part on the radio. When i turned it off, it was 1-0, but the Angels sounded like they got screwed on an umpire call on a double play? Did Quintana lose it after that?

You see what happened to the Titanic after the iceberg...  Kinda like that.

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

You see what happened to the Titanic after the iceberg...  Kinda like that.

The umps were billy zane

Horrible, horrible actor

[Second Base]

21 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Wasn't your opinion that all the SP additions were subpar number fours at best?  You had revised your opinion of Canning to being not better than a number 4 I think it was so really all you're saying is that you believed Cobb was the tallest of the pygmies. 

Subpar in comparison to the Padres, who grabbed the exact three starters I was hoping the Angels would. Neither Cobb, nor Quintana will be as good as Darvish, Snell or Musgrove. 

So that hasn't changed at all.

And neither has my view of Canning, who I believed would be the Angels 4th best starter, despite his inconsistencies.

After my initial unfavorable reaction to the Cobb trade (which mainly my disappointment in not getting a TOR starter, AND giving up Jam Jones) I acknowledged the likelihood in my mind that he would bounce back away from Baltimore and post 160+ innings with an ERA under 4.00. 

Quintana and Heaney are going to be fighting off replacement by Detmers later in the season. 

So no change. 

[Lou]

8 hours ago, Second Base said:

Neither Cobb, nor Quintana will be as good as Darvish, Snell or Musgrove

[Lou]

9 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

The umps were billy zane

Horrible, horrible actor

What? You obviously missed him in Back To The Future. He was a tour-de-force.

[Erstad Grit]

10 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Erstad Grit couldn't even read the comment he was replying to correctly (it was not even about Quintana), so no surprise that the take is bad too.

Settle down there. Are you just bitter you were wrong about Teheran? I'm pretty tired of the cycle here.

Angels sign a player

Some here complain that it's a bad move

The "smart" posters arrogantly tell us how little we know about baseball and how this move is great.  

Player sucks, smart posters shrug

Repeat 

[Inside Pitch]

10 hours ago, Second Base said:

Subpar in comparison to the Padres, who grabbed the exact three starters I was hoping the Angels would. Neither Cobb, nor Quintana will be as good as Darvish, Snell or Musgrove. 

So that hasn't changed at all.

And neither has my view of Canning, who I believed would be the Angels 4th best starter, despite his inconsistencies.

After my initial unfavorable reaction to the Cobb trade (which mainly my disappointment in not getting a TOR starter, AND giving up Jam Jones) I acknowledged the likelihood in my mind that he would bounce back away from Baltimore and post 160+ innings with an ERA under 4.00. 

Quintana and Heaney are going to be fighting off replacement by Detmers later in the season. 

So no change. 

But there is no context to that statement other than you expect the starters to be ranked in a particular order of effectiveness.   If someone were to be a team's fourth best pitcher but ranks in the top 30 overall he's hardly a number four.

Like I said, you're not really saying Cobb will be good or bad, just calling him the tallest pygmy.

[Inside Pitch]

10 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

Settle down there. Are you just bitter you were wrong about Teheran? I'm pretty tired of the cycle here.

Angels sign a player

Some here complain that it's a bad move

The "smart" posters arrogantly tell us how little we know about baseball and how this move is great.  

Player sucks, smart posters shrug

Repeat 

LOL.... 

I get it, there are some of you that are analytically challenged and as a result mock anyone that looks at more than ERA or name brands when looking at players...  But, in my case, I was right about Teheran's issues, right about Harvey, right about Allen, and right about MadBum.  And you know why?  Because I used the same exactly methodology I'm applying to Quintana to those guys.  Hell, even the guy I was wrong about, I was right about what he needed to do in order to have success -- Bundy proved me wrong and changed who he was as a pitcher, something I doubted because guys who historically threw heat have always struggled to make that change.  But again, same methodology was used to suggest he could succeed if he changed who he was because....guess what -- data tends to be free of prejudice..

Quintana may end up being a bad buy, but he's nowhere near the same sort of signing that Teheran, or Harvey were.   Right now those advance stats are telling a very different story than his ERA is.

[Second Base]

26 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

But there is no context to that statement other than you expect the starters to be ranked in a particular order of effectiveness.   If someone were to be a team's fourth best pitcher but ranks in the top 30 overall he's hardly a number four.

Like I said, you're not really saying Cobb will be good or bad, just calling him the tallest pygmy.

Specifics are always more inaccurate, which is why I've purposely avoided them. But here's what I believe will go down.

1. Bundy - 180 IP 3.25 ERA.

2. Ohtani - 120 IP 3.25 ERA

3. Cobb - 170 IP 3.75 ERA

4. Canning - 140 IP 4.00 ERA

5. Heaney - 160 IP 4.25 ERA

6. Quintana - 90 IP 4.75 ERA

7. Detmers - 60 IP 3.75 ERA

They'll keep Rodriguez in the bullpen this year, and will transition him to the rotation in 2022. Barria will mostly be riding that shuttle between Salt Lake and Anaheim, but will put together an impressive enough second half that he'll enter 2022 in a battle for a rotation spot. Detmers will actually replace Quintana after the all-star break and will be extraordinarily boring, and consistent, which they need, and he too will enter 2022 with a rotation spot. 

 

[Erstad Grit]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

LOL.... 

I get it, there are some of you that are analytically challenged and as a result mock anyone that looks at more than ERA or name brands when looking at players...  But, in my case, I was right about Teheran's issues, right about Harvey, right about Allen, and right about MadBum.  And you know why?  Because I used the same exactly methodology I'm applying to Quintana to those guys.  Hell, even the guy I was wrong about, I was right about what he needed to do in order to have success -- Bundy proved me wrong and changed who he was as a pitcher, something guys who historically threw heat have always struggled to do.  But again, same methodology was used to suggest he could succeed if he changed who he was because guess what -- data tends to be free of prejudice..

Quintana may end up being a bad buy, but he's nowhere near the same sort of signing that Teheran, or Harvey were.   Right now those advance stats are telling a very different story than his ERA is.

I'm not anti analytics.  I'm just over fans pointing to specific statistics to essentially make a definitive statement about as player.

I'd wager in real life you're a rad person. Here the vibe I read from you is constantly "I'm right,  if you disagree with me you're a moron "

As an angel fan I hope you're right about Quintana.  I'll gladly admit I was wrong.  I was terribly wrong about Cozart.  Until then I'll maintain Quintana is below league average and once the sample size gets larger I hope one of us can admit the other was right.  

 

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

Specifics are always more inaccurate, which is why I've purposely avoided them. But here's what I believe will go down.

1. Bundy - 180 IP 3.25 ERA.

2. Ohtani - 120 IP 3.25 ERA

3. Cobb - 170 IP 3.75 ERA

4. Canning - 140 IP 4.00 ERA

5. Heaney - 160 IP 4.25 ERA

6. Quintana - 90 IP 4.75 ERA

7. Detmers - 60 IP 3.75 ERA

They'll keep Rodriguez in the bullpen this year, and will transition him to the rotation in 2022. Barria will mostly be riding that shuttle between Salt Lake and Anaheim, but will put together an impressive enough second half that he'll enter 2022 in a battle for a rotation spot. Detmers will actually replace Quintana after the all-star break and will be extraordinarily boring, and consistent, which they need, and he too will enter 2022 with a rotation spot. 

 

Thanks..

I wasn't looking for specifics so much as context -- saying you expect a pitcher to be the team's number 4 doesn't really say anything in particular is what I meant.

Looking at this, you're actually more optimistic about the rotation than I am and all I can say is that if the others come close to the numbers you are listing her it won't really matter if Quintana shits the bed.

Myself -- my opinion of him now is the same as when we signed him...  I'm hopeful of a 100-105 ERA+ and 160 innings.  To me that would be a successful return.   He's keeping the ball in the park, inducing ground balls and missing more bats than I would have predicted.  If he keeps those things going it will turn around.   No idea what to make of the wobbly control though.

Thanks again.

[Inside Pitch]

5 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

I'm not anti analytics.  I'm just over fans pointing to specific statistics to essentially make a definitive statement about as player.

Oh?  Care to explain yourself then?  Because.....  Is this is you?

On 1/19/2021 at 11:30 PM, Erstad Grit said:

2019 Teheran 3.81 era, 1.32 whip

2019 Quintana 4.68 era, 1.38 whip 

2018 Teheran was better too

 

On 1/19/2021 at 11:35 PM, Erstad Grit said:

2018-2019 Teharan was better. 2020 isn't even worth discussing. 

So, who here is guilty of taking a statistic and making a definitive statement about a player?    Feel free to look up my posts in this thread -- you'll not find anything remotely as arrogant as this doozy right here.   Then venture over to dictionary.com and look up "hypocrite."
 

5 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

I'd wager in real life you're a rad person. Here the vibe I read from you is constantly "I'm right,  if you disagree with me you're a moron "

Then you've been reading me wrong because I actually tend to be very pointed when I call a person a moron, it's rarely ever over a difference of opinion or someone disagreeing with me.   That said I'd be feeling pretty moronic if I had been caught talking out both sides of my mouth as you have here.

5 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

As an angel fan I hope you're right about Quintana.  I'll gladly admit I was wrong.  I was terribly wrong about Cozart.  Until then I'll maintain Quintana is below league average and once the sample size gets larger I hope one of us can admit the other was right.  

LOL....  Dude, you can't even keep track of what you've said about the guy.  In this very thread you called him "a solid 3-4 innings eater."  Now you're claiming that you will "maintain he's below league average starter."  Don't look now but a "league average starter" who could be counted on to give the teams innings is EXACTLY what I said I hoping for.   

Again you're guilty of speaking out both sides of your mouth or using hindsight (5 innings), to claim "victory".   In your haste to pop off and mock others who YOU think fancy themselves as "smart", you made the idiotic mistake of forgetting what people have said... including yourself.   

You opinion wasn't much different than mine --  what we disagreed on was who had actually performed better (Teheran and Quintana), and what stats we were using to back our opinions on.  Now.. find me ONE person with even a remedial understanding of basic analytics that will agree with using WHIP or ERA in a previous season to predict future results or for gauging a pitcher's actual abilities and I'll admit to something..  

[Inside Pitch]

On 1/20/2021 at 12:08 AM, Inside Pitch said:

The people who were talking up Teheran were making the same mistake you are now -- they were looking at his ERA and not the predictive data.   

The two guys are nothing alike, Quintana's chances for future success aren't built on him completely remaking who he is as a pitcher.  Teheran had potential implosion written all over him, the red flags were numerous.

All that being said..  Quintana is not a front line guy, he's the second pitcher you add after you add an an actual difference maker.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 12:40 AM, Inside Pitch said:

You also compared Quintana to Teheran and you posted their ERAs to argue that Teheran had been better..    

We have no way of knowing how this will play out but the two pitchers are about as different as night and day.  There are no concerns about diminishing velocity.  The predictive data isn't predicting impending doom.  There is nothing in Quintana's history that makes one expect him to completely implode.

The ONLY thing Teheran had going for him was innings and an ERA that was masking his decline.   

Quintana is the exact opposite.
 

Sooooo many definitive statements by me using a stat eh?

On 1/20/2021 at 1:30 AM, Inside Pitch said:

It would suck.   

Of all the one year SP contracts the Angels have signed in recent years, Quintana to me looks like the least volatile.  I just want him to actually be what he's been and not find a time machine to when he was 25, or a FB that's deserted him, or a pitch that he actually has success with.

I'd consider 170 innings of 100-105 ERA+ baseball to be quite the success at this point.

Here I am -- and below me is you about 12 hours later agreeing with me.... TWICE..   lol...

On 1/20/2021 at 11:41 AM, Erstad Grit said:

2014-2017 Quintana was very good. Since then he's been downtrending and recently injury problems. 

For me, if healthy, is a solid 3-4 type innings eater, yet IMO that's not what we need unless it is in addition to acquiring a top starter.

I said the exact same sentiment when we signed Teheran. I stated if we paired him with Ryu I liked it......but a top of the rotation starter never came.

 

But yeah...   something something admitting stuff...

[tdawg87]

[Lou]

It's not that IP thinks he's smarter than everyone, it just turns out that way.

[Warfarin]

7 hours ago, Second Base said:

Specifics are always more inaccurate, which is why I've purposely avoided them. But here's what I believe will go down.

1. Bundy - 180 IP 3.25 ERA.

2. Ohtani - 120 IP 3.25 ERA

3. Cobb - 170 IP 3.75 ERA

4. Canning - 140 IP 4.00 ERA

5. Heaney - 160 IP 4.25 ERA

6. Quintana - 90 IP 4.75 ERA

7. Detmers - 60 IP 3.75 ERA

They'll keep Rodriguez in the bullpen this year, and will transition him to the rotation in 2022. Barria will mostly be riding that shuttle between Salt Lake and Anaheim, but will put together an impressive enough second half that he'll enter 2022 in a battle for a rotation spot. Detmers will actually replace Quintana after the all-star break and will be extraordinarily boring, and consistent, which they need, and he too will enter 2022 with a rotation spot. 

 

This is my hope.

I think we could actually have the foundation for a very solid rotation "core" moving forward.

If we re-sign one of Bundy or Heaney (I am hoping for the former, but we'll see what Minasian decides), then sometime in 2022, we should hopefully see:  Bundy, Ohtani, CRod, Detmers, one of Barria/Sandoval/Suarez.  I would imagine we'd probably try to find another Quintana-like option in free agency (i.e. a one year deal) too to probably ensure we have enough depth, as I'm guessing there's a decent chance they'll hold back one of Detmers/CRod, at least in the beginning, to ensure they can pitch most of the season.  And well, as we've seen before, it's better to bet on having too much depth than too little.

Still, that should be a very strong top 4, and pair that with Minasian's ability to cobble together a bullpen and with the strength of our offense (assuming Marsh takes over in RF for 2022), this team should be a legit WS contender.

[WicketMaiden]

16 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

This is my hope.

I think we could actually have the foundation for a very solid rotation "core" moving forward.

If we re-sign one of Bundy or Heaney (I am hoping for the former, but we'll see what Minasian decides), then sometime in 2022, we should hopefully see:  Bundy, Ohtani, CRod, Detmers, one of Barria/Sandoval/Suarez.  I would imagine we'd probably try to find another Quintana-like option in free agency (i.e. a one year deal) too to probably ensure we have enough depth, as I'm guessing there's a decent chance they'll hold back one of Detmers/CRod, at least in the beginning, to ensure they can pitch most of the season.  And well, as we've seen before, it's better to bet on having too much depth than too little.

Still, that should be a very strong top 4, and pair that with Minasian's ability to cobble together a bullpen and with the strength of our offense (assuming Marsh takes over in RF for 2022), this team should be a legit WS contender.

Do you really want to re-sign Heaney? Sure he has the occasional lights-out game, but he also shits the bed on a regular basis (or so it seems, I haven't stat-checked that, just using the eye test/memory). Bundy appears to be a couple of tiers above Heaney's level, so if we signed Heaney and not Bundy I would be pretty disappointed personally. Do you see something I don't Warf? Just curious, thanks.

[Warfarin]

1 hour ago, WicketMaiden said:

Do you really want to re-sign Heaney? Sure he has the occasional lights-out game, but he also shits the bed on a regular basis (or so it seems, I haven't stat-checked that, just using the eye test/memory). Bundy appears to be a couple of tiers above Heaney's level, so if we signed Heaney and not Bundy I would be pretty disappointed personally. Do you see something I don't Warf? Just curious, thanks.

Bundy is my preference.  Heaney is very inconsistent, but I'll add that our new FO and analytics team may potentially get more out of him than we previously did.  His stuff is very good, but it's just the consistency (and what goes on in his head) that has been problematic.  Maybe they'll be able to better harness his stuff and he'll have a solid season, I don't know.  Perhaps all the "game planning" that has been highly touted recently will lead to a better game plan for Heaney, which in turn will lead to superior results.  It's too early to really decide anything, so we'll just have to wait and see how the season goes and how both pitchers fare over the course of this year.  

[Angels in 2030]

11 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

LOL.... 

I get it, there are some of you that are analytically challenged and as a result mock anyone that looks at more than ERA or name brands when looking at players...  But, in my case, I was right about Teheran's issues, right about Harvey, right about Allen, and right about MadBum.  And you know why?  Because I used the same exactly methodology I'm applying to Quintana to those guys.  Hell, even the guy I was wrong about, I was right about what he needed to do in order to have success -- Bundy proved me wrong and changed who he was as a pitcher, something I doubted because guys who historically threw heat have always struggled to make that change.  But again, same methodology was used to suggest he could succeed if he changed who he was because....guess what -- data tends to be free of prejudice..

Quintana may end up being a bad buy, but he's nowhere near the same sort of signing that Teheran, or Harvey were.   Right now those advance stats are telling a very different story than his ERA is.

The problem is when people who use "analytics" think it's the end all and ALWAYS correct.  It is a great tool to help find something that's not obvious (immediate results).  Many times it's correct -- especially compared to simply a scout/evaluator.  But when it's used as the 100% always correct and the other guy is wrong argument -- that's when i have a problem.  You can tout the examples that support analytics proofs on guys.....but it's not 100%.  There are many, many analytic misses.  Just like the greatest talent evaluator/scout isn't 100% right all the time.  It drives me crazy when someone uses analytics to support their position and they arrogantly think that that automatically makes them correct every time.  No it does not.  For example, I am pretty sure you (IP) were a big proponent of Jason Heyward when he was a Cardinal FA back in the day and you were hoping/suggesting the Angels sign him.  How did that $184M contract turn out analytics wise?  I'm not crapping on analytics -- it's a fantastic tool (maybe the best non-scouting tool).  But it's not a perfect tool.  It's part of the overall evaluation tools that are available for scouting -- with great results but nowhere near infallible.