The Official 2021 Los Angeles Angels Spring Training News & Notes Thread

[Warfarin]

6 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

It does need a third late innings guy.

Could be Buttrey.   Buttrey was a lockdown reliever but lost his way.  Perhaps the new FO/coaching staff can help guide him back into his previous form.

That said, as we saw last year - guys emerge out of nowhere.  I mean none of us had Mayers on the radar at all, and then he ended up being one of the most dominant relievers last year.

[Angels 1961]

2 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

Could be Buttrey.   Buttrey was a lockdown reliever but lost his way.  Perhaps the new FO/coaching staff can help guide him back into his previous form.

That said, as we saw last year - guys emerge out of nowhere.  I mean none of us had Mayers on the radar at all, and then he ended up being one of the most dominant relievers last year.

Mayers is a key for halos. I still think a trade may be coming. 

[BTH]

27 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

That said, as we saw last year - guys emerge out of nowhere.  I mean none of us had Mayers on the radar at all, and then he ended up being one of the most dominant relievers last year.

Mayers had very good raw stuff though. None of the guys the Angels brought in have the same kind of stuff as Mayers.

[Warfarin]

Just now, Trendon said:

Mayers had very good raw stuff though. None of the guys the Angels brought in have the same kind of stuff as Mayers.

Perhaps not, but it does feel like we have quite a few more options in terms of depth pieces, or at least guys who won't flame out horribly like we saw last year.

I really like the acquisition of Slegers.  I think he could be a very good reliever for us.

[Docwaukee]

On 3/11/2021 at 2:31 PM, Inside Pitch said:

Some interesting stuff in here..

 

surprised this hasn't gotten more discussion.  some of these proposed rules will change the entire dynamic of the game for a long time if they come through.  Shorter games, things that favor putting the ball in play, but most notable is the emphasis on bringing back the stolen base.  

At first I was little bit like wtf but after thinking about it, I really like some of these ideas actually.  Take some of the pace away from the pitchers and managers.  Plus more speed means more action.  More strategy.  More of an emphasis on athletes and not just guys who can launch a ball over a short wall.  Triples, stretch doubles, more base runners so more plays at bases which will make defense all that much more important as well.  

[Warfarin]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

surprised this hasn't gotten more discussion.  some of these proposed rules will change the entire dynamic of the game for a long time if they come through.  Shorter games, things that favor putting the ball in play, but most notable is the emphasis on bringing back the stolen base.  

At first I was little bit like wtf but after thinking about it, I really like some of these ideas actually.  Take some of the pace away from the pitchers and managers.  Plus more speed means more action.  More strategy.  More of an emphasis on athletes and not just guys who can launch a ball over a short wall.  Triples, stretch doubles, more base runners so more plays at bases which will make defense all that much more important as well.  

The combination of larger bases + pickoff rule, if both adopted, will likely lead to SBs becoming a more significant component of the game.  Right now, a lot of analytically-inclined FOs seem to shy away from SBs, or at least emphasize them to a lesser degree than previous generations.

The robo-strike zone, which is being tested in low-A, seems like an almost certainty in the near future, which means catcher framing will likely be de-emphasized as an important characteristic.

[Angel Oracle]

4 hours ago, Dochalo said:

surprised this hasn't gotten more discussion.  some of these proposed rules will change the entire dynamic of the game for a long time if they come through.  Shorter games, things that favor putting the ball in play, but most notable is the emphasis on bringing back the stolen base.  

At first I was little bit like wtf but after thinking about it, I really like some of these ideas actually.  Take some of the pace away from the pitchers and managers.  Plus more speed means more action.  More strategy.  More of an emphasis on athletes and not just guys who can launch a ball over a short wall.  Triples, stretch doubles, more base runners so more plays at bases which will make defense all that much more important as well.  

Which is encouraging about the Halos emphasis on athleticism.

[Inside Pitch]

5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

surprised this hasn't gotten more discussion.  some of these proposed rules will change the entire dynamic of the game for a long time if they come through.  Shorter games, things that favor putting the ball in play, but most notable is the emphasis on bringing back the stolen base.  

At first I was little bit like wtf but after thinking about it, I really like some of these ideas actually.  Take some of the pace away from the pitchers and managers.  Plus more speed means more action.  More strategy.  More of an emphasis on athletes and not just guys who can launch a ball over a short wall.  Triples, stretch doubles, more base runners so more plays at bases which will make defense all that much more important as well.  

This is 100% Theo trying to undo some of the stuff he brought to the game.  He was on point when he said the things he did as a GM helped them win but didn't help the game.  Dude just gets it.

[ScottT]

I like all of the minor league experiments except mandating where players can play. Not looking forward to challenges that an infielder had his heel on the outfield grass when a pitch was released.  Or... a second baseman backpedaling into right field when the pitch is released 

[Blarg]

7 minutes ago, ScottT said:

I like all of the minor league experiments except mandating where players can play. Not looking forward to challenges that an infielder had his heel on the outfield grass when a pitch was released.  Or... a second baseman backpedaling into right field when the pitch is released 

On one hand I'm against stupid shifts where the SS is playing second base and the second baseman short right field. The obvious solution is to have better players at the plate that know more about hitting than a game of over the line. The cult of launch angle has ruined hitting to all fields.

As a compromise the fielders can encroach upon the outfield with limited lateral movement so in the case of a left handed hitter the second baseman can move back into the outfield but the SS cannot range any further than the left side of the 2nd base bag. Draw a line from plate to center field and neither SS or 2nd baseman can cross that line until the ball is in play. In play could be pitch or contact. 

That is reasonable fielding restraints to limit the shift abuse but honestly better coaching and promotion of players that can control their at bats better than just pull hits would eliminate shifts in a Darwinian fashion. Adaptation is better than trying to control outcomes. 

[Stradling]

I’m in favor of either shift idea. Either all four on the dirt or two on one side of second and two on the other side.  Either way I think this gets us back to line drives to the outfield grass are hits again. 

[ScottT]

Something needs to change when it comes to balls in play.  

One idea floated a while back was tweaking the distance from the pitching rubber.  I'm intrigued by that.  You obviously can't do that overnight, though.  Lowering the mound is also an interesting one. 

I just hate the idea of such a drastic change.... and eliminating that strategic element of defensive positioning.  I wish more slap hitters would develop.  More guys would drop down bunts.  It just doesn't seem to be happening.  

[totdprods]

8 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Something needs to change when it comes to balls in play.  

One idea floated a while back was tweaking the distance from the pitching rubber.  I'm intrigued by that.  You obviously can't do that overnight, though.  Lowering the mound is also an interesting one. 

I just hate the idea of such a drastic change.... and eliminating that strategic element of defensive positioning.  I wish more slap hitters would develop.  More guys would drop down bunts.  It just doesn't seem to be happening.  

I imagine eventually this will happen organically, especially if it isn’t completely countered by new rules. Some team will master finding or developing this, it will give them a competitive advantage over everyone else, and others will try and follow. 

That’s not to say measures couldn’t be taken to improve this now, but I do think this will cycle out. Baseball has regularly gone through phases where the game changed for a ‘generation’ of ballplayers brought up with a certain skill set. 

[Docwaukee]

I'm totally fine with bunting going by the wayside.  Have always hated the idea of giving up outs on purpose.   

[arch stanton]

7 hours ago, totdprods said:

I imagine eventually this will happen organically, especially if it isn’t completely countered by new rules. Some team will master finding or developing this, it will give them a competitive advantage over everyone else, and others will try and follow. 

That’s not to say measures couldn’t be taken to improve this now, but I do think this will cycle out. Baseball has regularly gone through phases where the game changed for a ‘generation’ of ballplayers brought up with a certain skill set. 

I actually believe it will no longer happen organically because through technology, nutrition, and equipment, the players have evolved past the traditional ballpark dimensions. And since there's practically no chance they'll force teams to change old parks or get new ones with bigger dimensions they'll have to do it by deadening not only the balls but the bats. It might not hurt to do something to limit shifts but as long as every player in the league is capable of a 3 homer night at any time there's no way they're going to learn to slap hit or spray line drives.

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I'm totally fine with bunting going by the wayside.  Have always hated the idea of giving up outs on purpose.   

Agreed on sacrifice bunts, unless it’s a very low scoring game late into it, where one run is critical and decent at best speed is on 1st and the lower part of order is hitting.

Bunting for base hits is fine.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Angel Oracle

[Stradling]

3 hours ago, arch stanton said:

I actually believe it will no longer happen organically because through technology, nutrition, and equipment, the players have evolved past the traditional ballpark dimensions. And since there's practically no chance they'll force teams to change old parks or get new ones with bigger dimensions they'll have to do it by deadening not only the balls but the bats. It might not hurt to do something to limit shifts but as long as every player in the league is capable of a 3 homer night at any time there's no way they're going to learn to slap hit or spray line drives.

I love reading your logical takes on things. 

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Agreed on sacrifice bunts, unless it’s a very low scoring game late into it, where one run is critical and decent at best speed is on 1st and the lower part of order is hitting.

Bunting for base hits is fine.

There are still times where you can bunt it’s just not nearly as often as we thought growing up. 

[tdawg87]

I hate sac bunts so much.

There's no way of quantifying how many runs it has cost vs. how many it has led to, but since you're giving up an out I'm guessing it costs more runs.

Sometimes it makes sense. Tie game, winning run on 2nd with no outs. You're only playing for 1 run there so it's a good strategy to put the winning run 90 feet from the plate. 

In the 2nd inning of a 0-0 game? Fuck off with that garbage. That's one area where I don't give a shit about metrics. Just let the dude hit. 

[Stradling]

Tie game bottom of the 8th, or 9th inning, runners on first and second no outs, bunt.  Outside of that, pretty much don’t do it. I guess an exception could be made for that same scenario an inning earlier where it guarantees you’ll get Trout, Soto or Mookie up after they walk the guy to set up the double play. 

[eligrba]

Given the choice, I would prefer a sacrifice bunt than to have Albert fricken Pujols hit.

[jsnpritchett]

 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

 

Meh.

[Docwaukee]

4 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

I hate sac bunts so much.

There's no way of quantifying how many runs it has cost vs. how many it has led to, but since you're giving up an out I'm guessing it costs more runs.

Sometimes it makes sense. Tie game, winning run on 2nd with no outs. You're only playing for 1 run there so it's a good strategy to put the winning run 90 feet from the plate. 

In the 2nd inning of a 0-0 game? Fuck off with that garbage. That's one area where I don't give a shit about metrics. Just let the dude hit. 

there sort of is.  There are run probability charts based on the number of outs and runners on base.  But it doesn't take into account the actual player and their skill set so there is some nuance that's clearly not recognized.  

the scenario that Strad presented and others mildly similar can actually increase your chances of scoring one run as long as you think that one run matters.  Both pitchers are dealing and you're just trying to squeeze one out (gross) in a low or no scoring game.  Dominant closer on the mound and the game is tied or you're down by one run at home.  Obviously if you've got a pitcher hitting and runners on base when you're about to turn the lineup over.  Which is another reason to hate having pitchers hit.  

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

there sort of is.  There are run probability charts based on the number of outs and runners on base.  But it doesn't take into account the actual player and their skill set so there is some nuance that's clearly not recognized.  

the scenario that Strad presented and others mildly similar can actually increase your chances of scoring one run as long as you think that one run matters.  Both pitchers are dealing and you're just trying to squeeze one out (gross) in a low or no scoring game.  Dominant closer on the mound and the game is tied or you're down by one run at home.  Obviously if you've got a pitcher hitting and runners on base when you're about to turn the lineup over.  Which is another reason to hate having pitchers hit.  

Hmm, didn't know about that.

But yeah there's absolutely times when it's a great strategy, like the one Stradling presented. I just despise seeing it in the early innings.