Team Contention Cycles - Comparing the Angels to other teams

[Angelsjunky]

One way to compare teams is to consider how frequently they're in a place to compete. Every team goes through cycles from good to bad; even the franchises that we might characterize as bad, have periods of time in which they are good. Remember when the Orioles made the post season in three of five years? It wasn't that long ago: 2012, '14, and '16. Or remember when the Rangers made the World Series two years in a row (losing both times)? That was just a decade ago, and they reached the postseason five times from 2010-16.

On the other hand, some teams seem to always be good - and sometimes almost always are. Everyone knows the Yankees are the premier franchise in baseball history: they've won as many World Series (27) as the next three franchises combined (Cardinals with 11, Red Sox with 9, and Dodgers with 7). But what have you done for me lately? Well, after a characteristically poor period in which they didn't reach the postseason from 1982-94, the Yankees have reached the playoffs (including wildcard) in 23 of the last 27 years (1995-2021), including five World Series titles. Even though they haven't won--or been to--a World Series since 2009, they've reached the postseason in 9 of the last 12 seasons. In fact, the Yankees haven't had a losing record in 30 years: since 1992.

Very few franchises have the resources of the Yankees: pretty much the Dodgers, and that's it. But there are other franchises with lower payrolls who still manage to shorten their "contention cycle" -- meaning, their down periods are relatively short. 

What about the Angels? One striking fact about the Angels' franchise history, which now stretches to 61 seasons, is that they are rarely terrible. In 61 seasons, not counting three shortened ones (1981, 1994, 2020), they have only won fewer than 70 games three times: in 1968, 1974, and 1980; meaning, not in 41 years. On the other hand, they have only won 90 games 11 times, six of those between 2002-09, and only reached the postseason 10 times.

As everyone knows, the Aughties were, by far, their best decade. For long-time fans, it was a dream actualized: not only did the Angels win their first World Series, but they seemed to have turned a corner as a franchise and entered, if not the inner circle of premier franchises, then in the next group. In fact, during that decade, only the Yankees and Red Sox won more World Series (two each), and only the Yankees and Cardinals reached the postseason more times. 

But then that fell apart - for reasons we won't go into again - and the franchise reverted to form in the 2010s. Or to put it graphically, here is a chart:

The chart represents wins above or below .500, or 81-81 in a full season, the thick grey line being .500. The darker reds are postseason appearances; I'm counting a WC berth as 1 win, Division Series (DS) 3 wins, League Championship Series (LCS) 5 wins, World Series loss (WL) as 10 wins, and World Series win (WS) as 20 wins.

I also added in the General Manager, to remind everyone who was at the helm during those years.

One thing this chart illustrates is that the Angels didn't as much collapse in 2010 as fell down a notch, with 2011-12 both being winning seasons, and then a return to the postseason in 2014. Meaning, 2010-13 could have been just the typical down period in the contention cycle for a good franchise; it fits in with the cycles of good franchises such as the Braves and Cardinals, like so:

Here you have two of the top half a dozen franchises or so, along with the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Giants; the Astros are probably there as well, at least if we focus on the last half a decade only.

As you can see, both teams had down periods, but they were for very short periods of time. The Braves had two four-year spans in which they didn't reach the postseason, while the Cardinals were a bit more mixed, and no period longer than three years.

Or we can look at the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Giants:

In the above six charts you can see the variations of a premier franchise. But the one common factor is that they all have ups and down and their down periods are relatively short. The Giants are particularly unusual because they won the World Series in three out of five years from 2010-14, despite not winning 95 games in any of those seasons.

The Dodgers were a reasonably successful franchise in the first two-thirds of the century, and then have been consistently dominant since 2013 (although only one WS championship to show for it).

The Red Sox are somewhat unusual in that they've had down periods between their different WS titles, including a 2013 championship bookended by two losing seasons. And of course the Yankees just never seem to be worse than kind of good, although you can see that their last decade was less successful than the previous one.

Now let's look at the AL West. We've already seen the Angels, but here are the other four teams:

(I apologize for the inconsistency of formatting - some of these charts still have the cells marked, and don't include postseason labels, but I think you get the picture).

The Astros are rather striking, because after a period of success in the first few years of the century, they fell into mediocrity and then a really bad spell for a few years, before becoming one of the most dominant teams of the last 5-7 years. 

It must be frustrating to be an Athletics fan, because while their contention cycle is more comparable to a premier franchise, they don't have a WS championship--at least in three decades--to show for it, and rarely go deep in the playoffs.

The Rangers are feast or famine, with a strong period between two long bad periods. The Mariners, on the other hand, have mostly been mediocre to bad, with their last good period almost two decades ago.

As you can see, the AL West has two successful franchises and three mediocre ones. And yes, the Angels count as a mediocre one. Not only do they have six losing seasons in a row, but they're tied with the Tigers for the third longest period without a playoff berth (2014), after the Phillies (2011) and Mariners (2001). Even lower tier franchises--most with lower payrolls than the Angels--like the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Padres, Pirates, Marlins, and Orioles have been to the postseason more recently.

So the big question is, how do the premier franchises do it? We all know that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox spend big, but so do the Mets and other teams at various points. And more so, we know that the Braves and Cardinals tend to have lower payrolls, and the Athletics are consistently in the bottom third of payroll.

In other words, the Angels really have no excuses. I mean, the Athletics can rightfully complain that they don't have the revenue to hold onto star players, but the Angels are not a small market team, and their payroll is usually in the top 10; there's really no reason that they can't be as successful as the Giants, Braves, or Cardinals, even without spending like the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox.

I think you'll find another commonality among the better franchises: they all dedicate resources to player scouting and development. While this is hardly a revolutionary idea, it seems odd that some teams still haven't been able to crack this egg, including the Angels. Hopefully the tide is turning, with former GM Billy Eppler--and perhaps current GM Perry Minasian--placing more emphasis on the farm system. But the proof is in the pudding, and so far there's no pudding. Yet.  

Just to be clear, I don't think farm development is the only factor in perennial success, just probably the biggest one, or the most obvious to single out. Other factors include major league player analysis (especially with regards to free agents), trades, and just pure luck (or lack thereof). A lot of the reason the Angels fell apart after 2014 is because their promising young rotation was hit by a rather uncanny string of injuries. But I also think it likely that a smarter franchise would have been able to better adjust for this, whether through having more options to fill from within due to a stronger farm system, or better free agent and trade acquisitions. But again, the key point with farm development is that it provides a resource from within.

It is like having a strong immune system; it won't necessarily stop you from getting sick, but it will likely both lessen the duration and potency of whatever illness you're exposed to. Or to apply the metaphor to a baseball franchise, if you have a good farm system, you have a source of talent to draw from, regardless of what hardships the major league team encounters, and thus you're less reliant upon trades and free agency.

[eligrba]

Awesome job @Angelsjunky

I need to contemplate this information and always appreciate all of your contributions.

[T.G.]

[Dtwncbad]

 

[Chuck]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

 

[Inside Pitch]

Now I want pudding.  

[Blarg]

I want the Angels to kick some ass for a full 6 months rather than 8 weeks spread out over the entire season.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Amazing piece, AJ. Good work.

[PattyD22]

Thanks for all the hard work on this @Angelsjunky.  Good read and lots of information to absorb.

[AngelsLakersFan]

The Angels don’t rebuild, they reload.

[UndertheHalo]

Appreciate the effort you put in here AJ.  About half way through my reading of your words the main thing I was thinking was “well the Angels are stupid at scouting” and then you more or less mentioned that.  There’s also the seemingly apparent fact that they’ve been slow to implement some of the more contemporary practices around analytics and the like.  So that’s the difference mostly it seems.  Or the most obvious one.  There’s also the anecdotal issue of “luck”.  I guess that’s not something that can really be quantified in a good way but I think most of us that have followed the team for a while would agree that shit luck feels like an endless thing for the Angels.  Some of you older guys who were following the team in the early nineties and the shit times in the 80’s.  Damn that’s gotta be some kind sports PTSD stuff.  Prayers up for AO who is obviously a damaged man.  
 

anyway.   Hopefully they suck less soon.  I don’t think there’s a cycle switch to look forward to that’s apparent.  Being able to consistently win at least 70 games doesn’t really do much for me.  Some real first loser shit that seems like.  It’s awesome to eternally have the 16th pick.  lol.  

Edited December 14, 2021 by UndertheHalo

[Angelsjunky]

49 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Appreciate the effort you put in here AJ.  About half way through my reading of your words the main thing I was thinking was “well the Angels are stupid at scouting” and then you more or less mentioned that.  There’s also the seemingly apparent fact that they’ve been slow to implement some of the more contemporary practices around analytics and the like.  So that’s the difference mostly it seems.  Or the most obvious one.  There’s also the anecdotal issue of “luck”.  I guess that’s not something that can really be quantified in a good way but I think most of us that have followed the team for a while would agree that shit luck feels like an endless thing for the Angels.  Some of you older guys who were following the team in the early nineties and the shit times in the 80’s.  Damn that’s gotta be some kind sports PTSD stuff.  Prayers up for AO who is obviously a damaged man.  
 

anyway.   Hopefully they suck less soon.  I don’t think there’s a cycle switch to look forward to that’s apparent.  Being able to consistently win at least 70 games doesn’t really do much for me.  Some real first loser shit that seems like.  It’s awesome to eternally have the 16th pick.  lol.  

I tend to feel that if "bad luck" is the norm, there's something else going on. In this case, something lacking on the development and analytics side of things.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with you re: their lack of analytics. In a way, I think Dipoto and Eppler might have relied too much on analytics, and played a real world version of fantasy baseball. "Joe Blanton's peripherals look good, therefore..." Or the Epplerian clean peanut phenomenon. 

Or to put it another way, maybe it wasn't a lack of analytics, but a lack of good analytics. And an accompanying lack of good scouting and player analysis.

I think building a perennial contender is not unlike building a garden or a business. It requires significant early investment, not skimping or "going for it" too soon, and, most of all, a combination of careful and consistent cultivation with patience. 

The thing that really stands out to me about the chart is that the Angels didn't collapse after 2009 - they had a dip in 2010, and then were pretty good for a few years. The collapse happened in 2015-16. If we look back to that period, a lot of it was bad luck: the young pitcher injuries, most notably. But they were also saddled with some albatross contracts, and the farm was depleted, thus they had no internal resources to draw on. Probably what should have happened is that they accepted that they needed to rebuild; if they had in 2016-18ish, they could have been competitive again by 2019-20. Of course the other factor is the Trout Window, which makes it more understandable why they didn't go for a complete rebuild.

[UndertheHalo]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

I tend to feel that if "bad luck" is the norm, there's something else going on. In this case, something lacking on the development and analytics side of things.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with you re: their lack of analytics. In a way, I think Dipoto and Eppler might have relied too much on analytics, and played a real world version of fantasy baseball. "Joe Blanton's peripherals look good, therefore..." Or the Epplerian clean peanut phenomenon. 

Or to put it another way, maybe it wasn't a lack of analytics, but a lack of good analytics. And an accompanying lack of good scouting and player analysis.

I think building a perennial contender is not unlike building a garden or a business. It requires significant early investment, not skimping or "going for it" too soon, and, most of all, a combination of careful and consistent cultivation with patience. 

The thing that really stands out to me about the chart is that the Angels didn't collapse after 2009 - they had a dip in 2010, and then were pretty good for a few years. The collapse happened in 2015-16. If we look back to that period, a lot of it was bad luck: the young pitcher injuries, most notably. But they were also saddled with some albatross contracts, and the farm was depleted, thus they had no internal resources to draw on. Probably what should have happened is that they accepted that they needed to rebuild; if they had in 2016-18ish, they could have been competitive again by 2019-20. Of course the other factor is the Trout Window, which makes it more understandable why they didn't go for a complete rebuild.

I don’t really disagree with you.  But I do think a lack of investment in the analytics stuff is an issue.  I’ve seen that the Angels hire like one or two guys here and there over the years.  Then I see Fangraphs people on their chats talk about other teams having much more significant departments.  So to me, it seems like a where there’s smoke there’s fire thing.  Recall the Angels got rid of their very modest scouting department during covid shortened season ? The info that seemed come out was that the Angels had like 12-15 guys and the Dodgers had like 90.  I mean it is what it is.  That’s an investment thing.  Anyway.  You know a lot more about this than I do.  I appreciate the post.  Also.  Shut up nerd.  

Edited December 14, 2021 by UndertheHalo

[Angelsjunky]

30 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I don’t really disagree with you.  But I do think a lack of investment in the analytics stuff is an issue.  I’ve seen that the Angels hire like one or two guys here and there over the years.  Then I see Fangraphs people on their chats talk about other teams having much more significant departments.  So to me, it seems like a where there’s smoke there’s fire thing.  Recall the Angels got rid of their very modest scouting department during covid shortened season ? The info that seemed come out was that the Angels had like 12-15 guys and the Dodgers had like 90.  I mean it is what it is.  That’s an investment thing.  Anyway.  You know a lot more about this than I do.  I appreciate the post.  Also.  Shut up nerd.  

Yeah, I think that comparison with the Dodgers is apt. Think of how many of those guys are regularly in Latin America, finding the Julio Uriases of the world. But we got Deveaux! And Baldoquin!

That goes into what I was saying about "initial investment," which in this context is having a good scouting department.

[Chuck]

Good stuff as always @Angelsjunky. 

As always, when there's good content here in the way of a post I turn it into an article/blog and promote it to our Twitter account to get extra eyes on it. 

[Angelsjunky]

Thanks, @Chuckster70. I'm wondering if I should polish it up - fix the formatting of the charts so they're all the same. I basically ran out of steam and wanted to post it.

[AngelsLakersFan]

7 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

Appreciate the effort you put in here AJ.  About half way through my reading of your words the main thing I was thinking was “well the Angels are stupid at scouting” and then you more or less mentioned that.  There’s also the seemingly apparent fact that they’ve been slow to implement some of the more contemporary practices around analytics and the like.  So that’s the difference mostly it seems.  Or the most obvious one.  There’s also the anecdotal issue of “luck”.  I guess that’s not something that can really be quantified in a good way but I think most of us that have followed the team for a while would agree that shit luck feels like an endless thing for the Angels.  Some of you older guys who were following the team in the early nineties and the shit times in the 80’s.  Damn that’s gotta be some kind sports PTSD stuff.  Prayers up for AO who is obviously a damaged man.  
 

anyway.   Hopefully they suck less soon.  I don’t think there’s a cycle switch to look forward to that’s apparent.  Being able to consistently win at least 70 games doesn’t really do much for me.  Some real first loser shit that seems like.  It’s awesome to eternally have the 16th pick.  lol.  

It’s not bad luck, and it’s not a lack of analytics. It’s an organizational philosophy. The Angels have adopted the same strategy as the Yankees but without the money to back it up. Every year Arte gives his GM a budget and tells him to go all in.

[Docwaukee]

Nice job AJ.  

it's sort of a chicken and egg situation but 4 first time GM's in 14 years.  

I don't know how true it is but it sure seems like most of the available resources are allocated to the major league club.  And each GM is going to be a bit different so by the time they get their processes in place, they are gone and the next guy has his own way.  

While it's not all bad luck, there was a fair amount.  The rash of injuries to the pitching staff from about 2016-2018 were pretty rough.  The utter decimation of the farm system which was kicked off by Reagins and completed by Dipoto is by far the biggest reason for the lack of an upswing on the halo's graph.   It's pretty damn rare that trades for established major league players and FA signings alone result in sustained success.  Maybe I'm biased, but that's what all these charts scream to me.   

[stormngt]

20 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I tend to feel that if "bad luck" is the norm, there's something else going on. In this case, something lacking on the development and analytics side of things.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with you re: their lack of analytics. In a way, I think Dipoto and Eppler might have relied too much on analytics, and played a real world version of fantasy baseball. "Joe Blanton's peripherals look good, therefore..." Or the Epplerian clean peanut phenomenon. 

Or to put it another way, maybe it wasn't a lack of analytics, but a lack of good analytics. And an accompanying lack of good scouting and player analysis.

I think building a perennial contender is not unlike building a garden or a business. It requires significant early investment, not skimping or "going for it" too soon, and, most of all, a combination of careful and consistent cultivation with patience. 

The thing that really stands out to me about the chart is that the Angels didn't collapse after 2009 - they had a dip in 2010, and then were pretty good for a few years. The collapse happened in 2015-16. If we look back to that period, a lot of it was bad luck: the young pitcher injuries, most notably. But they were also saddled with some albatross contracts, and the farm was depleted, thus they had no internal resources to draw on. Probably what should have happened is that they accepted that they needed to rebuild; if they had in 2016-18ish, they could have been competitive again by 2019-20. Of course the other factor is the Trout Window, which makes it more understandable why they didn't go for a complete rebuild.

The "fall of the cliff" in 2015 was a "perfect storm of combination of "badluck with injuries", Bad FA signings, No international presence, and bad farm system.

[UndertheHalo]

[tdawg87]

10 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Also...well, you know.

[UndertheHalo]

23 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Also...well, you know.

Very sad 

[Second Base]

I think it comes down to team building philosophy. Those successful franchises have a plan, they have continuity and they execute well. 

Yes, the Dodgers spend gobs of money, but they also have had the same voice with the same plan for years and they develop internally. They also find ways to maximize on previously marginal players, like Justin Turner and Max Muncy. When combined with homegrown talent, like Seager, Bellinger, Kershaw, Urias and Buehler, and a touch of big market acquisitions, like Mookie Betts, Max Scherzer and Trevor Bauer( before his suspensions) the end result is a winner. 

Now look at the Angels. Developing Trout, Fletcher and Walsh and getting Ohtani has been good, but their failures seem to come in two places

1. They have failed to maximize the players they've acquired. Bundy, Cahill, Harvey, Quintana, Cody Allen, Nava, Gentry, etc... None of them really made an impact. The three that seemed to work out the best have been Yunel Escobar, Alex Cobb and Max Stassi, though none of them have been studs as much as they didn't crater like the others. Certainly not Turner or Muncy level success. 

2. No continuity. Stoneman had a great plan and it worked. Develop internally and augment here and there with well scouted and identified targets. Reagins had a plan, which is ride off the success of Stoneman and add his own flavor and it had mixed results. Dipoto had his plan, which is spend big and worry about the future later and it failed miserably. Eppler had a plan, which was to undo everything Dipoto did and try to rebuild the farm and it too had mixed results. And now we have Minasian, we are two years into this regime and we still have no effing idea what he's doing or if there is even a plan. He says one thing then does another. About the only thing we know is that he's big on clubhouse chemistry and he drafts a lot of pitchers. 

-------

I think the Angels just need to find one plan that works, and stick to that plan for and extended period of time. And that plan, should be fairly straightforward. Invest heavily on the farm and amateur scouting. Lock up home grown talent early. And spend big in free agency very rarely. 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Second Base

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I think it comes down to team building philosophy. Those successful franchises have a plan, they have continuity and they execute well. 

Yes, the Dodgers spend gobs of money, but they also have had the same voice with the same plan for years and they develop internally. They also find ways to maximize on previously marginal players, like Justin Turner and Max Muncy. When combined with homegrown talent, like Seager, Bellinger, Kershaw, Urias and Buehler, and a touch of big market acquisitions, like Mookie Betts, Max Scherzer and Trevor Bauer( before his suspensions) the end result is a winner. 

Now look at the Angels. Developing Trout, Fletcher and Walsh and getting Ohtani has been good, but their failures seem to come in two places

1. They have failed to maximize the players they've acquired. Bundy, Cahill, Harvey, Quintana, Cody Allen, Nava, Gentry, etc... None of them really made an impact. The three that seemed to work out the best have been Yunel Escobar, Alex Cobb and Max Stassi, though none of them have been studs as much as they didn't crater like the others. Certainly not Turner or Muncy level success. 

2. No continuity. Stoneman had a great plan and it worked. Develop internally and augment here and there with well scouted and identified targets. Reagins had a plan, which is ride off the success of Stoneman and add his own flavor and it had mixed results. Dipoto had his plan, which is spend big and worry about the future later and it failed miserably. Eppler had a plan, which was to undo everything Dipoto did and try to rebuild the farm and it too had mixed results. And now we have Minasian, we are two years into this regime and we still have no effing idea what he's doing or if there is even a plan. He says one thing then does another. About the only thing we know is that he's big on clubhouse chemistry and he drafts a lot of pitchers. 

-------

I think the Angels just need to find one plan that works, and stick to that plan for and extended period of time. And that plan, should be fairly straightforward. Invest heavily on the farm and amateur scouting. Lock up home grown talent early. And spend big in free agency very rarely. 

The Angels go get a fancy coat or shirt from Versace and then pair it with some pants from the discount rack at TJ Max, a watch they bought from some guy on a street corner, some shoes they found in the back of their closet and a belt they made themselves.  

Granted, this is not a unique approach for all teams actually.  Yet some have the ability to recognize how to put their ensemble together with several lesser known yet quality brands before they blow up.  

[Second Base]

7 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

The Angels go get a fancy coat or shirt from Versace and then pair it with some pants from the discount rack at TJ Max, a watch they bought from some guy on a street corner, some shoes they found in the back of their closet and a belt they made themselves.  

Granted, this is not a unique approach for all teams actually.  Yet some have the ability to recognize how to put their ensemble together with several lesser known yet quality brands before they blow up.