The Angels Next Moves (Post-Lockout)

[tdawg87]

6 hours ago, Dochalo said:

no.  they're not. not even close.  

I think if we add a decent SS we're definitely more than close. 

Then again, our defense is dealing with some retarded shifts, so that may cancel out anything they'd do otherwise.

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

I think Marsh needs more time in AAA, he's only played 24 games in AAA, and Adell played 27 in 2019, and 73 in 2021. Marsh is a bit behind with the bat compared to Adell, even though they had similar Major League Numbers in their limited time.

Both may start in the bigs, but if Upton kills it or simply plays well in ST, I don't see that happening.

Ward I think gets 25 starts at 1st base, as a righty platoon bat for Walsh. Walsh struggled against lefties, and so against the toughest ones he'll sit. He should get some AB's, but they also have Ward who was great against lefties last season, and plays a competent defense.

 

Good points, though I'm not sure I agree that Marsh "needs" more time in AAA. To be a solid contributor? He already is, even with a below average wRC+ (84). The question is whether his hitting will better improve in AAA or in the majors, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I tend to think he just needs continued exposure to major league pitching and will gradually improve. On the other hand, maybe he can better work on his approach in AAA for a few weeks.

If Upton kills it and the young guys hold their own, the Angels will be facing a nice problem to have. But I don't think it will be an issue: Trout won't start more than 140 games in the OF, maybe not more than 130. That leaves 346-356 starts between those three, or an average of 115-120ish, which sounds about right. I don't see Upton starting more than 120 games next year, and probably much less than that. He's going to be "Pujolsized" (gross).

Edited December 17, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[Docwaukee]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Not even close? Maybe if Rendon is hurt again, Fletcher repeats 2021, and Walsh regresses. But I think that group is likely to be at least close to average. Even a bearish estimate:

Rendon: 4 WAR 

Velasquez etc: 0 WAR

Fletcher: 1 WAR

Walsh: 2 WAR

If 2-3 is average range, that's 7/4 = 1.75 per position, so slightly below average. But again, that's pretty bearish. Rendon could produce 5 WAR, Fletch could return to at least 2-3 WAR level, and Walsh could repeat or exceed last year wiht 3-4 WAR. And who knows, maybe one of Velasquez, Mayfield, Wade, Rengifo, Davis, or Stefanic will emerge as a decent 1-2 WAR player.

I actually misread the original post that it included Rendon and Walsh.  

But let's assume that the 15th best team at each position is league average.  

projection wise that 2 WAR for 1b, 2.6 WAR for 2b, 2.9 WAR for SS, and 3.2 WAR for 3b.  So about 10.7 for all four positions.  

projections have us at 2.7 WAR for 1b, 1.7 WAR for 2b, 1.5 WAR for SS, and 4.5 WAR for 3b.  So about 10.4.  So yeah.  About league average.  

but those projections have Rendon at 4.2 WAR which I think is reasonable.  Walsh at 2.7 WAR which I can live with even though I have my concerns.   Fletcher at 1.5 WAR which is based mostly on prior seasons and while I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I think the 0.3 WAR season he just had is as much likely as him putting up 1.5 WAR if not more so.  And the SS is a hodgepodge of Wade, Regifo, Velazquez, Fletcher and Mayfield for the 1.5 WAR total.  I think that's extremely generous.  

And here's the thing.  Almost a full seasons worth of at bats is gonna come from the 5th guy covering the infield.  Not actually one guy but the conglomerate of leftovers after the top four.  Right now that's replacement level production.  

Last year we were 15th at 1b with 2.1 WAR.  28th at 2b with 0.4 WAR, 24th at SS with 1.0 WAR, and 20th at 3b with 1.0 WAR.  And we are in a worse spot at SS right now than we were last year.  That's 4.5 WAR.   Add Rendon's 3 WAR to 3b and we're at 7.5 WAR.  

Please convince me that what they have is at worst league average.  

[tdawg87]

9 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I actually misread the original post that it included Rendon and Walsh.  

But let's assume that the 15th best team at each position is league average.  

projection wise that 2 WAR for 1b, 2.6 WAR for 2b, 2.9 WAR for SS, and 3.2 WAR for 3b.  So about 10.7 for all four positions.  

projections have us at 2.7 WAR for 1b, 1.7 WAR for 2b, 1.5 WAR for SS, and 4.5 WAR for 3b.  So about 10.4.  So yeah.  About league average.  

but those projections have Rendon at 4.2 WAR which I think is reasonable.  Walsh at 2.7 WAR which I can live with even though I have my concerns.   Fletcher at 1.5 WAR which is based mostly on prior seasons and while I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I think the 0.3 WAR season he just had is as much likely as him putting up 1.5 WAR if not more so.  And the SS is a hodgepodge of Wade, Regifo, Velazquez, Fletcher and Mayfield for the 1.5 WAR total.  I think that's extremely generous.  

And here's the thing.  Almost a full seasons worth of at bats is gonna come from the 5th guy covering the infield.  Not actually one guy but the conglomerate of leftovers after the top four.  Right now that's replacement level production.  

Last year we were 15th at 1b with 2.1 WAR.  28th at 2b with 0.4 WAR, 24th at SS with 1.0 WAR, and 20th at 3b with 1.0 WAR.  And we are in a worse spot at SS right now than we were last year.  That's 4.5 WAR.   Add Rendon's 3 WAR to 3b and we're at 7.5 WAR.  

Please convince me that what they have is at worst league average.  

I got the impression he was talking about defense. But I'm also retarded.

[Docwaukee]

13 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I got the impression he was talking about defense. But I'm also retarded.

that's our best shot at improving this team in a hurry.  A defensive SS with an ok bat with improved positioning and we'll have one of the better defensive infields in baseball.  

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

with improved positioning 

[Angelsjunky]

30 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I actually misread the original post that it included Rendon and Walsh.  

But let's assume that the 15th best team at each position is league average.  

projection wise that 2 WAR for 1b, 2.6 WAR for 2b, 2.9 WAR for SS, and 3.2 WAR for 3b.  So about 10.7 for all four positions.  

projections have us at 2.7 WAR for 1b, 1.7 WAR for 2b, 1.5 WAR for SS, and 4.5 WAR for 3b.  So about 10.4.  So yeah.  About league average.  

but those projections have Rendon at 4.2 WAR which I think is reasonable.  Walsh at 2.7 WAR which I can live with even though I have my concerns.   Fletcher at 1.5 WAR which is based mostly on prior seasons and while I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I think the 0.3 WAR season he just had is as much likely as him putting up 1.5 WAR if not more so.  And the SS is a hodgepodge of Wade, Regifo, Velazquez, Fletcher and Mayfield for the 1.5 WAR total.  I think that's extremely generous.  

And here's the thing.  Almost a full seasons worth of at bats is gonna come from the 5th guy covering the infield.  Not actually one guy but the conglomerate of leftovers after the top four.  Right now that's replacement level production.  

Last year we were 15th at 1b with 2.1 WAR.  28th at 2b with 0.4 WAR, 24th at SS with 1.0 WAR, and 20th at 3b with 1.0 WAR.  And we are in a worse spot at SS right now than we were last year.  That's 4.5 WAR.   Add Rendon's 3 WAR to 3b and we're at 7.5 WAR.  

Please convince me that what they have is at worst league average.  

Well, I didn't say it was "at worst league average." I was arguing that it was better than "not even close to average." 

But given that you've adjusted to include Rendon and Walsh, let's try to get the infield to average. I'm going with the assumption that--as you said--we're really talking about five positions: 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, and UT, and maybe even more if you count stray starts here and there.

First, Rendon - the easy one. From 2016-20, he played in 90% of his team's games (or 637 of 708 games), totally 26.9 WAR. If we take a relative cautious approach, let's say that at 32, he'll be more prone nagging injuries, so pencil him in for 80%, or 130 games. From 2016-20, he averaged 5.5 WAR over 130 games, so I think assuming 4+ WAR for him next year is safe, and it may be much higher than that (though I think his days of 6+ WAR seasons are over). So, 4.5 works well.

Second, Walsh. We don't have a lot to go on, but last year's 2.8 WAR in 144 games seems like a solid place to start. And that includes a few months of him being quite terrible. But he might continue to be streaky, so I don't expect him to only be the good version we saw for the first couple months and the last month. But I highly doubt he's any worse, so I think 2.5 to 3.5 is his likely range, so I'll pencil him in for 3 WAR.

Third, Fletcher. I'm not quite ready to say that his true talent level is as a replacement player (0.3 last year). Let us not forget that he produced 6.5 WAR over his first 283 games, or 3.5 per 150 games played, so some positive regression should be expected. Maybe he's not the guy he was in 2018-20, but why assume he's the guy he was last year? If we split the difference, he's at low-average regular, or 2 WAR. I'd say that's a solid baseline, with a range of 1-3 WAR, but let's go with 2 WAR.

So for 1B, 2B, and 3B, we're at 9.5 (4.5 + 3 + 2). 

If we consider 2.5 WAR league average for a full-time player, and we're hoping to cover 5 positions, we're about 75% of the way there with 67% of the positions (9.5 out of 12.5 WAR from 3 out of 5 player slots). The question being, can the Angels get 3 WAR out of their SS and UT?

This is where the depth you've advocated for is so crucial, and why you really need guys better than Gooselin (0.1 WAR in 104 games), Lagares (-0.3 in 112 games), Rojas (-0.1 in 61 games), and Rengifo (-0.4 in 54 games) in bench/platoon roles.

If we look only at the four starting positions, I'm reasonably confident that they can be league average. With my predictions above, Rendon, Walsh and Fletcher alone produce enough WAR that the 4th starter only needs to produce 0.5 WAR to reach 10 as a group--and maybe less, if any of those three have better years).

But I'm far less confident that the infield bench can be anything better than replacement level, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the bench starts with the starting SS position.

So right now, as the team currently stands, I'd say the IF is below league average, although not terribly so. You've got:

FT players: Rendon, Walsh, Fletcher 

PT players: Wade, Velasquez, Mayfield, Rengifo, maybe Rojas, Stefanic, Davis, Thaiss, etc 

I don't see better than replacement level performance from the "depth" group, let alone 3 WAR, unless one or two of them breaks through.

I'd feel more confident if they added at least one solid fringe starter/good bench player, like Villar or maybe even Matt Duffy, or at least a great defensive SS, even if he can't hit a lick (maybe time to make up with Andrelton?). Otherwise, you're going into the season hoping one of those guys breaks through, which could happen but is a bit dicey.

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Well, I didn't say it was "at worst league average." I was arguing that it was better than "not even close to average." 

But given that you've adjusted to include Rendon and Walsh, let's try to get the infield to average. I'm going with the assumption that--as you said--we're really talking about five positions: 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, and UT, and maybe even more if you count stray starts here and there (we can posit a 6th position, "Bench" which covers all that, but also covers the OF, so only has half value: so 5.5 positions).

First, Rendon - the easy one. From 2016-20, he played in 90% of his team's games (or 637 of 708 games), totally 26.9 WAR. If we take a relative cautious approach, let's say that at 32, he'll be more prone nagging injuries, so pencil him in for 80%, or 130 games. From 2016-20, he averaged 5.5 WAR over 130 games, so I think assuming 4+ WAR for him next year is safe, and it may be much higher than that (though I think his days of 6+ WAR seasons are over). SO 4.5 works well.

Second, Walsh. We don't have a lot to go on, but last year's 2.8 WAR in 144 games seems like a solid place to start. And that includes a few months of him being quite terrible. But he might continue to be streak, so I don't expect him to only be the good version we saw for the first couple months and the last month. But I highly doubt he's any worse, so I think 2.5 to 3.5 is his likely range, so I'll pencil him in for 3 WAR.

Third, Fletcher. I'm not quite ready to say that his true talent level is as a replacement player (0.3 last year). Let us not forget that he produced 6.5 WAR over his first 283 games, or 3.5 per 150 games played. Maybe he's not the guy he was in 2018-20, but why assume he's the guy he was last year? If we split the difference, he's at low-average regular, or 2 WAR. I'd say that's a solid baseline, with a range of 1-3 WAR, but let's go with 2 WAR.

So for 1B, 2B, and 3B, we're at 9.5 (4.5 + 3 + 2).

If we consider 2.5 league average for a full-time position, and we're hoping to cover 5.5 positions, we're about two-thirds of the way there (9.5 of 13.8). The question being, can the Angels get 5 WAR out of their SS, UT, and all bench roles in the infield?

This is where the depth you've advocated for is so crucial, and why you really need guys better than Gooselin (0.1 WAR in 104 games), Lagares (-0.3 in 112 games), Rojas (-0.1 in 61 games), and Rengifo (-0.4 in 54 games).

If we look only at the four starting positions, I'm reasonably confident that they can be league average. With my predictions above, Rendon, Walsh and Fletcher alone produce enough WAR that the 4th starter only needs to produce 0.5 WAR to reach 10 as a group--and maybe less, if any of those three have better years).

But I'm far less confident that the UT and bench can be anything better than replacement level, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the bench starts with the starting SS position.

So right now, as the team currently stands, I'd say the IF is below league average, although not terribly so. You've got:

FT players: Rendon, Walsh, Fletcher

PT players: Wade, Velasquez, Mayfield, Rengifo, maybe Rojas, Stefanic, Davis, Thaiss, etc.

I don't see better than replacement level performance from the "depth" group, unless one of them either has a career year or breakthrough.

I'd feel more confident if they added at least one solid fringe starter/good bench player, like Villar or maybe Matt Duffy. Otherwise, you're going into the season hoping one of those guys breaks through, which could happen but is a bit dicey.

 

you and I both do this every year.  At least for the last 10 years.  And while we might end up correct for a few guys, the conglomerate is always way more optimistic that what ends up happening.  So while what you've posted makes sense and I want to believe it, I can't help but have to discount it by about 30%.  

[Angelsjunky]

36 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

you and I both do this every year.  At least for the last 10 years.  And while we might end up correct for a few guys, the conglomerate is always way more optimistic that what ends up happening.  So while what you've posted makes sense and I want to believe it, I can't help but have to discount it by about 30%.  

Don't give up, Doc. We're the only tenuous link between Chuck and the rest of the gang, otherwise Chuck is just dangling out there like a happy unicorn in a field of rainbows (near a garbage dump).

[IheartLA]

11 hours ago, Stradling said:

Why?

b/c even if both Meyer and Marsh are top 100 prospects it’s a lot easier to find outfielders of Marsh’s profile than starting pitchers of Meyer’s upside.

I think even Taylor ward is gonna have a better 2022 than Marsh. 

[Docwaukee]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Don't give up, Doc. We're the only tenuous link between Chuck and the rest of the gang, otherwise Chuck is just dangling out there like a happy unicorn in a field of rainbows (near a garbage dump).

Not giving up at all.  I really hope the thing they're trying to do again turns out better this time than it has the last 10 times.  But the last 9 times I've tried to explain how it could work.  And don't get me wrong.  It could.  But I'm done giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Right now I see them doing what didn't work last time.  Or the time before that.  Or the time before that.  And so on.  

I feel like there was a real opportunity missed this year so far.  That's why I'm a bit frustrated.  It didn't require anything flashy.  Maybe a shade more dough than usual. 

  

[eligrba]

9 hours ago, IheartLA said:

it’s a lot easier to find outfielders of Marsh’s profile than starting pitchers of Meyer’s upside.

You must have missed the interval of garbage outfielders staring with Hamilton and maybe ending with Upton.  Most clubs could probably find outfielders like Marsh, but this is the Angels.

[Stradling]

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Not giving up at all.  I really hope the thing they're trying to do again turns out better this time than it has the last 10 times.  But the last 9 times I've tried to explain how it could work.  And don't get me wrong.  It could.  But I'm done giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Right now I see them doing what didn't work last time.  Or the time before that.  Or the time before that.  And so on.  

I feel like there was a real opportunity missed this year so far.  That's why I'm a bit frustrated.  It didn't require anything flashy.  Maybe a shade more dough than usual. 

  

The last ten times don’t matter.  Last year is all that matters.  I know that doesn’t make it better but when you take a sample size that includes three front offices it makes zero sense. Minasian’s  tenure is all that matters because he and his front office use different data points to make these decisions. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, eligrba said:

You must have missed the interval of garbage outfielders staring with Hamilton and maybe ending with Upton.  Most clubs could probably find outfielders like Marsh, but this is the Angels.

I don’t think the Angels past inadequacies under different front offices is a good argument against a fair observation that high quality starting pitching is harder to come by than passable outfielders.

[Adam]

Any chance we can get AK to come out of retirement?

[Docwaukee]

4 hours ago, Stradling said:

The last ten times don’t matter.  Last year is all that matters.  I know that doesn’t make it better but when you take a sample size that includes three front offices it makes zero sense. Minasian’s  tenure is all that matters because he and his front office use different data points to make these decisions. 

and my point is that it does.  you can shuffle deck chairs but the result is the same.  If they keep doing things the same way regardless of the personnel the they're gonna get the same result.  It's not about who they plug in but a broken org philosophy.  

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and my point is that it does.  you can shuffle deck chairs but the result is the same.  If they keep doing things the same way regardless of the personnel the they're gonna get the same result.  It's not about who they plug in but a broken org philosophy.  

Your post was about middle infielders. The middle infield hasn’t been a constant moving of deck chairs. It had Simmons and Fletcher until last season. 

[tdawg87]

57 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Your post was about middle infielders. The middle infield hasn’t been a constant moving of deck chairs. It had Simmons and Fletcher until last season. 

I could be wrong but I think he's mainly referring to the shifts that fucked us up this year.

It doesn't matter who we have or who plays where if they're set up in the wrong place every time.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

I could be wrong but I think he's mainly referring to the shifts that fucked us up this year.

It doesn't matter who we have or who plays where if they're set up in the wrong place every time.

Even then the horrible shifts started this past year as well. 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

19 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Good points, though I'm not sure I agree that Marsh "needs" more time in AAA. To be a solid contributor? He already is, even with a below average wRC+ (84). The question is whether his hitting will better improve in AAA or in the majors, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I tend to think he just needs continued exposure to major league pitching and will gradually improve. On the other hand, maybe he can better work on his approach in AAA for a few weeks.

If Upton kills it and the young guys hold their own, the Angels will be facing a nice problem to have. But I don't think it will be an issue: Trout won't start more than 140 games in the OF, maybe not more than 130. That leaves 346-356 starts between those three, or an average of 115-120ish, which sounds about right. I don't see Upton starting more than 120 games next year, and probably much less than that. He's going to be "Pujolsized" (gross).

Marsh will be fine... Once he gets through the mental grind side at the Major League level and as long as he stays confident and doesnt try to do too many over adjustments to his approach and swing he will be fine. AAA is for fine tuning individual aspects of someone's game there is no prerequisite regarding games or ab's at any level.

The issue is when kids start trying to change a bunch of shit and all of a sudden they have listened to too many people and have changed so much they have no clue what they are doing or even how to get back to step #1.

I've even had kids that played for me come back at the college level due to this... They think it's them! And it is a failed cookie cutter thought process by (said college, or organization). Or, laziness in not actually getting to know their athlete.

[Hubs]

19 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Good points, though I'm not sure I agree that Marsh "needs" more time in AAA. To be a solid contributor? He already is, even with a below average wRC+ (84). The question is whether his hitting will better improve in AAA or in the majors, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I tend to think he just needs continued exposure to major league pitching and will gradually improve. On the other hand, maybe he can better work on his approach in AAA for a few weeks.

If Upton kills it and the young guys hold their own, the Angels will be facing a nice problem to have. But I don't think it will be an issue: Trout won't start more than 140 games in the OF, maybe not more than 130. That leaves 346-356 starts between those three, or an average of 115-120ish, which sounds about right. I don't see Upton starting more than 120 games next year, and probably much less than that. He's going to be "Pujolsized" (gross).

He needs playing time. He has also been injury prone, and playing everyday in AAA for the first two months, is better than playing four times a week in the majors. Cuz Adell will play 5 and Trout will play everyday if healthy. Upton will play at least 4 days a week also. So do you want Marsh getting 4 days or playing every day?

Ward I think plays a lot. Something tells me he's gonna have a mini break out a bit, and play at least 1/2 the games at 1st or OF.

 

 

[tdawg87]

44 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Even then the horrible shifts started this past year as well. 

I took it as him referring to the last year and going forward.

[Inside Pitch]

52 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Even then the horrible shifts started this past year as well. 

Started during Covid season but Simmons used to pretty much do what he wanted.  Maddon said as much in one of his post game wine tastings.

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Started during Covid season but Simmons used to pretty much do what he wanted.  Maddon said as much in one of his post game wine tastings.

Maddon makes me want to suplex a toddler.

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

He needs playing time. He has also been injury prone, and playing everyday in AAA for the first two months, is better than playing four times a week in the majors. Cuz Adell will play 5 and Trout will play everyday if healthy. Upton will play at least 4 days a week also. So do you want Marsh getting 4 days or playing every day?

Ward I think plays a lot. Something tells me he's gonna have a mini break out a bit, and play at least 1/2 the games at 1st or OF.

 

 

Well again, we're talking about 486 OF starts, with Trout starting 130-140 of them. That leaves 115-125 starts on average for the other three - plenty of playing time for Marsh. 

I do agree re: Ward, although I think he gets starts if one of the young guys or Upton struggles, more than penciled in as part of a platoon rotation. But I do think he's going to end up having a couple .270/.800, 3 WAR seasons. Probably not for the Angels, though. But next year, he's a useful player to have.