The Angels lineup has the chance to hit 20+ HR at each position this season

[Chuck]

First off, has this ever happened? I imagine so with the Yankees of old, but I went through the lineup and thought at first that it could produce 20 or more HR's at seven positions/spots in the lineup, then noticed it would be super close if Rengifo gets the majority of starts at SS and Logan O'Hoppe gets a good chunk at the at bats at C. 

Rengifo hit 17 HR in 489 at bats in 2022 and Logan O'Hoppe hit 26 bombs in Double-A last year and Stassi has hit as much as 13 HR in the big leagues (2021) and hit 17 HR in the minors in 2013. 

Let's take a quick look at the player projections from CBS Sportsline. Note: Some of these projections are quite low and they've always been a bit conservative in their projections. Especially for HR's. 

Basically if everyone stays fairly healthy throughout the season and avoids longs stints on the IL, there's a good chance every position in the lineup could produce 20 or more HR this season. 

1B Jared Walsh: 20 HR / Gio Urshela 14 HR 

2B Brandon Drury: 21 HR / Luis Rengifo 17 HR 

SS Luis Rengifo: 17 HR / David Fletcher 4 HR / Gio Urshela 14 HR

3B Anthony Rendon: 13 HR / Gio Urshela 14 HR * CBS has Rendon's HR projections very low based on his playing time the past three years, dating back to the Covid shortened season. He can easily pop 20-25+ HR if he stays healthy over an entire season. 

LF Taylor Ward: 23 HR

CF Mike Trout: 41 HR

RF Hunter Renfroe: 26 HR (hit 29 HR last season in just 125 games)

DH Shohei Ohtani: 31 HR (seems a bit low)

C Max Stassi 14 HR / Logan O'Hoppe 11 HR

[jsnpritchett]

It's possible the 2019 Twins did it.  I don't have the patience to go through the position logs to find out if the non-Buxton CFs had at least 10 HR, but they had 20+ from all other positions: 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2019.shtml

 

[jsnpritchett]

Looks like the 2005 Rangers did it: 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TEX/2005.shtml

 

[Chuck]

Wow cool, thanks for doing the research @jsnpritchett. 
 

If it happens the Angels got a really good shot at the playoffs. Really just boils down to everyone staying relatively healthy this season. 

[beatlesrule]

I mean technically, 1% is still a chance.

[Chuck]

32 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

I mean technically, 1% is still a chance.

[Dtwncbad]

Seems like this 2023 team has a decent chance of hitting home runs.  Whether we like that evolution in the game or not, you have to recognize that the teams hitting the most home runs are often the better teams.

Here is the list of team home runs last year. Lots of postseason teams at the top of this list.

[Blarg]

Chuck has decided to replace @Angelsjunky as king of cursing the franchise to underperform. 

Yes, each of the starting lineup could hit 20 home runs. But the curse is that it limits Ohtani and Trout to 20 home runs. Way to go @Chuckster70. 

[Chuck]

17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Chuck has decided to replace @Angelsjunky as king of cursing the franchise to underperform. 

Yes, each of the starting lineup could hit 20 home runs. But the curse is that it limits Ohtani and Trout to 20 home runs. Way to go @Chuckster70. 

I don't believe in curses. I'm a man of many blessings, son. 

[Hubs]

I doubt it happens, but it would be cool to see. I don't doubt that the Angels will have 9 guys hit over 20, maybe even 10 guys do it. But from each position?

Urshela and Rengifo would have to get the vast majority of the time at SS and Drury and Rengifo at 2B. Walsh would have to rebound.  

[floplag]

This probably should be its own thread but as spring goes on im starting to winder if the guys that were signed as "depth" might end up more than that.
We had a lineup earlier in spring that had Urshela and Drury as the starting middle infield and so far both of the are outhitting the presumed starters.
I know its a defensive dropoff, especially at SS, that might be a bit much to handle but i wonder would the offensive bump make sense?
even Lamb is outdueling Walsh so far but i dont think they will make that change too quickly. 

[greginpsca]

A far cry from when Bob Oliver was the only Angel to have double digit in home runs back in the 70's.

[Inside Pitch]

I'd rather they not lead the league in Ks and finish bottom five in OBP...  AGAIN.

[Pancake Bear]

35 minutes ago, floplag said:

This probably should be its own thread but as spring goes on im starting to winder if the guys that were signed as "depth" might end up more than that.
We had a lineup earlier in spring that had Urshela and Drury as the starting middle infield and so far both of the are outhitting the presumed starters.
I know its a defensive dropoff, especially at SS, that might be a bit much to handle but i wonder would the offensive bump make sense?
even Lamb is outdueling Walsh so far but i dont think they will make that change too quickly. 

Wouldn't be at all surprised to see Drury playing most days at 2B, or Urshela at SS regularly when he isn't subbing for Rendon or Walsh. Reality is that time will have to be earned in the infield because there are six starters for four spots. You don't perform, you're sitting. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Chuck has decided to replace @Angelsjunky as king of cursing the franchise to underperform. 

Yes, each of the starting lineup could hit 20 home runs. But the curse is that it limits Ohtani and Trout to 20 home runs. Way to go @Chuckster70. 

Trout and Ohtani are going to combine for 90 HR.

[Blarg]

Great, Trout with 89 and Ohtani with 1. Way to lower Ohtani's free agency value.

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

I'd rather they not lead the league in Ks and finish bottom five in OBP...  AGAIN.

I care about OPS.  If that number is good, I couldn’t care less if the Angels lead the majors in strikeouts.

[Inside Pitch]

45 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I care about OPS.  If that number is good, I couldn’t care less if the Angels lead the majors in strikeouts.

Don't look now but OPS counts OBP -- which is the most important factor to scoring runs..  

[Dtwncbad]

51 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Don't look now but OPS counts OBP -- which is the most important factor to scoring runs..  

That’s fine if you prefer OBP to SLG.  But I chose OPS to make the point because it includes the value of SLG also.

For a down and dirty quick look at your offensive potency, it’s kind of hard to beat OPS.

 

[Inside Pitch]

=

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

That’s fine if you prefer OBP to SLG.  But I chose OPS to make the point because it includes the value of SLG also.

Its not about preferring it, it's the reality that scoring runs is the end all be all of offense and getting on base is the single most important factor involved. That said, a hit is preferable to a walk and that too has been mathed out.

21 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

For a down and dirty quick look at your offensive potency, it’s kind of hard to beat OPS.

wOBA, wRC+ -- both are worlds better by virtue of being park adjusted/weighted. Raw OPS has it's uses, it's fast and easy to find, so are the others to be honest, but it treats OBP and SLG% equally and is a worse indicator of "offensive potency" as a result.

The Angels had 19 baserunners today -- only scored 5 runs.  Outs are outs, but it's significantly harder to score a run on a K than it is a ground out or a fly out. Leading the league in Ks like the Angels did last year played a role in how a team that was 11th in HRs ranked 25th in runs scored -- ranking 26th in OBP didn't help either.

 

[happybat4]

18 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

=

Its not about preferring it, it's the reality that scoring runs is the end all be all of offense and getting on base is the single most important factor involved. That said, a hit is preferable to a walk and that too has been mathed out.

wOBA, wRC+ -- both are worlds better by virtue of being park adjusted/weighted. Raw OPS has it's uses, it's fast and easy to find, so are the others to be honest, but it treats OBP and SLG% equally and is a worse indicator of "offensive potency" as a result.

The Angels had 19 baserunners today -- only scored 5 runs.  Outs are outs, but it's significantly harder to score a run on a K than it is a ground out or a fly out. Leading the league in Ks like the Angels did last year played a role in how a team that was 11th in HRs ranked 25th in runs scored -- ranking 26th in OBP didn't help either.

 

A single is more valuable than a walk, OPS agrees. If all you did was walk your OPS would 1,000. If you never walked and hit all singles your OPS would be 2,000. 

[Inside Pitch]

11 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

A single is more valuable than a walk, OPS agrees. If all you did was walk your OPS would 1,000. If you never walked and hit all singles your OPS would be 2,000. 

Look at what you responded to.  

I said a hit is preferable to a walk, I said hit and not single because ANY hit is preferable.  But thanks for agreeing with me.

[Jeff Fletcher]

OPS+ of 100 is a better thing to look at. If they get that out of each position, they’ll be very good. 
 

[Dtwncbad]

5 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

=

Its not about preferring it, it's the reality that scoring runs is the end all be all of offense and getting on base is the single most important factor involved. That said, a hit is preferable to a walk and that too has been mathed out.

wOBA, wRC+ -- both are worlds better by virtue of being park adjusted/weighted. Raw OPS has it's uses, it's fast and easy to find, so are the others to be honest, but it treats OBP and SLG% equally and is a worse indicator of "offensive potency" as a result.

The Angels had 19 baserunners today -- only scored 5 runs.  Outs are outs, but it's significantly harder to score a run on a K than it is a ground out or a fly out. Leading the league in Ks like the Angels did last year played a role in how a team that was 11th in HRs ranked 25th in runs scored -- ranking 26th in OBP didn't help either.

 

The “flaw” in OPS is that (as you said) it treats OBP and SLG the same.

That is a tiny flaw if you are just looking for how “potent” a player or team is.  So I don’t really see the point in arguing that.

But I will argue (if you want to talk about looking at the wrong stat) that being concerned about the team striking out a lot is a good way to look at the potency of an offense.

You might want to look at the teams that stuck out the most last year.  Lots of them scored tons of runs.

Therefore, I will just go back yo what I said before.  If the team’s OPS looks good, I am not going yo care about how many times they strike out.

[Docwaukee]

2 hours ago, happybat4 said:

A single is more valuable than a walk, OPS agrees. If all you did was walk your OPS would 1,000. If you never walked and hit all singles your OPS would be 2,000.

that tells you more about how the stat is flawed.