Perspective

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Are people conflating context with expectations?   Is the process just as simple as they have been bad they will continue to be bad? IMO that lacks any semblance of context.

Past performance absolutely influences projection and by extension expectations maybe that's what is meant by context..  IDK..

Yes past performance of players but not past performance of the team. There’s too much turnover of players, coaches, managers and GMs for that to be highly considered. 

[Warfarin]

26 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Yep. 

The patience has run dry. And I say that as someone who's still not panicking (I still think it's a good team). 

Yeah.  I am generally rather optimistic, and I don't think this is a bad team at all, but I think it appears more of the same.  Losing O'Hoppe and now having C be manned by Wallach and Thaiss indefinitely hurts a lot as well, unless Stassi can come back soon.

The positive side, though, is it does appear that we are having a lot of growth in the minor leagues.  If Minasian shows he can draft and develop talent well, then that will make up for things and enable us to contend, but it does take at least a few years, at the minimum, to see that process play out.

I am bullish long-term, but I am not sure we will contend this year, and I think that if we fall out of contention, we would probably be best served to trade Ohtani and get multiple very good prospects, instead of inevitably letting him leave.

[Inside Pitch]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yes past performance of players but not past performance of the team. There’s too much turnover of players, coaches, managers and GMs for that to be highly considered. 

That would be the context, not the losing seasons.  Again, not sure how people are using context in this case.

[UndertheHalo]

I don’t see why they shouldn’t contend this year.  It’s been a couple of weeks.  They’re .500.  Roughly the same as the Dodgers and Astros.  There’s no reason to give up on the team yet.  Obviously some tough decisions will need to be made if things are going badly come mid July. We aren’t close to that yet. 

[Taylor]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

It’s not impossible. You just have to look at how we have a different set of players and a different GM and a different manager and it is pretty easy to look at each season individually.  But I applaud you for bringing that shit to this thread, well done.

Same owner. Same shit. 

And I brought your advice this this thread. You should feel honored.

[Kotchman]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Same owner. Same shit. 

And I brought your advice this this thread. You should feel honored.

You need a proofreader 

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Same owner. Same shit. 

Way to over-simplify it and only allowing one person to hold any blame. 
I’m going to try that at work. 

[Angelsjunky]

There's always a positive spin, or at least a less negative one. And fans have a hard time looking at their own team objectively.

But...the frustration many (including myself) feel is real and legitimate - and totally understandable. The team isn't terrible, but after a very promising spring and a team that looked nicely refurbished, we're 10-11, a very typical Angels record. Early on the team was losing games that they seemingly should have won, more recently it seems they're just losing games because they're not that good. All along, the bullpen has been typically sub-par and the offense has been disappointing.

I think two things are true, though:

1) It is quite understandable to be frustrated, and there's no shame in it.

2) They're only 10-11, not 6-15, and there's a lot of baseball to be played.

Losing O'Hoppe is bad, maybe really bad. It isn't just his performance, but the fact that the pitchers like working with him. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

They are a poor defensive team early on-- particularly the right side of the IF.  

Well, you can get by with shit defense when you're smashing the ball like Drury and Lamb.

[Angelsjunky]

13 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Well, you can get by with shit defense when you're smashing the ball like Drury and Lamb.

I think we learned a couple years ago (2021?) that it is hard to get by with shit defense, although a lot of other things were wrong with that season.

Defense is one of those things that is more important than it looks on paper. You can have a powerhouse offense and great pitching, but a single bad defensive play can have a ripple effect.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

I think we learned a couple years ago (2021?) that it is hard to get by with shit defense, although a lot of other things were wrong with that season.

Defense is one of those things that is more important than it looks on paper. You can have a powerhouse offense and great pitching, but a single bad defensive play can have a ripple effect.

I was being sarcastic. I'm a huge defense fan. (Loved watching Simmons when he was here)

What I was pointing out is that we're getting nothing (so far) from Lamb and Drury.

[BTH]

5 hours ago, Stradling said:

The old adage is every team wins 60, loses 60 and it is what you do with the other 42 that really matters.

OK, but here's where there's a problem: in my estimation, the Angels have lost 9 games so far that I'd categorize as being among "the other 42."

These were games that could've gone either way, yet they came out on the losing side of all of them:

- 1 vs. OAK (Loup blows the lead + bad offense)

- 2 vs. TOR (bad pitcher/pitch usage in game one, bad pitching in game three)

- 1 vs. WSH (bad defense)

- 3 vs. BOS (bad defense in game one, bad defense in game two, and bad offense in game three)

- 1 vs. NYY (the middle game, where the offense struggled with RISP)

- 1 vs KC (last night)

 

So if they're 0-9 in those winnable games and they need to win at least 85 games for a wild card spot, they need to go at least 25-8 in the remaining "other 42 games."

Edited April 23, 2023 by Trendon

[BTH]

4 hours ago, Fregosi said:

Not sure of a team that won a World Series using a Closer by Committee.  I think Perry needs to go find a Closer.  I don't believe there is one in the Angels Organization this year.  

2019 Nationals.

I don't think using a closer-by-committee is bad, as long as you have good relievers. I'd actually argue it's more beneficial because you're not putting yourself in a pigeonhole of having to use a reliever in a particular spot even if it's a bad matchup.

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, Trendon said:

OK, but here's where there's a problem: in my estimation, the Angels have lost 9 games so far that I'd categorize as being among "the other 42."

These were games that could've gone either way, yet they came out on the losing side of all of them:

- 1 vs. OAK (Loup blows the lead + bad offense)

- 2 vs. TOR (bad pitcher/pitch usage in game one, bad pitching in game three)

- 1 vs. WSH (bad defense)

- 3 vs. BOS (bad defense in game one, bad defense in game two, and bad offense in game three)

- 1 vs. NYY (the middle game, where the offense struggled with RISP)

- 1 vs KC (last night)

 

So if they're 0-9 in those winnable games and they need to win at least 85 games for a wild card spot, they need to go at least 25-8 in the remaining "other 42 games."

Haha. Ok. That’s ridiculous but you are entitled to that opinion. 

[Stradling]

Let me guess they’ve won zero that should be included in the 42?

[BTH]

Just now, Stradling said:

Haha. Ok. That’s ridiculous but you are entitled to that opinion. 

how is that ridiculous? If you have a reasonable counter to my opinion, I'm more than willing to hear it.

[BTH]

Just now, Stradling said:

Let me guess they’ve won zero that should be included in the 42?

Tell me how many games they've won you think should be included in the 42, then.

I'd say the last game vs. Seattle, the last game vs. Boston, and maybe both 2-0 victories against KC & WSH respectively.

So that'd be 4-9 of the "42." Meaning, to get to 85 wins, they'd need to go 21-8.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Trendon said:

how is that ridiculous? If you have a reasonable counter to my opinion, I'm more than willing to hear it.

Teams lose in every imaginable way. So to pretend all bad loses are part of that 42 is ignoring the very small difference between a close game win and a close game loss. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Trendon said:

Tell me how many games they've won you think should be included in the 42, then.

I'd say the last game vs. Seattle, the last game vs. Boston, and maybe both 2-0 victories against KC & WSH respectively.

So that'd be 4-9 of the "42." Meaning, to get to 85 wins, they'd need to go 21-8.

I’d say we’ve had bad loses. Once we get above 60 then it’s part of the 42.  

[BTH]

Just now, Stradling said:

Teams lose in every imaginable way. So to pretend all bad loses are part of that 42 is ignoring the very small difference between a close game win and a close game loss. 

So how many of those bad losses are part of that 42 then? All but one of the games I outlined were lost by 2 runs or less.

[BTH]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

I’d say we’ve had bad loses. Once we get above 60 then it’s part of the 42.  

so right now they're not part of the 42?

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Trendon said:

So how many of those bad losses are part of that 42 then? All but one of the games I outlined were lost by 2 runs or less.

 

1 minute ago, Trendon said:

so right now they're not part of the 42?

Correct. They’ll be part of the 42 at loss number 61.  

[Make Angels Great Again]

11 minutes ago, Trendon said:

2019 Nationals.

I don't think using a closer-by-committee is bad, as long as you have good relievers. I'd actually argue it's more beneficial because you're not putting yourself in a pigeonhole of having to use a reliever in a particular spot even if it's a bad matchup.

didn’t they use that dude who was a converted starting pitcher? Older guy…late 30s I think.

can’t remember his name and too lazy to look it up 

[BTH]

2 hours ago, Warfarin said:

I am bullish long-term, but I am not sure we will contend this year, and I think that if we fall out of contention, we would probably be best served to trade Ohtani and get multiple very good prospects, instead of inevitably letting him leave.

I'm kinda bullish long-term too. But I worry about the potential repercussions if the team doesn't contend this season.

Like I won't be surprised if Arte fires Perry if they miss the playoffs this season. And that would have a negative effect on the long-term future of the org, since I think Perry has generally done a good job with the system.

[BTH]

Just now, Make Angels Great Again said:

didn’t they use that dude who was a converted starting pitcher? Older guy…late 30s I think.

can’t remember his name and too lazy to look it up 

They used Doolittle until the deadline, then used Doolittle/Hudson after the deadline, and then also used Corbin out of the pen with Doolittle and Hudson in the playoffs.