Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Breaking: Eppard and Picciolo let go - Scioscia and Dipoto staying


nate

Recommended Posts

2013 April 9-17 after May 25-30

2012 April 8-15 after May 26-26

2011 April 15-12 after May 29-28

2010 April 12-12 after May 26-27

 

I would say LT the last 4 years the team has started slow except maybe 2011. So that would be 3 out of the last 4 years. 

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LT I agree with most of your opinions from a philosophical point of view, but you are wrong on this one.

Well again stradling, the context of this is those starts having a major effect on the Angels season or getting to the playoffs as was asserted. When the team that finishes the season is tied in month one and 2 games up in month two (meaning they are just over .500 as well) those starts did not have a significant impact on the season outcome for the Angels. They ended that year 10 games back of that same team which went on to the World Series. Texas had a "slow" start too that year, did it have a significant impact on their season results? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2013 April 9-17 after May 25-30

2012 April 8-15 after May 26-26

2011 April 15-12 after May 29-28

2010 April 12-12 after May 26-27

 

I would say LT the last 4 years the team has started slow except maybe 2011. So that would be 3 out of the last 4 years. 

So you're essentially agreeing with me except I wouldn't call 2010 a slow start that had a significant impact on the season results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is when you are under .500 the first month of the season you got off to a slow start and missed opportunities to put yourself in a much better position to compete for a playoff spot. Also if you are well below .500 the first month then go on to win, say 88 games, then you played well below your capabilities the first month of the season. If you play well below your capabilities then yes, you got off to a slow start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my point is that a 500 start is within a couple of games of the 1st place team, it was not significant. In both 2010 and 2011,the team ended 10 games out. It wasn't the "slow" start that had a significant impact on their season. The impact of the start was the point of contention. Also in 2010 after the first month, they were 1/2 game under 500. First place was 1 game over. In 2011,they were 2 games over 500 in the first month. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...