Dtwncbad

Norris was released.  Angels can grab him.  Part of the fun of being a fan is hoping for a big value find.  I just have a gut feeling (which is worth nothing) that Norris is going to be better in 2017 than what the Angels currently have on the roster.  I would be very happy to take a chance on this guy.

I think he absolutely can put up those numbers. . .in all the games he plays short.

25 homers? There were two catchers in all of baseball to hit 25 or more last year.

Only one did it in 2015.

I don't think Ward's bat is that special to even remotely think he will project to that level.

Double digit homers for him would be quite an achievement.

I feel like there is a really simple context to view rbi that settles and resolves what it is, and what value it has.

RBI is a historical stat, not a predictive one.

It simply keeps track of something that happened in the past.

But it has very little predictive value. Which player is more likely to be a high impact offensive player next year, the guy that had 64 rbi or the guy that had 89 rbi?  You can't even begin to try to answer that question.  So in that predictive value, it is meaningless.

But does rbi tell a historical story?  Sure. Smith led his team in rbi two years in a row.  OK.  I now now something about Smith that already happened.

Is Smith now a good bet to be a high impact offensive player next year.  I have no idea.

Smith had the highest OPS on the team the last 2 years.  That is historical data but it also has predictive value.

Two guys with the same number of rbi can be drastically different in terms of their offensive value.

Two guys drive in 100.  Are they both great players?  No idea.

One could hit .240 batting 4th behind a mess of beast players.  And one could drive in 100 batting 8th behind a bunch of slugs.

So even at 100 rbi there is not much predictive value.

Just to be fair though, given a while season of at bats, you can get to an rbi number that is more reliable.  Rbi between (about) 50 and 110 are in the slush zone.  Once you get 115 or so rbi, it is pretty darn hard to knock in that many runs unless you are a high impact bat.

So I don't care much or even notice rbi in the slush zone of 50ish to 110ish--in terms of predictive value or as an indication of a players ability offensively.

But tell me a guy got 640 plate appearances and drove in 38?  Yeah I think I know something about that player that will likely continue.  Tell me a guy drove in 138?  Yeah, my money is on he is a legit MVP caliber offensive player.

Unless the rbi number is not in that slush zone, rbi is nothing more than a bean counting historical number.

Outside the slush zone, it is a decent bet to mean something as a predictor or as an indicator of talent.

I don't see Ward as an impact player.  I don't get very excited about prospects who are great bets to be major leaguers but not very likely to be high impact major leaguers.

Example: Derek Norris is so easily attainable right now.  I doubt Ward will be a better player than Norris.  So other than saving a couple of bucks in controlling years of a young player, why should I be excited to follow Ward on his (looks like) path to mediocrity?

Maybe just for fun I won't answer and leave you as surely the only one confused and unclear on my content.

If Arod rode off in the sunset, would Wade Boggs be clutched up behind him on the horse?

We don't know if ANY of these people are truly good people for sure.  That's built in.  All we have to go on is what we see and hear.

Aside from the built in unknown, Pujols seems to be pretty close to the top of the list for gobs of data suggesting he is a good dude.

He is not very likable, but his actual analysis is fine.  His biggest mistake in his career was going to New York.  He got bumped from short and was constantly compared to Jeter--a comparison that was never going to go his way.

Pujols got fat.  He can't run.  And he isn't nearly as dangerous as an Angel as any of us hoped he would be.  But I don't see much to dislike him personally.  Pretty much anything I hear about him is squarely positive in the "rate him as a human" conversation, so I inquired. What am I missing?

I don't get the answer, but whatever.

Wow.  That's a mess of a mess.

I feel like I just sat through Thanksgiving dinner stuck listening to drunk uncle ranting about area 51.

I was hoping for something that made sense, but thanks anyway.

41 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

I can't stand the guy.

No attempt to change your mind, but why?  That's kind of puzzling to me.  He is a very good person who is a family man and charitable and plays the game the right way.  Is it the money?  I personally will never hold a contract against a player unless they are cheaters or they quit (stop trying) once they have the guaranteed contract.  Pujols doesn't fit those descriptions, so what's the beef?  Just curious.

Except nobody pitched a no hitter.  Nobody disputes that Seattle went hitless, but I cannot credit anyone with a no hitter.  The spirit of the phrase is about one pitcher accomplishing something specific.

Otherwise, if my left fielder hits .329 for half a season and I replace him with another player that hits .333 for the second half, can I combine the stats over the while season and claim they won the batting title?

Everyday in the Majors there are probably 20 guys that pitch an inning or more in a game and give up no hits.

For every additional inning you keep it up the more impressive it becomes.  Fatigue and the challenge of getting the same hitter out a second and third time after they see your pitches that day makes it very hard.  Once that pitcher comes out, it is far less impressive when a different pitcher gets that hitter out for the first time in a game compared to the original pitcher getting him out for a third time.

Is four guys each running a quarter mile as impressive as one guy running a 4 minute mile?  Would anyone really list a combo of 4 guys on the list of those individuals that ran a 4 minute mile?

No hits happened.

And nobody threw a no hitter.

Yes the problem is depth.  But my point is if Bedrosian really is the better closer we have no idea if Street really helps the team's depth in another role in terms of wins and losses.  Yes you can hand him the ball (depth) but is he helping you?  He (to me) seems like somebody that very well could be not very good in another role.

If his injury forces the team to go find another live arm, my guess is the team doesn't miss him.

Part of the lineup at the beginning of the game should include two pinch hitters. They must be used and used in the order they are listed.

Also required are two bunts.  You can bunt as much as you want but you must bunt two times minimum in the game.

For those that love the cat and mouse strategy, this would be pretty interesting.

I can relate.  Back in the day I do not recall ever hearing even a minor leaguer that I had never heard of.  I spent hours and hours and hours scouring minor league statistics.  By the time a guy got to the Majors I actually found the introductory media coverage of the player annoying since I had been following that player for

I can relate.  Back in the day I do not recall ever hearing even a minor leaguer that I had never heard of.  I spent hours and hours and hours scouring minor league statistics.  By the time a guy got to the Majors I actually found the introductory media coverage of the player annoying since I had already been following that player forever.

Now I often see major leaguers I never heard of who have been in the Majors for a couple years.

Busy job, married, very active kids. . .it's a matter of available time.

Life is good.  But baseball now plays a totally different role than it did before. . .

I never like injuries.  It's somebody's career and livelihood and health.

But in terms of wins and losses I'm not sure this injury is significant.  I think Bedrosian is better and I don't have any idea at all if Street would be effective in a different role so I cannot really quantify the loss.

If this forces the Angels to make a move to make the bullpen better or deeper then maybe this ends up better.

I don't mean to be a buzz kill but I don't recognize a "combined no-hitter" any more than I would recognize a combined cycle where one guy gets a double and a Homer then leaves the game and his replacement gets a single and a triple.  Langston had a great outing but he didn't pitch a no-hitter. Witt then did what a million guys have done in relief.  You can't add them together to make something that didn't happen.

You heard it here first:

"Howbout" Trout

On 2/22/2017 at 3:50 PM, hangin n wangin said:

Are you still posting to AG even though he isn't here? lol

I'm not really "here" either I just take a peek here and there. . .but yes that was a good natured swipe at what I believed was a pretty dumb position at the time.

I think he isn't physically ready to play right now because Moreno kept him out of Spring Training that one year.  It set him back. . .

13 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I want them to sign Wieters so MS can call him Weets in the post game presser.  

I think he will call him "Weetsy".

"Weetsy called a good game today, and Troutsy did his thing of course, and Simsy made two great plays.  Skaggsy didn't have his best stuff, but Maybsy picked him up good with that catch in left.  Cronsy should be back tomorrow."

On 1/20/2017 at 11:20 PM, JustATroutFan said:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/troutmi01.shtml

 

Not an Angels fan but I'm a big fan of Trout. Personally, I would rather have the 2016 version of Trout than the 2014 version. Trout's all-around game is the reason why he's considered the best player in the game.

Seem to me this is kind of like trying to decide if I would rather have Heidi Klum at 26 yrs old or 27 yrs old.

So I can break my solar lease and tell my wife the seven year itch is legal?