Fish Oil

After watching Fletcher play I've become less impressed with David Fletcher.

Yep, Trump's fault.

It's weird, I think I can actually taste that hat...

When you think of general tendencies of a contending baseball team, you want the following as a bare-bones template:
A handful of very good hitters, with a nice complementary cast of secondary average or better hitters. A rotation with three or four guys you can count on - they don't need to be top-of-the-rotation arms, just good mid-rotation starters. A very good closer, with two or three strong secondary relievers. A rock-solid defense. If you assess those basic qualities, the Angels get a "check" next to three of four - or at least potentially so. Not without reasonable doubts, but the components are there.
For the first, they have three or four guys who figure as start hitters--Trout, Rendon, Ohtani, and Walsh--and then two or three guys who should be above average in Stassi, Ward, and possibly Marsh. Adell also a possibility to be average or better, but that remains to be seen. The only real weak area of the lineup figures to be the middle infield, and Duffy at least should be a solid contributor.
The rotation has produced a 1.91 ERA in its first six starts. Obviously that won't last, and its FIP is closer to 4.00, but there are still promising signs for an overall competent or even plus rotation.
Raisel is Raisel, and Minasian spent big on a solid support group. Plus, the Angels have some depth to draw on to fill out the bullpen.
The lone "TBD" factor is the last, the defense. We'll just say that is to be determined, but at least looks better than last year.
Now of course those factors aren't quite enough - unless they are truly of stellar proportions. Other factors need to be considered:
Weaknesses in the lineup. A solid bench. Depth of the rotation. Depth of bullpen. The first is partially addressed above: the weak spots in the lineup are relatively minor, and the Angels have a lot of options to play a game of musical chairs in the middle infield over the next couple months. The bench is OK, plus some intriguing options in AAA with Rengifo, Stefanic, Davis, and Harrison. . The pitching staff also has some depth possibilities in AAA especially in the second half if Chris Rodriguez and Griffin Canning are healthy. But on the other hand, there's a sense that--again--if the major league is hit by injuries, there is a lack of prospects on the cusp of being contributors in the majors, but there are possibilities.
Let me emphasize a point that many miss: We can't have everything. Very few teams excel in all areas. Usually, at best, a championship team has no areas of the team that are below average. The point being, it all adds up; if a team has great hitting, they can still be really good with just solid pitching. World Series champions come in all shapes and sizes. Some have even had merely adequate starting pitching, negating the conventional wisdom that you absolutely "need" an ace and three other good+ starters. Others have had poor bullpens. 
If you don't believe me, look at the overall level of last year's Braves, which won only 88 games. Or any of the three Giants teams that won the WS three out of five times from 2010-14. Or the 83-win Cardinals of 2006. Or look at the bullpen of the 2019 Nationals, or the rotation of the 2015 Royals.
It is tempting to be disappointed or frustrated when your team isn't the Dodgers, yet very few teams have the resources to construct a juggernaut like the Dodgers. Most WS winners combine a talented team with catching lightning in a bottle, or perhaps luck. The point being, every GM's task is the same: leverage your available resources to field a team that is good enough to compete, and hope that you can catch lightning in a bottle in the stretch run and playoffs.
When I look at the 2022 Angels, whether dialing back to a week ago or as things stand after the first six games, I see a team that is far from perfect, that has areas to address, but could be good enough to contend this year. I also see a team that, if you assess the talent from AAA (as "extended bench") on up, is far more rich in talent than it has been in years. Both the floor and ceiling of potential outcomes is much higher in 2022 than it has been since at least 2015.
And to clarify to those who might be thinking, "Why didn't you write this a few days ago, when the Angels were 1-3?" I would say, "I did" or rather, "The thought started then." Meaning, it doesn't matter whether it is today, a few days ago, or back in Spring Training. 
This is a good team. How good remains to be determined. But I see a team that, barring utter disaster still wins at least 85 games - something they haven't done since 2015. If more goes right than wrong, we could be looking at 90+ games. This isn't the Astros or the Dodgers, but it is a team that is going to play competitive baseball this year. After the last six seasons, what more could we ask for?

I think Marsh is ready and should play everyday.
Once Ward gets back Adell needs to go to AAA and learn how to play outfield. I can't understand how lost he looks. Trumbo looked more comfortable at 3B. 

If only people could predict tommy john, hips, and calf injuries .. then maybe fans and prominent websites alike would get it right more often.  Ironically -- all the injuries in recent years are likely dampening the projections for a change..

This year everything doesn’t need to go right, they just need health. 

The Angels don’t have money to pay for pitching but they can afford Bryant? Why would you trade Walsh? It has been a long time since the Angels have had a legitimate 1B with power and average, drives in runs and plays GG caliber defense. I would take Walsh with his five years of control over Bryant any day. Bryant hasn’t been that impactful in his career. I pass.
 

I can’t wait until umpires are throwing flags on the field and we’re repeating the 3-1 pitch after going to replay to determine if the shortstop was moving past the second base bag prior to the release of the pitch.

The whole "bargaining in good faith" is such a crock of shit. 

For our fans? Where in the CBA are the fans seeing any gains? Through raising the pay floor? Raising the cap? Getting players to free agency sooner so they can cash in? 
I don't see a damn thing about the CBA that makes a better fan experience. It's a money grab and the only one paying for it are the fans. 

If I remember correctly, he was near 100% before the end of the season but the Angels figured it wasn't worth it to bring him back for a week or two and risk re-injury. If they had been in the playoff race, he probably would have played in September.

So if the the MLB loses 15 games, the Angels keep Ohtani for another year at $6MM? Interesting.

Still have a few more items to add to one of the shelves, including that Ohtani bobblehead coming soon. 
Thinking about getting this for the other corner in my office. 

Also, thanks to @Jeff Fletcher for the bobbleheads. I wish I kept all the ones I had over the years but I gave most of them away because I had no room for them at the old house in WA. 










 

No, you can call yourself an amateur brewer. You have no clue what the chemical composition of the ingredients are and why they interact if you follow directions. Like changing spark plugs on your car, that doesn't make you a propulsion engineer. 

I'm a chemist. Questioning science is how science works.

I'm a chemist. Questioning science is how science works.

So again…your statement makes literally no sense….if science is a process, then clearly you would believe in the scientific process and the way it operates. It is not concrete nor definitive and constantly evolving. So to say scientists don’t believe in science is downright asinine and contradictory to what you are saying. 
 
P.s. if you make beer in your garage you can consider yourself a chemist. 

Precisely. Only those that don't understand the practice of science say things like "The science is settled" and "Trust the science". If we'd done that over the past couple of centuries we'd still be using leeches and blood letting in medicine, we'd still be using lead in water pipes and asbestos in schools, and we'd still be giving Thalidomide to pregnant mothers and be taking arsenic as a pick-me-up tonic. 
Some years ago I came across a study by one of your top universities (Harvard or Yale, someone like that, I don't recall the details) that had reviewed the major branches of science at 100 year intervals - they found that every 100 years roughly 90% of all scientific theories were disproven or changed in some way. Assuming that holds true for the future, 90% of the 'facts' we 'know' today are wrong in some way and will be changed in the next century. Build your house on the shifting sands of science and it'll be sure to come down soon enough.

I'm a chemist. Questioning science is how science works.

Indeed!
These traits can take a marginal prospect and turn them into a decent Major Leaguer. 
Thank you for answering my question without snark. 🙂

I'm a chemist. Questioning science is how science works.

No true scientist trusts science.

No true scientist trusts science.

No true scientist trusts science.