Duren, Duren

I thought the 70s and 80s had the best statistical balance. You had plenty of outlier stats - from George Brett's .390 BA in 1980 to 100+ SB seasons and lots of 70+ SB seasons, to plenty of power, standout pitching, etc. It all complemented itself well for a very diverse game, but a good balance of pitching and hitting.
And of course who doesn't miss Tim Raines sliding head first into 2nd to protect his coke vial in his back pocket?

And coming just 3 years after Brock stole 118 bases to break Wills' single season record 
Crazy stat #2: Brock had almost as many SB attempts as games played in 1974 (151 attempts in 153 games).
Nowadays, it's a shock when anyone steals over 40 bases.

@totdprods - So there is a given that players have to adjust, especially to the shift.  But pitchers are being chewed up at an alarming rate.  Could it be that today's pitchers are trying to pitch to the defensive shift to their own detriment?  Starters are lasting, in starts AND innings pitched around the league.
I looked up and found that 93 MLB starters had 20 or more games started.  I believe this should be about 130 or more.
 

This is something I imagine will cycle back around. 

Think of it...analysts comb over data and see a pattern. They pass it along to the coaching staff. Coaches tell the players to move over 15 feet next time so and so hits. 
It took the players one game to implement that. One play even. 

The hitter? He has to change a career's worth of tendencies and mechanics to combat that, something that took the other team a whopping 15 seconds to implement in-game.
And he's having to make those changes with no guarantee of success. While trying to compete day in and day out. 

That's why I also think this is cyclical. The next 'generation' of hitters are coming into the game now where they have to deal with defensive shifts, and will have to strengthen their ability to adapt and adjust. This will naturally start to neutralize the effect of shifts. 
The temporary solution for current MLB hitters is what you're seeing Kole Calhoun do - adjust launch angle and swing for the fences and try to hit over the shifts, instead of changing everything they've done to get to where they are just to hit against it.

Both Duren and Tot make good points.
I would not go back to 1968 baseball, but I do enjoy games that have a little of everything.   Timely hitting, solid pitching with some endurance, good defense, and baserunning; and of course I long for the days even when pitchers averaged generally 6-7 innings/start. 
Games of 3-2, 4-3, and 5-4 with the previous features are most interesting to me.
I see an argument being made for limiting shifts, like the NBA does with zone defense.   But also, why don't more of the non-star power hitters hit the ball to all fields?   They have no business being strictly pull hitters.  

@Duren, Duren I don't think it's just a result of fans craving more home runs or juiced balls or launch angles. I agree that some of that has definitely played a part, but I don't think there is a grand conspiracy to water down the game to strikeouts and home runs.

I think the game is going through some weird evolutions right now. Only a few years ago, the steroid era ended and HRs dropped. All of this new data came out about defensive positioning and shifts and it killed the spray hitters/hitting for contact because data caught up to a point where teams could attack that. Pitchers went dramatically more for the strikeout. Hitters evolved by focusing more on the HR. 

Most of what we're going through right is an intense back-and-forth of teams looking for the next competitive advantage. Is it launch angle? Is it shifts? Is it openers? Ten, fifteen years ago, only a handful of clubs embraced analytics and data and it gave them a competitive advantage over teams that did not and stuck to conventional methods. Now, just about every MLB team has come around to analytics. Now that everyone is doing it, it begins to erode that advantage. So we're seeing everyone look for the new trend to put them ahead. In many ways, this is exciting. But it's sort of like a new phase of puberty for baseball. There's going to be lots of weird, uncomfortable situations and experiments, but it's just a phase. Things are cyclical. We've already seen the Mets bring Phil Regan back into coaching and now the Phillies with Charlie Manuel. A reversion to the 'Good OI' Days' might come along as soon as one team proves they can again win that way - likely with an assist with some new-age learnings.

Trout is human, not superhuman. The consistency of his numbers year after year leads many to assume he can't/won't deviate to a notable degree. At least during his remaining prime years. Which should be the next five or so.
But this is pro sports. Athletic performance is never, ever something that can be automatically taken for granted. It's the human mind/body involved, not a machine.
Even tiny things can escalate into bigger issues. A slight loss of reflex/reaction timing. Issues with vision. A tiny drop in bat speed. A small variation in hitting mechanics. And so on. 
Not saying that he is showing any significant problem, because he still seems to mostly have the same approach and elite numbers. Just not mind blowing. Power wise he is great. It's just that he isn't as automatically consistent overall. 
Some of that could be about how he feels about the team this season. Often falling well behind in the early innings, he must think all the pressure is in his shoulders every at bat. Knowing the pitching will almost always give up chunks of runs he may be forcing things to a certain degree, swinging at pitches he would lay off, or trying for power rather than just good contact. 
Nothing in his numbers indicates alarm for the near future. Just a realistic reminder that he is human, the body doesn't remain in peak shape forever, and the team around him does factor into anyone's mindset and subsequent approach to each at bat. 
Unfortunately, his MVP chances depend entirely on his numbers, and expectations are always that he will constantly have career best seasons.

Dealing with the pitching has really been Eppler's 2019 disaster. Just referencing this year, not getting into longer term thinking now.
Harvey, Cahill and Allen were all signed relatively late and close to each other if my memory is accurate. Obviously last resort semi desperate gambles. And not cheap either coming off injuries, unwanted elsewhere. Even if one year deals. Basically throwing away money with low odds that any of them would even be decent. 
Obviously he was unable to make better acquisitions via trade or free agency. Finances must have been a factor, but those three failures essentially were a lot of dead money for one year. Maybe going after a proven pitcher for more term and money would have been a better use instead of diluting the capital on very high risk, unwanted damaged goods.
The Skaggs tragedy obviously could not be anticipated, but no one has been good enough to fill his role consistently. 
I wonder about criteria in choosing pitchers. And coaching.
I always have thought that location and sequencing are as important, if not more so, than speed. I was cringing last night at all the juicy fat pitches the Pirates teed off on. And that seems to be so prevalent with this set of starters. No wonder they often get behind in the early innings. 
Just for a change I flipped over to the Rays/Padres game. Tampa brought in a reliever, Chaz Roe. In the one inning I watched he threw about twenty four pitches. Only two were ninety. The fastest was ninety one. 
Every other pitch was between the mid seventies to mid eighties. Sliders and curves mostly. But the guy knew what he was doing. Very deft at altering location pitch by pitch, and sequencing his pitches without throwing any over the heart of the plate. Upper right corner with a slider. Lower left with a curve, inside slider, curve in the dirt, etc. He had a well planned strategy for each batter and didn't give in. 
He struck out the side and issued one walk. 
Now clearly he isn't an exact role model, but he has made the most of his limited arsenal by being smart, hitting location and mixing up his pitches.
Not giving in to the count is also a good lesson. Too often Angel pitchers seem to lack confidence and are afraid of a walk. With better control the odds improve that the hitter will swing at a close pitch even if not a fat strike. That"s what the edge of the strike zone is for. Especially if you can confuse the batter by your sequencing. 
I am so tired of watching Angel starters getting roughed up early, grooving their pitches and generally acting confused when the count gets close.
 
 
 

First you build, then you try and sustain a playoff quality team. 
The building process can be shorter or longer, depending on what the organization was like when the new GM arrived. 
Eppler obviously inherited a mess of a farm system. That really is the key to the second part of the equation. Sustaining a quality team over time. Eppler has done an A-/B+ level of rebuilding the system, so that is a positive in his favor.
He also inherited some key players who still are putting up decent numbers. With Trout the franchise crown jewel. Overall, the roster is producing runs and solid on defense. Catcher is still a weakness, right field an unknown next year, and the infield still being shuffled, but pretty good depth in general. 
He really has been forced to keep Pujols because of the contract signed years before. Pujols hadn't been terrible during his Angels career, but the value for the financial obligation has been one of the crippling factors preventing better use of the budget. Upton is somewhat in that category too. At the time of the trade and extension he looked like a dependable fixture, but now value for the dollar is also factoring in as a negative.
Pitching is the key to creating a balanced, contending team. Some good, some bad from Eppler, but tragedy and injuries seriously qualify the results as we see them now. By default I think next year will be a better gauge of the Pitching situation. There is some quality depth in the bullpen, but with Ohtani back, one or two higher quality additions they should be at least decent next year. 
Perhaps the greatest acquisition move Eppler made was snatching Ohtani out of the international pool. He was aggressive, bold, confident and willing to gamble on his two way skills without restrictions. 
His other trades and signings are about average for a GM. Some good, some duds. But other than Upton, none with longer term handicap potential 
And getting Trout signed long term is the best thing he 's done of everything. It did require a delicate personal touch and communication skills not all GMs have. Even when Eppler is gone that will be his biggest legacy.
Time wise I think two more years starting next year are fair to expect better results. At least high 80s wins and legitimate playoff contention.
The team isn't that bad. But is missing some key pieces. He shouldn't need longer to address those issues.
 
 

Watching the way LeMahieu was mentioned during the Yankee,/Red Sox game on Sunday, they feel his is the runaway MVP this year.
It really cute to the old argument. Most valuable overall, or most valuable to his team.
Trout wins by a country mile on the latter definition. The Yankees still coast to first place without LeMahieu.
But stats wise it's close. Batting average or power prioritized? 
And of course, the perennial east coast,big  market prejudice versus the west coast player who they can't stay awake long enough to watch. And first place juggernaut versus mid pack team. 
Trout is such a well known commodity that he's taken for granted.  but LeMahieu is the never novelty flavor of the season. 
Trout will have to really pound out big numbers the rest of the way and LeMahieu fade to make a decisive case.
And other players may also enter the mix as spoilers.

I love all these hypothetical comparisons of different eras in all sports. Great debating stuff! 
Short opinion:
Babe Ruth was potentially  a combination of Ohtani and Trout. If he pitched every fourth or fifth game he would have had high double digit wins. Based on his exclusive pitching record. As a hitter at the same time he would have somewhat reduced offensive numbers because of fewer plate appearances. But still about forty or so homers and a similar percentage in the other categories.
Long meandering musings:
Years ago I created some tabletop dice/charts games trying to factor in that 'normalization' issue. But it's all hypothetical, with dozens of factors. 
In the end one of the best way to compare is to see how much better a team or player was to their contemporaries. I called it 'degree of domination.' 
The argument about transposing players to different eras is usually a one way street. Taking an old player as he was, dropping him into today's game and pointing out the limitations. 
Reverse it. Take a modern player, put him in 1920, give him the type of body his genetics would have provided back then. Take away his knowledge of training, advanced stats, video and so on. 
And upgrade old players with the modern advantages.
Either way the best would find a way to maximize their potential under whatever circumstances. Average players would remain average, lesser players the same. Just with different roles and stats as determined by team philosophy and style of play. Sluggers would slug, but focussing on homers wouldn't be prioritized. Speedster would steal more if the style dictated that approach. Starters would go deeper in the past, but old pitchers transposed to today would be yanked earlier, based on philosophy rather than necessity. 
Of course the statistical core average of any era only refers to the components of that time. Physical averages of size, speed, strength and so on vary considerably over time and the gap becomes bigger in a linear direction.  But one thing never factored in is the subjective side.
Heart, will, motivation, hunger to win and succeed. How do you quantify that? 
Up until the late sixties/seventies players had little control of their careers in terms of contracts and salary. The very best could make demands or hold out, but the average player had no leverage. 
Salaries were so so low even within the framework of their financial era that many had to have off season jobs to make a decent living. Even when a great player was honored he was given practical gifts. Refrigerators, cars, furniture, kitchen.ware etc. Necessity.
Competition was ferocious back then. A major league salary, limited as it was, still was critical for families.
All pro sports were rough, rugged and dirty in those days. The players on different teams  never socialized and were viewed as enemies potentially taking bread off their table. There were no 'band of brothers' with solidarity across team boundaries. At least during the season. The superstars of the era like Williams/DiMaggio, Mantle/Mays respected each other and shared a bond but after the photo ops and multi player baseball card poses it was pride and intensity. 
World series bonuses were huge incentives, and insured a war like competitiveness. 
I really feel that if say the 1930s Yankees played the Yankees of the end of the 1990s it would really be close. The old school teams had their superstars, but the hunger to win might have elevated the entire roster to play with a cruel edge. Head hunting, spikes up, taunting (racial and otherwise) and so on. The old team probably would be roughly equal on skill, but would play more intently, focussed on the winning bonus.
The more recent team probably had much more athletic skill top to bottom, and their own superstars. Also more talented depth. Especially in the bullpen. But would they have the mental endurance to survive?
I'd bet on the 90s team in a series, but it would be a war, and bring in psychology as well as athletics. 
 
 
 
 

I love all these hypothetical comparisons of different eras in all sports. Great debating stuff! 
Short opinion:
Babe Ruth was potentially  a combination of Ohtani and Trout. If he pitched every fourth or fifth game he would have had high double digit wins. Based on his exclusive pitching record. As a hitter at the same time he would have somewhat reduced offensive numbers because of fewer plate appearances. But still about forty or so homers and a similar percentage in the other categories.
Long meandering musings:
Years ago I created some tabletop dice/charts games trying to factor in that 'normalization' issue. But it's all hypothetical, with dozens of factors. 
In the end one of the best way to compare is to see how much better a team or player was to their contemporaries. I called it 'degree of domination.' 
The argument about transposing players to different eras is usually a one way street. Taking an old player as he was, dropping him into today's game and pointing out the limitations. 
Reverse it. Take a modern player, put him in 1920, give him the type of body his genetics would have provided back then. Take away his knowledge of training, advanced stats, video and so on. 
And upgrade old players with the modern advantages.
Either way the best would find a way to maximize their potential under whatever circumstances. Average players would remain average, lesser players the same. Just with different roles and stats as determined by team philosophy and style of play. Sluggers would slug, but focussing on homers wouldn't be prioritized. Speedster would steal more if the style dictated that approach. Starters would go deeper in the past, but old pitchers transposed to today would be yanked earlier, based on philosophy rather than necessity. 
Of course the statistical core average of any era only refers to the components of that time. Physical averages of size, speed, strength and so on vary considerably over time and the gap becomes bigger in a linear direction.  But one thing never factored in is the subjective side.
Heart, will, motivation, hunger to win and succeed. How do you quantify that? 
Up until the late sixties/seventies players had little control of their careers in terms of contracts and salary. The very best could make demands or hold out, but the average player had no leverage. 
Salaries were so so low even within the framework of their financial era that many had to have off season jobs to make a decent living. Even when a great player was honored he was given practical gifts. Refrigerators, cars, furniture, kitchen.ware etc. Necessity.
Competition was ferocious back then. A major league salary, limited as it was, still was critical for families.
All pro sports were rough, rugged and dirty in those days. The players on different teams  never socialized and were viewed as enemies potentially taking bread off their table. There were no 'band of brothers' with solidarity across team boundaries. At least during the season. The superstars of the era like Williams/DiMaggio, Mantle/Mays respected each other and shared a bond but after the photo ops and multi player baseball card poses it was pride and intensity. 
World series bonuses were huge incentives, and insured a war like competitiveness. 
I really feel that if say the 1930s Yankees played the Yankees of the end of the 1990s it would really be close. The old school teams had their superstars, but the hunger to win might have elevated the entire roster to play with a cruel edge. Head hunting, spikes up, taunting (racial and otherwise) and so on. The old team probably would be roughly equal on skill, but would play more intently, focussed on the winning bonus.
The more recent team probably had much more athletic skill top to bottom, and their own superstars. Also more talented depth. Especially in the bullpen. But would they have the mental endurance to survive?
I'd bet on the 90s team in a series, but it would be a war, and bring in psychology as well as athletics. 
 
 
 
 

Watching the way LeMahieu was mentioned during the Yankee,/Red Sox game on Sunday, they feel his is the runaway MVP this year.
It really cute to the old argument. Most valuable overall, or most valuable to his team.
Trout wins by a country mile on the latter definition. The Yankees still coast to first place without LeMahieu.
But stats wise it's close. Batting average or power prioritized? 
And of course, the perennial east coast,big  market prejudice versus the west coast player who they can't stay awake long enough to watch. And first place juggernaut versus mid pack team. 
Trout is such a well known commodity that he's taken for granted.  but LeMahieu is the never novelty flavor of the season. 
Trout will have to really pound out big numbers the rest of the way and LeMahieu fade to make a decisive case.
And other players may also enter the mix as spoilers.

The Harvey, Cahill, Allen fiasco really has the appearance of making  Eppler look bad.
Because they all were treated similarly with one year contracts and all had injury issues there was no secret it was a sign of desperation. Understandable, but also an indictment of not being able to succeed with other options. Promoting from within, trades, better signings. 
. Had even one of them done what Eppler had hoped then you can say the gamble was partially successful. But with all of them failing big time right from the start it made the moves look even worse. 
The one year contracts were the 'out' for the signings. But at best it still cost a lot of money collectively and delayed finding better longer term solutions. Not that it was easy of course, but those signings were a sign of failing to execute in other ways.
Overall I think Eppler is ok, but the jury is still out about whether he has the team on track to be what he hopes they become.
He has to be given a pass for what happened overall during this season because so many freakish and tragic events created unmanageable chaos. The same with Asmus. But next year is a chance for a do over and to be more accountable. 

These multiple injury streaks in one season do happen to teams in all sports. But factoring in the Skaggs tragedy, this has to be one of the worst devastating runs of bad luck. Also remember Allen and Harvey were damaged goods coming in and prone to breakdowns. 
Ohtani's pitching arm rehab should also be included with injury related issues for this season. If he didn't hit he'd have missed this season.
Surprising that Pujols has remained healthy. 
More and more, people will think that Trout's career resembles Ernie Banks. The lasting characterization about Banks is a sad shake of the head, remembering that he was a great  multiple MVP player on a poor team that never made a World Series. Even at the end of his two decade career the Cubs got good, but choked away a pennant to the Mets. 

Now who, if anyone, has played their last game for the Angels?
Goodwin looks more and more useful. Thaiss is showing positive growth. Catching has kind of leveled off. Pitching is what it is.
Very encouraging watching Canning maintain his poise.Good stuff, confident, looking strong. Now consistency is the next challenge. 
Not sure Robles was necessary with a day game tomorrow. Cole could have gone one more or until allowing a base runner.  Or someone else might have needed that inning more. 
Nice to see runs produced without dependence on Trout. Or Pujols. Or Calhoun. A little sloppy Tiger defense, but they took advantage of opportunities. 
Back into the Twilight Zone till after the deadline.

Thaiss looks a little more relaxed at the plate. Not committing to the pitch too soon, trusting in his swing. He credits the hitting coaches, so it seems like he is just evolving along a normal learning curve. Also still really raw in major league experience. 
Still too early to judge but seems to be a decent prospect. Not untouchable either, so a good week boosts his value.

Seven runs and a loss. Eight runs and a loss the other night. Against a bottom feeding team at home after a big high against the Dodgers. 
It is what It is. Which is primarily starting pitching.
The Angels are pathetic, worst in the league with innings per starter. Doesn't that make the problem evident? 
All the angst over specific at bats by certain players wouldn't be necessary as much if the pitching didn't make it necessary to score a ton of runs every game.
The entire staff is being decimated by being forced into high pressure situations game after game. Relievers standing by, waiting to warm up early, the chain reaction of using multiple pitchers every game, starters expecting the hook and rarely surviving half a game. 
Improve the starters and the ripple effect will help everywhere. And batters won't be forced to bear all the responsibility.

Seven runs and a loss. Eight runs and a loss the other night. Against a bottom feeding team at home after a big high against the Dodgers. 
It is what It is. Which is primarily starting pitching.
The Angels are pathetic, worst in the league with innings per starter. Doesn't that make the problem evident? 
All the angst over specific at bats by certain players wouldn't be necessary as much if the pitching didn't make it necessary to score a ton of runs every game.
The entire staff is being decimated by being forced into high pressure situations game after game. Relievers standing by, waiting to warm up early, the chain reaction of using multiple pitchers every game, starters expecting the hook and rarely surviving half a game. 
Improve the starters and the ripple effect will help everywhere. And batters won't be forced to bear all the responsibility.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2019-starter-pitching.shtml
One of the biggest problems is innings per start. A mere 4.2 . Worst overall! 
The league average is 5.3, which in itself perhaps is the most revealing indictment of contemporary strategies and roster construction.
It's as if the 'workhorse' paradigm has intentionally been shunned. The few current inning eaters are almost seen as freaks of nature, with expectations of an immanent physical breakdown. 
Baseball is still baseball. Despite extreme advances in nutrition, training, stats analysis, attention to detail like pitch count, rest and so on, the human body isn't much different now than it was decades ago. 
It was common to see starters regularly pitch 180 plus innings, regularly go into the sixth, seventh and beyond. 
I think current strategy really under appreciates the mental side of pitching. Starters were expected to go longer, and paced themselves accordingly. Not just physically but mentally. 
They approached batting orders not expecting to be bailed out early. Even when in a close game. That meant not showing every pitch to each batter or the same batter during different at bats. They tried for an economy of pitches, depending on game situation. 
Of course bullpens were used differently then and not as micro managed for strict specialization. There were closers of course, but not always saved for one inning. It's almost laughable now how there are specialists for a seventh, eighth and ninth inning. 
If starters now were trained and expected to go longer, the entire bullpen philosophy would have to be adjusted. 
So much of the problem is mental. Lowered expectations mean a starter doesn't think about seeing a batter more than two, maybe three times a game. And as soon as he is in even minor trouble, his mindset subconsciously  reverts to anticipating being pulled.
Believe it or not, fans used to get excited about potential complete games. A form of enjoyment and appreciation of a well crafted and executed performance.

Better have this reality check now than coast to the deadline after the Dodger games. No chance to continue with any delusions of grandeur.
17 runs allowed against the worst team in 20 innings? 
Tough for the fans there. Reminds me of the game I attended last year when Seattle scored 7 in the first. 
Tropeano is just who he is. But at this point keep him in all nine innings. Helps his ERA possibly and saves everyone else. Probably his only game in the majors this year so let him work!
 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2019-starter-pitching.shtml
One of the biggest problems is innings per start. A mere 4.2 . Worst overall! 
The league average is 5.3, which in itself perhaps is the most revealing indictment of contemporary strategies and roster construction.
It's as if the 'workhorse' paradigm has intentionally been shunned. The few current inning eaters are almost seen as freaks of nature, with expectations of an immanent physical breakdown. 
Baseball is still baseball. Despite extreme advances in nutrition, training, stats analysis, attention to detail like pitch count, rest and so on, the human body isn't much different now than it was decades ago. 
It was common to see starters regularly pitch 180 plus innings, regularly go into the sixth, seventh and beyond. 
I think current strategy really under appreciates the mental side of pitching. Starters were expected to go longer, and paced themselves accordingly. Not just physically but mentally. 
They approached batting orders not expecting to be bailed out early. Even when in a close game. That meant not showing every pitch to each batter or the same batter during different at bats. They tried for an economy of pitches, depending on game situation. 
Of course bullpens were used differently then and not as micro managed for strict specialization. There were closers of course, but not always saved for one inning. It's almost laughable now how there are specialists for a seventh, eighth and ninth inning. 
If starters now were trained and expected to go longer, the entire bullpen philosophy would have to be adjusted. 
So much of the problem is mental. Lowered expectations mean a starter doesn't think about seeing a batter more than two, maybe three times a game. And as soon as he is in even minor trouble, his mindset subconsciously  reverts to anticipating being pulled.
Believe it or not, fans used to get excited about potential complete games. A form of enjoyment and appreciation of a well crafted and executed performance.

Utterly insane game.
Once more, inner diamond defense a big problem.
Could have been a great comeback, even if butt ugly, but Canning kept falling apart. A dink single with two strikes and he throws a fat pitch over the heart of the plate? After having his ass saved the inning before. What a regression.
How humiliating in the end. One two three from the heart of the order against a position player? Not only that, he has no heat at all. Some fielders throw ninety. This guy looked like Hoyt Wilhelm. Who has been dead for decades. And not even knuckleballs. Just softball lobs. 
Stinking umps also surface again to become deciding factors. 

Utterly insane game.
Once more, inner diamond defense a big problem.
Could have been a great comeback, even if butt ugly, but Canning kept falling apart. A dink single with two strikes and he throws a fat pitch over the heart of the plate? After having his ass saved the inning before. What a regression.
How humiliating in the end. One two three from the heart of the order against a position player? Not only that, he has no heat at all. Some fielders throw ninety. This guy looked like Hoyt Wilhelm. Who has been dead for decades. And not even knuckleballs. Just softball lobs. 
Stinking umps also surface again to become deciding factors. 

Deferred gratification is a sucker's game.
Not caring about having a chance to make any playoff spot because the team isn't at World Series caliber defeats the whole point of being a fan.
So what?
You try every year to give fans maximum effort and play as hard as possible. Only one team become a champion. So is following all the others a waste of time because they weren't good enough? 
You never know when opportunity will knock. All the best long term plans and years of preparation and maneuvering can become undone at any time. Unexpected injuries, slumps, failure to meet expectations, Choke jobs, ad infinitum. And even near perfect team construction leaves many fans disgruntled  when their team doesn't win it all.
Look at the Dodgers. Despite all the consecutive playoff appearances they still haven't provided the ultimate reward. And may never, despite the best system and brains (allegedly). 
Their fans can look at the glass as half empty or half full. Gratitude for quality teams year after year. Despondency for never being champs. 
Since the odds of winning it all are tough, I prefer to enjoy the positives and hope for meaningful games in crunch time. Going deep is a bonus at this stage of Angel history.
Expectations will rise when they deserve to, but having a team provide entertainment and progress as much as possible makes the present season worthwhile.
So many fun and intriguing stories this year. Shadowed by the gravity of the Skaggs tragedy.
Since then the team has displayed a certain nobility and collective ethos worth appreciating. Sure, pitchers will be bombed, hitters will slump, prospects will be enigmatic along the way. But this season is special in a unique way.
Also why I want Calhoun to remain through the year. He as much as anyone typifies the character of this group. And that core deserves to bring this drama to closure.