Angels_Fan

The only things Arte accomplished by doing this was making the team much worse and sparing the Dodgers from getting ripped off. Congratulations! If the Angels barely miss out on the postseason this year, we can look back at this fiasco as the reason why.

It seemed pretty obvious yesterday that Arte was the reason the deal died. It would’ve been a bad look on the Dodgers had they reneged on the agreement.

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Actually don't know who to be pissed at right now.  In principal, the deal seemed to be a solid one for the Angels and their chances in 2020.  The fact that they're not as good is why I'm most annoyed.  The details as to why, if they ever come out, aren't as important.  

This deal could’ve been the difference between making the postseason and missing the postseason. All the Angels had to do was give up Rengifo (who is very much redundant).

Hopefully Eppler has something else up his sleeve...

1 minute ago, aznhockeyguy said:

Not sure why everyone is pissed at Chicken Strip.  He's on a team that went to the World Series twice in three years.  If you were about to be relocated and you find out that maybe you weren't, wouldn't you celebrate? 

Well, yes. Going from the Dodgers to the Angels is a massive downgrade, not gonna lie.

Hahahahaha. Fuck arte.

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

You're talking about Ohtani when I was responding to your Mike Trout commentary.  Those are two entirely different conversations.  

Now please find me where I have argued that Teheran is better or more valuable than Ohtani...   

I'll wait.

It’s the same logic, though. And I only brought  that up because of Ohtani.

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Yes, and he would be utterly worthless in the other 39% of the season.    Nobody that only played 61% of the games in a season would be considered the best player in baseball.

We’re talking who is better. You’re talking about value. Someone can be more valuable and still not better than another player.

Point: 200 innings of 4.5 ERA from Teheran vs 100 innings of 3.5 ERA from Ohtani. 
 

Ohtani is better, but not as valuable (most likely) because Teheran appears in more games.

24 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I don't mean to keep nit-picking you, but because we're all arguing over specifics, those speicfics matter.

In this case, I don't agree that Trout's 100 games would be worth more than anyone else's best 100 games (assuming that you are saying that if you take, say, a Mookie Betts season of 150 games and take out the 50 worst games and compare the rest to all 100 games of an abbreviated Trout season, you  think Trout's 100 would be better).

Good catch. If we remove Trout’s 50 worst games, he’d be Bondsian (and more). But you know what I meant. 100 games of typical Trout is worth more than another players typical 100 games.

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

The point I think you're missing is that "better" and "value" aren't exactly synonymous. 

 

I know. That’s why I said Trout wouldn’t be better according to WAR/value, but he would be better during the games when he did play. 

Ohtani may not provide the same value as many #1/#2 starters from making fewer starts, but that doesn’t mean he cannot be as good as them when he is actually in a game. 

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

I didn't comment on Ohtani, but since you bring this up.   Ohtani would be on an innings limit no matter what.   The last time he's crossed the 55 innings pitched mark was 2016.

Your original point asking if a guy needs to throw 180+ innings to be considered a number 1 grows more and more valid as teams continue to try to move towards managing workloads -- but the notion that Mike Trout would still be the best player in the game even if he only played  100 games a year is significantly more sketchy.  He'd definitely be the most talented but, most teams would view the better player as the one providing the most value.

 

All I’m saying is that Trout’s 100 games would be worth more than anyone else’s best 100 games. As a result, he would be the best player in baseball when he did play. 

2 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I agree with Inside Pitch's take, but will add that in defining #1s and  differentiating them from #2s, I do think durability matters a huge deal. Or at least that's how John Sickels (the author of the article I linked) sees it, and I agree.

A player's worth in pretty much every sport is a combination of quality and quantity. There are plenty of instances of a player with high peak value (talent) who is inconsistent, and overall less productive than lesser talents with greater durability. 

Now if Ohtani is able to pitch 150 innings of 2.50 ERA ball, year in and year out, maybe he deserves to be considered a true  #1 - at least in this era in which 200 innings is a rarity. But until we see at least a couple  such seasons, he's not there.

 

If Teheran pitches 200 innings with a 4.5 ERA while Ohtani pitches 100 innings with a 3.5 ERA, and Teheran ends up with the higher WAR, would you say Teheran is “better” than Ohtani? 

He would provide more value through sheer innings, but making more starts doesn’t suddenly make one better. 
 

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

People would be talking about Larry Walker as one of the greatest players to have ever played had he not been on the shelf as much as he was, and even he averaged better than 100 games a year.  Seriously, you take his WAR per game and he is essentially Stan Musial had he played as many games

Durability matters, for pitchers it matters even more since they have a greater impact on the game when they do play.  Garret Richards was the best pitcher on the Angels every year from 2014 on and he was utterly useless.

Someone like Ohtani is a pitcher and a hitter, though. As a result, he will never have the innings necessary to be among the league leaders in WAR. Had he focused solely on pitching, he probably wouldn’t be on an innings limit and could even show improved results. But even if he ‘only’ makes 20-25 starts per year, it doesn’t mean he can’t be as good as some of the best starters in the game or be a legit ace - he can, just in a limited capacity. 
 

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

If he only played 100 games every year, he wouldn't be.

Not according to WAR, no. But he would be better than everyone else during the games that he did play, though. 

Another player may provide more value by appearing in more games than Trout, but that wouldn’t make them better than Trout when they both played at the same time. It just means they accumulated more value by playing more games.

9 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

According to this article (which i  as good as any in defining 1-5 starters), Ohtani would already fit the description of a #2. He's got #1 talent, but  "not as consistent or durable as a number one." He may never be a true  #1 because he'll probably never pitch 180+ innings. 

The Angels have a bunch of  guys  who could be #3s by Sickels' definition, but all have question marks: Heaney (if healthy), Canning and Sandoval should get there eventually, whether in 2020 or later. Bundy  has the chance of a mid-career breakthrough and could be a #3; Teheran is if you ignore FIP and hope his  ERA is sustainable. Suarez has the potential, but probably not  for a couple years. Barria seems like  another Teheran-type: a "soft #3."

So there are no guarantees with this team, but  that's par for the course, no?

 

Does a pitcher really have to pitch 180+ innings to be a number 1, though? Ohtani may not have the same value as many others who are not on an innings/starts limit, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t as good or even better when he actually is playing.

It’s like saying Trout wouldn’t be the best player in baseball if he had only played in 100 games. 
 

The starting rotation is far from good (as a whole), but saying that every other team has at least one starter better than anyone the Angels have is disingenuous, imo. Ohtani, for example, may be on an innings limit and coming back from injury, but he has potential to be one of the best starters in baseball. Let’s also not forget that he was pretty good in 2018. 

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t think the Indians would trade Mike Clevinger for Jo Adell either. They asked for Adell AND another player, which is because they’re still trying to win in 2020.

If Mike Clevinger was on the Tigers, they do an Adell-Clevinger swap straight up, easy. 

Truth. The Indians are in win-now mode, so they have no real reason to trade Clevinger unless they get an offer they can’t refuse....they’d have to be overwhelmed. I don’t think Eppler would trade Adell for Clevinger straight up, anyway. He seems close to untouchable. And an Adell for Buehler type swap would never happen, so...

I, personally, wouldn’t make this trade because I’d much rather see the Angels sign a good starter instead (oops, too late) or trade lesser prospect(s) for someone like Jon Gray, who isn’t THAT much inferior to Clevinger. Keep in mind that Clevinger will also turn 30 later on this year. Not saying he’ll decline over the next 3 years, but who knows.

The Angels can still make the postseason with a Jon Gray. I’d keep Adell and target someone like that.

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

No but if the asking price is too high then what?  It’s not just spending money it’s also prospects. 

It’s doubtful that Gray would cost Adell. That’s just unrealistic. Marsh +? That’s a realistic proposal. If Eppler finds that too steep of a price to pay, then the odds of him acquiring a good starter aren’t good.

Just now, Lou said:

Gray's price will be determined by the players required to obtain him. 

And it’s Eppler’s job to find a way. Not just for Gray, but any good starter who may be available in trade.

Just now, Stradling said:

Well Arte will go over it for the right guy. That guy went to the Yankees. 

If the Angels are a good starter away from making the postseason, do you think Arte would balk because he wants to save some money?

Do you think Gray is too expensive at a projected $5 million or so? 

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Ok and like I said if the narrative that Arte wanted Rendon and that’s where the payroll budget was spent then how do you fire Eppler?  Also if they win 90-95 games and miss the playoffs it would be dumb to fire him. 

The Angels are still under the luxury tax. And who says Arte wouldn’t go over it, anyway? There are good starters reportedly available in trade who aren’t making much (like Gray). It’s not like Eppler doesn’t have options. He has to be creative and find a way. It’s his job. 

Just now, mymerlincat said:

Eppler will be gone if we don’t make the playoffs.  Arte and Trout are sick of losing and I can’t imagine Maddon signed up for it either.

I don’t want Eppler to lose his job and I hope that he acquires a good starter soon. It’s that one big need that is and has been holding this team back from reaching its potential.  But yeah. The time for excuses are over. 2020 will be year 5/half a decade. At some point one needs results on the field. I think 2020 is make or break for Eppler. 

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I doubt it and it shouldn’t be if the narrative is true. 

Idk man. It’d be 5 years without the postseason under Eppler’s reign if they miss out again in 2020. That’s inexcusable, especially considering Trout won’t forever be in his peak or prime. 

Everyone knows the Angels need pitching. It’s up to him to address this weakness. The next FA class is weak. He’ll have to make a trade sooner than later.

Just now, mymerlincat said:

Well first of all I wouldn’t look too much into his rookie year even though he performed pretty well. His xFIP has been around the 3.60 range for most of his career, in the seasons where he’s had a high ERA, his xFIP has always been considerably lower.  He also has a career 3.39 xFIP at Coors Field which is very impressive.

He’d be a perfect fit on the team and not just because he’s good. The Angels probably have the best defensive IF (left side) in all of baseball...and he happens to be a GB pitcher. 

1 minute ago, beatlesrule said:

Angel Fan

10:18

Halos have to win how many games for Eppler to be back in 2021?

 

Mark P

10:18

At least over .500

Just over .500? Doubtful. Missing the postseason isn’t an option. It’s make or break.

1 minute ago, Lou said:

How do you know 2019 wasn't the year that skewed his era?

His 2017 was pretty good, no?