Angelsjunky

Stay Shohei? "No way." I want to play for a team That isn't so gay." Ah Opening Day In Anaheim, like always Hope at first, soon dread.

I agree with those changes, but I think it decreases his season ending injury chances before reaching game #120 from about 70% to 50%.

This would be such an Angelish move, so I could see it happening. Isn't Anderson the guy that a couple years ago said he was as good as anyone?

I am more optimistic about Schanuel, Neto and O'Hoppe than I am Adell and Moniak. I know, no shit. I see the first three as having a solid floor of quality regular - that in a worst-case scenario, they still produce 2-3 WAR a year, all with the chances of being borderline star types. Adell and Moniak have a floor of, well, sucking. I'm not convinced either will be more than an occasionally flashy platoon type. Both could be more, though I see Moniak's upside as the lowest of the five, unless he has a "walk satori."

Yep. And, unfortunately, Griffey's. When Trout started to catch the injury bug, I was comforted by two big differences with Mantle: Mickey had an injury going back to childhood, and he also was a notorious drinker. With Trout, though, I think his recurrent injuries have a lot to do with his bulky body type, which puts a lot of stress on joints and legs (see, "Pujols, Albert"). I'd rather he take a leaner, meaner approach and work on flexibility, even if it means a few less HR. Or rather, it would probably mean more HR because he'd play more. Do some yoga, bub.

Everyone knows the history, but to summarize for the sake of context: From 2012-19, Trout averaged 8.8 fWAR per season, with 7 of 8 seasons above 8 WAR, the lone lower WAR season being his injured 2017 (6.3 WAR in 114 games). In 2020, the Covid shortened season, he had 2.5 WAR and was on pace for 7.6. In 2021-23, he has averaged 3.7 WAR and 79 games per season. In other words, from 2020-23 he has average about 7 WAR per 140 games--a bit lower than 2012-19, but still superstar level--but averaged about half a season's-worth of games per year. The poll consists of two questions: What do you EXPECT (not hope) Trout produces in 2024? What is the over/under number for which you'll feel disappointment if he doesn't reach it? Dumb thread? Sorry, I'm taking a dump while my frittata cooks, so sue me.

That was obvious even at the time of the trade, but I'm doubting the Phillies wanted Adell. I still hope Jo figures it out, but he's had about a full season's worth of playing time over the last four years and it is pretty ugly: 619 PA, .214/.259/.366, -1.4 WAR, 70 wRC+, 4.8 BB%, 35.4 K%. At 25 next year, we're getting to the point that we can't "only" his age anymore.

Be kind to mmc. He's coming to terms with the fact that the Boomers sold out their future and want to take everyone with them via WW3, Gen X is too lazy to do anything about it, and Millenials are focused on figuring out who is problematic and needs cancelling. No wonder Zennials don't know what gender they are.

A reminder that, in baseball, things can turn on a dime. The Rangers were coming off a 68-94 season in 2022 (and 60-102 in 2021), their 6th losing season in a row. A combination of savvy acquisitions, chemistry, opportunity and luck, and they win their first World Series. This is not to say that what we're seeing in Texas is the dawning of a new dynasty. They finally won a WS, but chances are they aren't going to be dominating the AL West for the foreseeable future. In other words, they look to be a pretty good team over the next few years, but not a great one. Public perception is also rather...dubious; they could up their win total next year to 91-71 and miss a wildcard berth and be considered a disappointing "one-year wonder." In other words, it isn't like the Rangers have become a powerhouse franchise overnight, or a perennial contender. I don't follow them closely enough to have a sense of how they are building their team, but the point is simply that baseball can be fickle. Are you saying the Angels will win the WS next year, Angelsjunky? No, of course not. I'm merely saying that baseball is unpredictable. The Angels in 2023 probably have just as much, if not more, in-house talent as the 2022 Rangers -- even without Shohei Ohtani. I share this because I've felt pretty depressed about the Angels. Or rather, not depressed because that implies strong emotion, and really what I'm feeling is indifference. I find myself not really caring if Shohei returns, or who they acquire in the offseason, mostly because I just don't have a lot of faith in this franchise or what I've seen play out over the last year plus. But...I still like the youngish core, still hold out hope that Trout can have a bit of a career resurgence, and even that if the right factors combine, we'll see a playoff berth sometime in the next few years. I'm even OK moving on from Ohtani and, to some extent, kind of hope he leaves because I'd rather see the Angels take a "lean" approach to payroll and focus on long-term development, and handing Ohtani a half a billion dollar contract would feel like more of the same of the last dozen years or so. I'd much rather Perry Minasian spend the next few years turning the Angels into a West Coast version of the Braves or Cardinals, then try to do a bad impression of the Yankees like they've done for the last 15 years. But the Rangers reminds us of how volatile baseball can be. Or we can look at the Dodgers, who seem to do everything right, but despite reaching the playoffs 11 years in a row have only won a single World Series. You can't necessarily fault the Dodgers, but they're an example of how fickle baseball can be. I mean, think about the fact that they have the same number of WS trophies as the Rangers over the last 35 years.

Yup. By comparison: Raw career numbers: .299/.336/.499, 1141 RBI; 162 game average: 26 HR, 108 RBI Neutralized: .274/.310/.459, 254 HR, 962 RBI; 162 game average: 23 HR, 88 RBI If you look at his peak Coors seasons, there's even a larger gap between raw and neutralized.

Have you played with Baseball Reference's "Neutralized Batting" tool that converts stats to a neutral run-scoring context (for era and field)? It really brings to light how mediocre (or, at best, just kind of good) Bichette was.

Matt Holliday: "Get traded to the Rockies."

The future is grim, Two-thousand-and-two long gone, No end in sight, y'all.

Sayonara, Sho It is time for you to go It will really blow

Nothing beats Adam's balls.

To speak honestly Mike Trout is aging like a Pujols or Griffey

Plenty wasted greats Another sucky season More shit ahead. fuck

Oh man, Mark Prior. A beautiful pitcher and could have been right there with Roy Halladay and Johan Santana as the connective tissue of aces between Clemens/Johnson/Pedro/Maddux and the Kershaw/Verlander/Scherzer generation. And as @T.G. said, CRod is only a bit similar to him, but there's also unfortunate truth to the fact that for every guy that makes it, there are more who don't - and the sort of nagging and recurrent injuries that he's had so far don't bode well for the future. But you rightly point out, @Inside Pitch, that his injuries are varied -- it isn't like it is just his elbow (or whatever) again and again. But still, I wouldn't bet money on him ever being consistently healthy. But because of the off chance he does eventually put it together, and given his talent, it is pretty hard to excuse this blunder by the Angels. Actually, I'm reminded a bit of...Jo Adell. In a way, Adell is the hitter equivalent to CRod, except that instead of injuries he has other skill-related issues. But the talent is there, and while he's unlikely to be the guy we hoped for a few years ago, he's still got enough talent that I wouldn't try to sneak him through waivers before, say, Preston Palmeiro.

Well, I do think you are a bit biased with him - which is unusual for you - but I also get it, and I trust your talent assessment. I've said my piece already, though (to mmc above).

I get it, and I think the chances of him every being truly healthy are very low -- as I implied. But my point is that I'd rather keep a guy with his upside and only 10% of fulfilling it than some of the scrub-level players the Angels have on the 40-man roster. The Kenny Rosenbergs of the world are a dime a dozen and easily replaced; C-Rod isn't. Not to mention I'm not sure anyone would have claimed Rosenberg (or Wantz or Warren), and if they did, well, you've got other guys with similar talent.

@Inside Pitch, just say it: The Angels are a dumb organization, Perry or no. It is one thing after the other; this is just another instance in a long stream of them. It is not a well-run org, thus the streak of losing seasons. I don't care what his injury history is, you just don't let go of an upside guy like C-Rod for nothing, especially when you're protecting absolute schlubs. This has a good chance of being equivalent to Pestano for Clevinger. Or to paraphrase a former president, "A loser organization."

I'm so glad we kept Kenny Rosenberg and Eduardo Escobar.