hopkinsHalo

.500

idk, this team is pretty fun so far

that was some professional hitting by Ward

1 minute ago, HeavenlyHalos said:

Helluva play. Nice to see the defense get us out of an inning. Six more outs and I have no clue who will be called upon to get those outs.

Can Cimber keep going on 22 pitches?

Does O'Hoppe always leave the mask on for pop-ups?

Didn't anticipate Rengifo's defense at 2nd being the element that swings this series

gotta do all those famous infield drills with the whole pen too

that was some good hitting by Caballero

6 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Ward just flew out, so I'll post this now since I've been thinking about his situation: if he's healthy and productive throughout this year, I wonder if the Angels will offer him a 1-to-2-year extension after this year?  He's controlled through the 2026 season, and he'd be playing the '27 season in his age-33 year.  I don't know that you'd want to guarantee him anything much beyond that, but might be nice to have some cost certainty for a few years.  Alternatively, I could also see the argument for just going year-to-year with him in arbitration, given that he'll be 33 when he hits free agency.

Yeah it's hard to see him becoming so good over the next two seasons that's  it's worth signing him beforehand. He's our guy though, so maybe just for that reason. So badass to come back like this

4 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Soriano is 6'3".  Trout is 6'2".

is Trout really 6'2" tho?

1 hour ago, samwum said:

I'm ready to send him down.

I think we get a little carried away with what we saw from him last year. The OBP and plate discipline were awesome -- but the power and defense were both lacking. A .402 OBP with no power and bad defense generated 0.0 WAR in about 20% of a theoretical full season's at bats. We're talking about a poor man's Ji-Man Choi here as a comp -- the high OBP/low SLG archetype is not valuable for a 1B. 

I also think his struggles this year are more than just a slump, working through some things, or however you want to phrase it. It's been a very small sample size, but Schanuel has been extremely overmatched and the numbers are really, really bad. Among the worst hitters in the entire league with no signs or peripheral stats that could encourage optimism. 

So I guess I just don't understand what the Angels vision is with Schanuel. There are two clear options -- 

• Play Schanuel in the majors, where he's genuinely getting obliterated, and hope he can turn it around and give us replacement level production while burning service time.
• Develop him through the minor leagues like the other 99.9% of prospects, and focus on generating power in hopes he can be more than a 0-1 WAR player someday.

Seems extremely clear to me what's best for the Angels and the individual player, but whatever.

 

I think the most important factor is that the front office probably has a little extra motivation to get Schanuel going in the majors, so they can point to him as a success story when Arte is evaluating potential contract extensions this offseason. At the end of the day, this is probably all that matters and so Schanuel's leash is presumably endless. 

 

 

 

This is pretty persuasive.But it's still only been 40 at bats.

Maybe they think such good plate discipline makes it possible to develop vs mlb pitching. Dubious, but plausible

I doubt the leash is endless. I'd give him a few weeks to get lucky and snap out of it. 

3 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Escapes with another very good defensive play. I don't know where the overall defense ranks compared to last season but the eye test likes what they have been doing. 

The IF definitely looks better so far

Soriano has such nasty stuff. F'n leadoff walks tho

lol. Rendon's hit

When he can't control his breaking pitches and has to rely on that fastball....yeesh

Not safe at all. He could get there next week

that was a hanging breaking ball on 1-2.

0 for 20

This K vs Mullins, bottom 4, was such a dope job of framing the pitch by O'Hoppe

6 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I think when Trout came up, that was the best comp for him. A few guys I know from that era thought I was crazy when I mentioned it. People only remember the second stage bonds.

Bonds and peak ricky henderson, i think. Henderson is one of the most underrated legends ever. Imagine having peak henderson on ours or any other team right now. Gets on base at a .450 clip, 20 plus home run power, 100 stolen bases. Not sure when youll see another guy like that.

Interesting. It does seem like we'd remember Henderson as an even greater player if we'd valued the saber stats back then. But did he ever put up a 1.000+ OPS? 

18 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Another thing. The most similar player to Mike Trout may not be Mickey Mantle, it may be peak but pre-roid Barry Bonds. Bonds reached a new level of play in 1990 and form what I read he started taking steroids sometime in 1999 or 2000. So let's look at 1990-98:

Barry Bonds 1990-98 (nine seasons): 1332 games, .305/.438/.600, 173 wRC+, 78 fWAR, 327 HR, 328 SB

162 game averages: 9.5 fWAR, 40 HR, 40 SB 

Oh yeah, that's 16.9 fWAR over #2 during those years, Ken Griffey. That's +28%.

Trout 2012-18 (six+ seasons): 931 games, .309/.415/.575, 172 wRC+, 57.4 fWAR, 210 HR, 169 SB

162 game averages: 10 fWAR, 37 HR, 29 SB

So yeah...pretty similar.

Wow...one forgets how good pre-steroids Bonds really was. 

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

You should not make assumptions, i dont even OWN one, i simply feel rights must be protected.  Its a slippery slope when we take things away without due process, even moreso when done for the wrong reasons. 
Its telling though that you went straight to this instead of actually looking at what i said. 

Sorry...but you're confirming my assumption. Your concern is about the infringement of a right, personal freedoms, slippery slopes...all of that good stuff. I'm just saying it'd be more honest (and a stronger argument) to put the case that way than to insist gun laws don't reduce gun violence, since they obviously do reduce gun violence.

To those of us who think gun ownership is just about the most douchetastic feature of American cultural life, it's hard to understand why gun enthusiasts constantly have to doubt the facts rather than just stick to their principle. Adam's position is coherent (if a bit macabre); your reliance on disbelief in statistics makes it seem like you aren't really sure about the principle. (Sort of like all the pols pretending climate change isn't real rather just admitting they don't give a shit.)

I always heard Bakunin 1.0 was J.G. Fichte.

Just now, floplag said:

You miss the point.  I concede they have stopped some, and im not in opposition to "common sense laws" as long as those laws respect our freedoms as much as possible.

What i oppose is people parroting the same shit after these mass shootings , "we need more laws", all while ignoring the fact that it doesn't prevent these things from happening.   

Fact; CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws and ammo laws anywhere.  
Fact: CA also still has mass shootings.
I find the argument that we "need more restrictive gun laws" completely disingenuous. 

Any solution that doesnt address the root causes, mental health, bullying, etc... and yes in some places to lax on gun acquisition , will fail, CA proves that. 

This is drivel. You should just man up, like Adam, and admit you care more about the supposed right to own weapons made for soldiering than you do about the lives it costs.

For instance, I'm willing to say as much about abortion: I care far more about the rights of every woman than I do about the "life" of the parasitic sea monkey she may not want to carry to term. 

1 minute ago, Adam said:

I’d rather there be lots of gun deaths than further infringements on rights

Fair. No one said nihilism wasn't an option.

Just now, floplag said:

Im not even arguing that stat, whether i believe it or not inst the point, the point is that people use "stricter gun laws" like parrots after every such incident without looking at CA where they are as strict as they come and it hasnt stopped anything in regards to these heinous actions.  Its failed logic.     

But CA guns laws HAVE stopped lots of gun deaths.

No doubt we need to sort out correlation vs causation when assessing that 67% statistic (demographics, economics, police policy, drug policy...all factors). But surely the correlation between the introduction of new gun policy and the subsequent steep decline in gun violence suggests there is some causal link between policy and violence. You're saying that link is totally impossible simply because you're glued to the belief that the policies can't work?

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

Hopkinshalo this is tank, tank this is hopkinshalo.

I think you may have taken his post seriously.

ah...my bad.