Angeles- a sleeper team?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    Teams with no offense put me to sleep, so I'll have to agree.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    Yes, I have been saying for a month now watch out for the Angels.

    I think there is a strong possibility that the Wild Card won't come from the East; the Angels have just a good a chance of The Sox or yankees and Rangers of making the playoffs.  Right now, today, my money would be on the Angels being the WC team......
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    Not to worry guys, if we see them in round one, we know we can get to lackey .... oh, wait ... never mind
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    Not to worry guys, if we see them in round one, we know we can get to lackey .... oh, wait ... never mind
    Posted by SpacemanEephus

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ANA/ANA200910080.shtml
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team? : http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ANA/ANA200910080.shtml
    Posted by hill55

     Touche Hill, touche.  I try to pretend like that series never happened.  It was working.  'Til now.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    Yes, I have been saying for a month now watch out for the Angels. I think there is a strong possibility that the Wild Card won't come from the East; the Angels have just a good a chance of The Sox or yankees and Rangers of making the playoffs.  Right now, today, my money would be on the Angels being the WC team......
    Posted by andrewmitch


    Amazing, just amazing.  Let me quote your own words:  "the Angels have just a [sic] good a chance of The Sox or yankees and Rangers of making the playoffs.  Right now, today, my money would be on theAngels being the WC team."

    And let me ask this simple question, if the Sox and Yankees both have much records than the Angels right now, how can the Angels have just as good a chance of making the playoffs?

    The Angels pitching is good, but so is the Yankees, and the Yankees hit the ball much, much better.  And the Yankees are 2.5 games behind the Red Sox, whose pitching is only so-so, but whose hitting has them headed toward 101 wins.  The Sox also have the best road record in MLB.  And you put the Sox on a par with the Angels.

    That said, I do think the Angels have a good shot at the playoffs, but that's because they can overtake the Rangers.  They could even overtake the Yankees or Red Sox, but that is not the even money proposition you say it is. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    Seriously the LAA have to get by the Rangers (very possible) to get into the playoffs. Them catching the NYY for the WC as it stands now if a reach. So if they do get by the Rangers then their pitching becomes a factor. Even then with the best staff era it is only .50 better than the worst playoff bound team. Which is the RS. However their BA & all hitting stats are far below all playoff teams
    TeamWLPctGBHomeRoadLast 10Streak
    New York6945.605-37-2332-227-3L 3
    Los Angeles6452.5526.032-2532-276-4W 2
    Tampa Bay6154.5308.529-2832-266-4W 2
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from siestafiesta. Show siestafiesta's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    "I think there is a strong possibility that the Wild Card won't come from the East; the Angels have just a good a chance of The Sox or yankees and Rangers of making the playoffs.  Right now, today, my money would be on the Angels being the WC team......"

    I'll take that bet.  I'll even spot you 2 games.

    Their pitching's good but their lineup is bad.  Very similar to the Rays.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    "I think there is a strong possibility that the Wild Card won't come from the East; the Angels have just a good a chance of The Sox or yankees and Rangers of making the playoffs.  Right now, today, my money would be on the Angels being the WC team......" I'll take that bet.  I'll even spot you 2 games. Their pitching's good but their lineup is bad.  Very similar to the Rays.
    Posted by siestafiesta


    Maybe, but they're the '27 Yankees compared to the A's and Mariners, and that's who they play half their games against in September, while the Yankees are playing the Sox and Rays.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    The one thing about the ngeles to keep in mind is that their offense is literally maturing on the job as they have some rookies (most notably Turmbow) who are becoming an offensive factor.

    They could catch Texas who always battles the fatigue of playing 81 home games in an oven. pasing the loser of East is mathematically possible but if you think the Angels can catch him as someone else has pointed out that means the Rays haven't gone away...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team? : Amazing, just amazing.  Let me quote your own words:  "the Angels have just a [sic] good a chance of The Sox or yankees and Rangers of making the playoffs.  Right now, today, my money would be on theAngels being the WC team." And let me ask this simple question, if the Sox and Yankees both have much records than the Angels right now, how can the Angels have just as good a chance of making the playoffs? The Angels pitching is good, but so is the Yankees, and the Yankees hit the ball much, much better.  And the Yankees are 2.5 games behind the Red Sox, whose pitching is only so-so, but whose hitting has them headed toward 101 wins. The Sox also have the best road record in MLB.  And you put the Sox on a par with the Angels. That said, I do think the Angels have a good shot at the playoffs, but that's because they can overtake the Rangers.  They could even overtake the Yankees or Red Sox, but that is not the even money proposition you say it is. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    Man, you couldn't be more wrong.
    You obviously got nothing from the Fenway Factor thread.
    Boston has as good a pitching staff as anybody in the game. Better w/o all the injuries. Fenway masks the numbers, just as they enhance the hitting stats.

    The Angels pitching is mostly venue induced. Always has been. The benefit from playing in Seattle/Oakland w/o the travel time Boston has to put in to play in such obvious pitching parks. The Angels have copped several cheap divisional titles, but rarely go anywhere once in.

    If they played in the A.L. East over the last decade, thy'd be lucky to have one WC birth to their credit.

    They won't sniff the PO's this year.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team? : Man, you couldn't be more wrong. You obviously got nothing from the Fenway Factor thread. Boston has as good a pitching staff as anybody in the game. Better w/o all the injuries. Fenway masks the numbers, just as they enhance the hitting stats. The Angels pitching is mostly venue induced. Always has been. The benefit from playing in Seattle/Oakland w/o the travel time Boston has to put in to play in such obvious pitching parks. The Angels have copped several cheap divisional titles, but rarely go anywhere once in. If they played in the A.L. East over the last decade, thy'd be lucky to have one WC birth to their credit. They won't sniff the PO's this year.
    Posted by harness

    Going into Wednesday's games, the Los Angeles Angels had an ERA of 3.41 in 34 games against their three AL West rivals.

    The Angels had an ERA of 3.36 in 26 games against the five AL East teams, with the Red Sox inflicting most of the damage. Excluding the eight games against the Red Sox, the Angels had an ERA of 2.90 in 18 games agaisnt AL East foes.

    During the past decade, the 2002 Los Angeles Angels won a Wild Card berth enroute to the World Series title (the Red Sox that year won 93 games, the same number as the third-place Seattle Mariners in the AL West ... in fact the Mariners averaged 100 wins a season over three consecutive years [2001-03] but had only one postseason appearance to show for it).

    Here are a couple of measures of team pitching that taken the venues into consideration:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&lg=al&stats=pit&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011

    Check out the team ERA+rankings:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2011.shtml
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    Yeah, LA stinks.

    Offense:
    Texas    596 runs
    LAA        447 runs

    Pitching and defense:
    LAA     423 runs
    Texas  496 runs

    LA has one more loss than Texas.  It must be their offense (adjusted for venue) leading them this far. BTW, they don't have a single player with an OPS over .794.


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    I love stats as much as the next guy but I don't need them to know that the way Ervin Santana has been pitching that he is a big upgrade over Lackey, Wake or even Bedard just off the DL. Weaver can hold his own against any pitcher in the game right now and Haren and Lester (2011) are a very fair fight. Haren did it BTW in AZ's launching pad, not just the AL West. That front three can pitch, there isn't a Zito (venue aided guy) amongst the three. Santana can get rattled however.

    They do have a deeper starting rotation than Boston's IMO and you can say it is a mirage but they are good. I'd give a decent edge to Boston in short BP game. The RS make fewer mental errors, but most of all they are going to drive pitch count on those equal starters and get into the bullpen earlier and therefore deeper. Our 3 and 4 guys are a concern IMO though I have hope that Lackey will get hot and Bedard once he has his legs under him will be Bedard, because when healthy that is a fine pitcher (in any park).

    There is a different Fenway Factor at play in any match-up between these two and that is that Fenway has been such a house of pain for the Angels that it gives the RS a mental edge. The Angels have been beaten up there, by wide margins, walk off HRs in close games, run themselves out of innings etc.

    Personally I watch them play a lot and have a good deal of respect for them but a Boston match-up is no dream for them. Trust me their fans hope they pass Texas to win the AL West, get the NYY first round and that AL Central team knocks us off in an upset. OTOH, I think Texas likes a match-up with us just fine...

    Just my takes
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    Yeah, LA stinks. Offense: Texas    596 runs LAA        447 runs Pitching and defense: LAA     423 runs Texas  496 runs LA has one more loss than Texas.  It must be their offense (adjusted for venue) leading them this far.
    Posted by moonslav59



    The huge offensive differential is mostly venue based.
    Same for the pitching.

    Never said LA stunk. But their pitching is over-rated; always has been. Their hitting is under-rated. They've won easy divisional titles (until Texas came of age).

    I'll say it again: Put them in the A.L.East over the last 10 years, and they might see one WC birth.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    They "might" have 3 WS wins as well.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team? : Going into Wednesday's games, the Los Angeles Angels had an ERA of 3.41 in 34 games against their three AL West rivals. The Angels had an ERA of 3.36 in 26 games against the five AL East teams, with the Red Sox inflicting most of the damage. Excluding the eight games against the Red Sox, the Angels had an ERA of 2.90 in 18 games agaisnt AL East foes. During the past decade, the 2002 Los Angeles Angels won a Wild Card berth enroute to the World Series title (the Red Sox that year won 93 games, the same number as the third-place Seattle Mariners in the AL West ... in fact the Mariners averaged 100 wins a season  over three consecutive years [2001-03] but had only one postseason appearance to show for it). Here are a couple of measures of team pitching that taken the venues into consideration: http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&lg=al&stats=pit&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011 Check out the team ERA+rankings: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2011.shtml
    Posted by hill55


    ERA rankings are venue induced. Angels have a home park 3.02 ERA/1.193 WHIP.
    In Fenway: 4.50 ERA/1.421 WHIP
    In NY: 9.00 ERA/1.471 WHIP
    IN TX: 3.88 ERA/1.216 WHIP
    When they play in Toronto, likely a similar scenario.

    Last 8 seasons vs. RedSox:
    In CA: 3.31 ERA/1.270
    In Fenway: 5.05 ERA/1.540 WHIP

    If the Angels played in the A.L. East, they play 3 times as many games in A.L. East venues...and three times less in A.L. West pitching venues.

    Tell me this, Hill: How many times have the Angels made the PO's over the last decade? How many times have they been bounced early?

    What pct. of teams from the A.L. East have gone to the WS over the last 15 years?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    They "might" have 3 WS wins as well.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Seriously doubt it. Boston wins what, 95 per year?
    The Angels are copping wins against weaker.
    In the A.L. East, they'd have to win 96 games a year just to get the WC.
    How many years would they have won 96 games a year playing in hitting venues?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    But, they'd be leading the league in hitting if you used the same park adjustments with their offense.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from WC5842. Show WC5842's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    Angels aren't going anywhere and have beneifited from playing in the same division as the Mariners and the A's.  Their pitching is ok, but kind of overstated when it comes down to it.  They currently are 8 games out of the W.C and won't beat Texas head to head.  They are done, but they just don't know it yet. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team? : ERA rankings are venue induced. Angels have a home park 3.02 ERA/1.193 WHIP. In Fenway: 4.50 ERA/1.421 WHIP In NY: 9.00 ERA/1.471 WHIP IN TX: 3.88 ERA/1.216 WHIP When they play in Toronto, likely a similar scenario. Last 8 seasons vs. RedSox: In CA: 3.31 ERA/1.270 In Fenway: 5.05 ERA/1.540 WHIP If the Angels played in the A.L. East, they play 3 times as many games in A.L. East venues...and three times less in A.L. West pitching venues. Tell me this, Hill: How many times have the Angels made the PO's over the last decade? How many times have they been bounced early? What pct. of teams from the A.L. East have gone to the WS over the last 15 years?
    Posted by harness

    As my post suggested, look to the ERA+ rankings (which account for the venue differences). The 2011 Angels have an ERA+ of 111 while the Red Sox have an ERA+ of 106. The gap between the Angels and Red Sox is indeed closer when the venues are taken into account, but it's still a gap.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2011.shtml

    * ERA+ 6 -- ERA+
    100*[lgERA/ERA]
    Adjusted to the player’s ballpark(s).

    I have not taken a recent tally, but as of about a year ago AL West teams over the previous decade had a winning cumulative record in head-to-head regular-season competition against AL East teams. For many of those years, a good AL East team could inflate its win total by playing upwards of 36 games a year against Baltimore and Tampa Bay, two of baseball's weakest franchises over that period. The Rays have come on strong in recent years and the AL East has a solid 65-53 record in head-to-head competition against AL West teams so far this season.

    AL East teams have enjoyed more postseason success than AL West teams have over the past decade, although AL West teams have won three of the last four postseason matchups against AL East teams (starting with the Angels' sweep of the Red Sox in the 2009 ALDS).
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    I love stats as much as the next guy but I don't need them to know that the way Ervin Santana has been pitching that he is a big upgrade over Lackey, Wake or even Bedard just off the DL. Weaver can hold his own against any pitcher in the game right now and Haren and Lester (2011) are a very fair fight. Haren did it BTW in AZ's launching pad, not just the AL West. That front three can pitch, there isn't a Zito (venue aided guy) amongst the three. Santana can get rattled however. They do have a deeper starting rotation than Boston's IMO and you can say it is a mirage but they are good. I'd give a decent edge to Boston in short BP game. The RS make fewer mental errors, but most of all they are going to drive pitch count on those equal starters and get into the bullpen earlier and therefore deeper. Our 3 and 4 guys are a concern IMO though I have hope that Lackey will get hot and Bedard once he has his legs under him will be Bedard, because when healthy that is a fine pitcher (in any park). There is a different Fenway Factor at play in any match-up between these two and that is that Fenway has been such a house of pain for the Angels that it gives the RS a mental edge. The Angels have been beaten up there, by wide margins, walk off HRs in close games, run themselves out of innings etc. Personally I watch them play a lotand have a good deal of respect for them but a Boston match-up is no dream for them. Trust me their fans hope they pass Texas to win the AL West, get the NYY first round and that AL Central team knocks us off in an upset. OTOH, I think Texas likes a match-up with us just fine... Just my takes
    Posted by fivekatz


    Watching them a lot where? This is how the big three, Weaver/Haren/Santana, have fared in CA - as opposed to the top three hitting venues: TX/Fenway/NY:

    Weaver in CA:              1.51 ERA  1.009 WHIP
    Weaver in NY/BS/TX:   3.43 ERA  1.000 WHIP

    Haren in CA:                2.44 ERA  0.827 WHIP
    Haren in NY/BS/TX:     3.80 ERA  1.080 WHIP

    Santana in CA:             2.97 ERA  1.113 WHIP
    Santana in NY/BS/TX:   5.99 ERA  1.1.467 WHIP

    TOTALS:
    IN CA:           2.36 ERA  1.071 WHIP
    In NY/BS/TX: 4.22 ERA  1.146 WHIP
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team? : As my post suggested, look to the ERA + rankings (which account for the venue differences). The 2011 Angels have an ERA+ of 111 while the Red Sox have an ERA+ of 106. The gap between the Angels and Red Sox is indeed closer when the venues are taken into account, but it's still a gap. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2011.shtml * ERA+ 6 -- ERA+ 100*[lgERA/ERA] Adjusted to the player’s ballpark(s). I have not taken a recent tally, but as of about a year ago AL West teams over the past decade had a winning record in head-to-head regular-season competition against AL East teams. For many of those years, a good AL East team could inflate its win total by playing upwards of 36 games a year against Baltimore and Tampa Bay, two of baseball's weakest franchises over that period. The Rays have come on strong in recent years and the AL East has a solid 65-53 record in head-to-head competition against AL West teams so far this season. AL East teams have enjoyed more postseason success than AL West teams have over the past decade, although AL West teams have won three of the last four postseason matchups against AL East teams (starting with the Angels' sweep of the Red Sox in the 2009 ALDS).
    Posted by hill55


    My own research regarding venue ERA's vastly differs from the computer print-out of site ERA adj., which is why I no longer trust them.

    The numbers speak for themselves. I agree with you in that before 2008, the A.L. East disparity was much wider. But they still would have to have faced BS/NY/TN 54+ times, and their pitching would have completely different numbers in a hitting home venue. In fact, I think the Angels would be built differently, and their approach altered playing 81 a year in a hitting venue.

    BTW: We are discussing the Angels, not Texas. They are a legit WS contender. The Angels are a runner-up.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?

    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team?:
    In Response to Re: Angeles- a sleeper team? : My own research regarding venue ERA's vastly differs from the computer print-out of site ERA adj., which is why I no longer trust them. The numbers speak for themselves. I agree with you in that before 2008, the A.L. East disparity was much wider. But they still would have to have faced BS/NY/TN 54+ times, and their pitching would have completely different numbers in a hitting home venue. In fact, I think the Angels would be built differently, and their approach altered playing 81 a year in a hitting venue. BTW: We are discussing the Angels, not Texas. They are a legit WS contender. The Angels are a runner-up.
    Posted by harness

    Perhaps we can agree that the Angels would be built differently if the Halos played in the AL East and that the Red Sox would be built differently if they played in the AL West.

    Over the past decade the Red Sox have earned a reputation as a heavy-hitting team, but their hitting numbers likely would suffer if the Sox played in the AL West.

    I agree that the Angels are unlikely to secure a Wild Card berth this year, although the Angels could win the AL West if they fare well in the 10 remaining games against the Texas Rangers.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share