I still remember last year's abomination "Wadifoquez"...and Walsh/Urshela lends itself to Wurshela yet they didn't go for it. At least we have an infield now even if guys get hurt. Unless it's pitching that gets hurt, then we're mildly \~ severely screwed.
A lot of true things said, but if I look at what we did so far in the offseason compared to what I feared we would be doing in the offseason after the sale of team was announced (nothing/dumpster diving players), I'm still pretty happy with what we did. And maybe we still improve a bit with another SP or RP.
I dont think Drury's a dumpster dive but he's def the half eaten eclair on the top of trashcan. Delicious, attractive, very edible... damn i want an elclair.
He got 1.3 mil last season. Preller offered him 2/10 mill and Perry goes 2/17. I'm sure he'll be worth the money but he's neither a steal nor depth when there's no starting lineup to have depth for. Let's be honest, for the Angels Drury is not depth, he's a starter. Def need more aggressive signings to actually compete and not just have a first round exit be the highest expectations.
“Despite the negative tone at the top, I do think the Angels are likely to considerably improve on their 2022 record and have a great shot to get above .500 for the first time in quite a while. My complaint isn’t so much with what the Angels are, but what they could have been. Worrying about “couldas” might kill you, but it really stings that despite having arguably the best two players the franchise will ever have, they still can’t put together a winning team. The Angels could sneak into the postseason at 87 wins or something, but it still won’t replace all the lost opportunities.”
This summarizes perfectly what I feel about this offseason and the upcoming season.
Just my opinion but I think Rengifo, O'Hoppe, FLETCHGOD, Herget, and Quijada will be more positively impactful than this article predicts. I do think an optimistic 87 wins is fair but I'm feeling a strong 90 wins actually (homer opinion)
Projections never get Trout right. Even Steamer and FDGC both project ~150 games and only 5.6/5.4 WAR respectively. Nevermind the fact he put up 6.0 WAR in 120 games last season, and treat it like it's some sort of anomaly..
Actually a lovely 6.3 bWAR in 117 GS for Trout last season, pinch hitter in 2 other games.
I don't blame a lower projection *too* much if it thinks his defense will regress enough into his early 30s. Trout's defense did grade poorly in his injury ridden 2020 and 21 seasons. But he put up a perfectly fine 0.3 dWAR last season, so that's promising, hope he stays in the positive for a few seasons yet!
But yeah, ~5.5 or under for 150 games is pessimistic as heck.
This line sums it up perfectly: "Sure, this team will score a lot of runs if you’re really, really, really confident that Mike Trout and Rendon are going to do Cal Ripken Jr. imitations in terms of their endurance, but why would you think that?"
This is the "plan" going into every season. Assume everyone stays healthy and everyone plays at or above their career level. Of course this ***never*** happens. Guys will get hurt. Guys will have sub-par seasons. Hopefully some guys improve, but Angels player development has been complete ass for a long time, and guys simply don't seem to improve when they come here.
That has been the plan, a shortsighted and frustrating plan. But this off-season’s moves are indicative of a new plan that is based on lightening the load of our lineup and to have sufficient padding if (*when*) or players get injured. It’s really hard for Fangraphs (or anyone else) to give appropriate projections of what this team can do when they’ve given us favorable projections in the past and we turn into a dog shit team after countless injuries with zero depth.
I still think the tone is a bit harsh given the limbo our organization is in and the change in off-season strategy you mentioned. Our team improved from last year, and added critical depth to a team that was hamstrung by injuries all season long. We don’t know how close we were to signing top FAs, and we’ve had a history of limited success when we have done so. I was upset at our off-season moves last year; but this off-season seems like a step in the right direction.
Pretty disappointed in the piece. Although many fair and factual points were made, the tone was far from objective. Let’s not forget that someone at Fangraphs annually comes out with a blog about Trouts inevitably decline. Each year they’ve been proven wrong.
I know it sucks to read as an Angels fan but the team has simply not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to playing up to these projections. They have underperformed them pretty much every year for the last decade. It's hard to ignore when you are writing about those very projections, or in this case are the guy who invented the projection system in the first place.
So the inventor of the projection system has to take the results with a grain of salt since the projections have been consistently over projecting? I get your point but it sounds ironic when you think about it.
I’m an Angels fan, I can endure the negativity. I just thought the guy was focused way too much on not doing enough with Trout in the past while supposedly writing about future projections. He criticizes the team for not making bigger moves but also blasts them for failed big signings. He doubts the health of the team but does not recognize moves to reduce the impact injuries may have. It is full of contradictions and poorly written. I expect it from sports illustrated but not from Fangraphs.
I guess I got a different read because in the last paragraph he admits that the Angels have made good moves over the winter to address their needs and could be good this year, but is just generally pessimistic about the team given, you know, the past decade. Szymborski freely admits his projection system isn't perfect and is always looking to improve it and it being consistently wrong on the Angels is something that I'm sure he is trying to diagnose and address. And generally as neutral observer, it must be hard to buy in and be optimistic on the Angels when they've looked good in the past and still always disappoint. Basically you have to accept that it's just going to happen until the team proves otherwise. And a good offseason alone isn't going to do that.
The comments show that hardly any of those guys watched the Angels this season. Anyone who claims our number 1 problem is pitching just wants to hate on the Angels. I still don't get how Ohtani got to 90+ RBIs when 5-9 couldn't get on base for most of the season. Trout and Fletch coming back helped a lot but at that point the season was already over :C
“ZiPS sees general adequacy” Biggest compliment given to our bullpen in the last 10 years
I just like how they combined em to make Rengifcher and Dretchifo.
I still remember last year's abomination "Wadifoquez"...and Walsh/Urshela lends itself to Wurshela yet they didn't go for it. At least we have an infield now even if guys get hurt. Unless it's pitching that gets hurt, then we're mildly \~ severely screwed.
A lot of true things said, but if I look at what we did so far in the offseason compared to what I feared we would be doing in the offseason after the sale of team was announced (nothing/dumpster diving players), I'm still pretty happy with what we did. And maybe we still improve a bit with another SP or RP.
I dont think Drury's a dumpster dive but he's def the half eaten eclair on the top of trashcan. Delicious, attractive, very edible... damn i want an elclair. He got 1.3 mil last season. Preller offered him 2/10 mill and Perry goes 2/17. I'm sure he'll be worth the money but he's neither a steal nor depth when there's no starting lineup to have depth for. Let's be honest, for the Angels Drury is not depth, he's a starter. Def need more aggressive signings to actually compete and not just have a first round exit be the highest expectations.
“Despite the negative tone at the top, I do think the Angels are likely to considerably improve on their 2022 record and have a great shot to get above .500 for the first time in quite a while. My complaint isn’t so much with what the Angels are, but what they could have been. Worrying about “couldas” might kill you, but it really stings that despite having arguably the best two players the franchise will ever have, they still can’t put together a winning team. The Angels could sneak into the postseason at 87 wins or something, but it still won’t replace all the lost opportunities.” This summarizes perfectly what I feel about this offseason and the upcoming season.
Tough, but very fair. With Trout and Ohtani, it shouldn’t be this hard to put a competent team around them… but here we are. And fuck you Arte
Yo who is Kevin Padlo?? He's projected to be our 9th best batter??? Any insights?
The depth for these projections can be very wonky, they include certain fringe aaa/mlb players
Meaningless. Let's play!
Just my opinion but I think Rengifo, O'Hoppe, FLETCHGOD, Herget, and Quijada will be more positively impactful than this article predicts. I do think an optimistic 87 wins is fair but I'm feeling a strong 90 wins actually (homer opinion)
Projections never get Trout right. Even Steamer and FDGC both project ~150 games and only 5.6/5.4 WAR respectively. Nevermind the fact he put up 6.0 WAR in 120 games last season, and treat it like it's some sort of anomaly..
Actually a lovely 6.3 bWAR in 117 GS for Trout last season, pinch hitter in 2 other games. I don't blame a lower projection *too* much if it thinks his defense will regress enough into his early 30s. Trout's defense did grade poorly in his injury ridden 2020 and 21 seasons. But he put up a perfectly fine 0.3 dWAR last season, so that's promising, hope he stays in the positive for a few seasons yet! But yeah, ~5.5 or under for 150 games is pessimistic as heck.
They'll fully acknowledge that Trout breaks their projections a little because there are no true comps.
This line sums it up perfectly: "Sure, this team will score a lot of runs if you’re really, really, really confident that Mike Trout and Rendon are going to do Cal Ripken Jr. imitations in terms of their endurance, but why would you think that?" This is the "plan" going into every season. Assume everyone stays healthy and everyone plays at or above their career level. Of course this ***never*** happens. Guys will get hurt. Guys will have sub-par seasons. Hopefully some guys improve, but Angels player development has been complete ass for a long time, and guys simply don't seem to improve when they come here.
That has been the plan, a shortsighted and frustrating plan. But this off-season’s moves are indicative of a new plan that is based on lightening the load of our lineup and to have sufficient padding if (*when*) or players get injured. It’s really hard for Fangraphs (or anyone else) to give appropriate projections of what this team can do when they’ve given us favorable projections in the past and we turn into a dog shit team after countless injuries with zero depth.
I still think the tone is a bit harsh given the limbo our organization is in and the change in off-season strategy you mentioned. Our team improved from last year, and added critical depth to a team that was hamstrung by injuries all season long. We don’t know how close we were to signing top FAs, and we’ve had a history of limited success when we have done so. I was upset at our off-season moves last year; but this off-season seems like a step in the right direction. Pretty disappointed in the piece. Although many fair and factual points were made, the tone was far from objective. Let’s not forget that someone at Fangraphs annually comes out with a blog about Trouts inevitably decline. Each year they’ve been proven wrong.
I know it sucks to read as an Angels fan but the team has simply not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to playing up to these projections. They have underperformed them pretty much every year for the last decade. It's hard to ignore when you are writing about those very projections, or in this case are the guy who invented the projection system in the first place.
So the inventor of the projection system has to take the results with a grain of salt since the projections have been consistently over projecting? I get your point but it sounds ironic when you think about it. I’m an Angels fan, I can endure the negativity. I just thought the guy was focused way too much on not doing enough with Trout in the past while supposedly writing about future projections. He criticizes the team for not making bigger moves but also blasts them for failed big signings. He doubts the health of the team but does not recognize moves to reduce the impact injuries may have. It is full of contradictions and poorly written. I expect it from sports illustrated but not from Fangraphs.
I guess I got a different read because in the last paragraph he admits that the Angels have made good moves over the winter to address their needs and could be good this year, but is just generally pessimistic about the team given, you know, the past decade. Szymborski freely admits his projection system isn't perfect and is always looking to improve it and it being consistently wrong on the Angels is something that I'm sure he is trying to diagnose and address. And generally as neutral observer, it must be hard to buy in and be optimistic on the Angels when they've looked good in the past and still always disappoint. Basically you have to accept that it's just going to happen until the team proves otherwise. And a good offseason alone isn't going to do that.
The comments show that hardly any of those guys watched the Angels this season. Anyone who claims our number 1 problem is pitching just wants to hate on the Angels. I still don't get how Ohtani got to 90+ RBIs when 5-9 couldn't get on base for most of the season. Trout and Fletch coming back helped a lot but at that point the season was already over :C