8-24

[tdawg87]

That is the Angels' record at the new Yankees' Stadium since it opened in 2009. Not a single series win. 

If you include the postseason, their record is 8-27. 

[WeatherWonk]

I havent felt the Angels have had a team I would term "very good" since 2009. Including the 2014 team that won 98 games. They finished below .500 against teams with winning records that year. It was no surprise to me when they were swept in the first round. Teams with winning records tend to be in the playoffs, doncha know.

We really beat up on horrible teams that year, including Oakland who fell apart in the last month of the season, though they did have a winning record..

[Oz27]

You don't win 98 games without being "very good".

[Angel Oracle]

It's strange to go from being successful against them even back in the late 1990s, to total suckatude in the new park despite the Skanks themselves not being very good this season.

I think with the extensive injuries, this team may have already shot its' wad.  Ninety losses is looking much more possible now (46-56 record the rest of the way to reach ninety losses)..  

[ELEVEN]

I'm actually more concerned we might break the 100 loss mark.

[Angels_Make_Me_Drink]

I think 100 losses is feasible. 

[LooneyPlatoons]

I don't remember how accurate this is but I read something a while ago stating that the Angels are the only team, or one of the few, to not lose 100 games in a season.

[Torridd]

I still believe in this team. We were swept, but we were in all of the games.

[WeatherWonk]

4 hours ago, Oz27 said:

You don't win 98 games without being "very good".

You dont lose more games than you win against above .500 teams, AND go three and out in a playoff series, if you're "very good".

We won 26% of our wins against two teams; Houston and Texas. We won 52 games against 6 teams with 89 losses or more. So, 53% of our wins came against those 6 teams;  Minnesota, Texas, Houston, Philadelphia, Chisox and Boston. 

Then, we beat OAK 6 times in the last 7 times we played them. The A's were in first on August 23rd and then finished the season 10-20, 10 games out. While not a bad team, overall, the A's were playing really badly down the stretch. We feasted.

2014 was an aberration. Our schedule gave us some creampuffs that we took advantage of.

[Jason]

6 hours ago, Oz27 said:

You don't win 98 games without being "very good".

That 1st round of the playoffs said otherwise. 

[LAA Road Tripper]

5 hours ago, LooneyPlatoons said:

I don't remember how accurate this is but I read something a while ago stating that the Angels are the only team, or one of the few, to not lose 100 games in a season.

Angels and Rockies, that's it. Of course, it helps to not have 115+ years under your belt as a franchise. But 55 is pretty good without hitting the century mark. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

As more times goes on I start to question how many people even watched the 2014 division series. If Scioscia doesn't start Hamilton or Wilson, two moves that should've been obvious, we very well might have swept that series.

The results of three games does not invalidate a 98 win season.

[Oz27]

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

As more times goes on I start to question how many people even watched the 2014 division series. If Scioscia doesn't start Hamilton or Wilson, two moves that should've been obvious, we very well might have swept that series.

The results of three games does not invalidate a 98 win season.

Yep. I would really like to think the world's understanding of baseball has developed enough that your last sentence should be obvious to anyone. Unfortunately not.

[CaliAngel]

21 hours ago, LooneyPlatoons said:

I don't remember how accurate this is but I read something a while ago stating that the Angels are the only team, or one of the few, to not lose 100 games in a season.

Welp, you just sealed it brah.

Good work.

[Angel Oracle]

37-64 the rest of the way to avoid 100 losses 

Braves and Twins are not good.

Both are on pace for winning less than 50 games.