Trout's last 30 games

[Dick B Back]

57 minutes ago, stormngt said:

I am confused:  If we were a 500 team without Trout, and a 500 team with Trout, than what you are saying is that Trout really doesn't have that much impact on the success of the Angels.

Is that what you are saying?

That's what the numbers seem to indicate.

[Dick B Back]

1 hour ago, Calzone said:

The Nats are 21-14 without Harper. That's stepping it up.

Their GM stepped up by fixing their bullpen before the deadline.

[Ohtaniland]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

I would build a team around Simmons and Trout but I guess my agenda is different than yours. 

That seems to be the consensus amongst fans.

 

[WeatherWonk]

1 hour ago, stormngt said:

I am confused:  If we were a 500 team without Trout, and a 500 team with Trout, than what you are saying is that Trout really doesn't have that much impact on the success of the Angels.

Is that what you are saying?

There is probably more involved. Variances in pitching and variances in hitting or variances in fielding or a combination of all three.

Or schedule. One thing I have learned about Angel teams since 2009 is that we dont do well against teams that are > or = .500. We are below .500 against teams considered "good" by this measure. Yes, even in 2014, when we won 90-something games, we were below .500 against these teams.

Maybe we began to play mostly teams under .500 after Trout went down? I dont know and dont want to go and research it.

I do seem to recall that Simmons may have caught fire during that stretch. If memory serves, he actually got up to around .305, at one point. 

[Ohtaniland]

5 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

Their GM stepped up by fixing their bullpen before the deadline.

We have a good bullpen. 

[Dick B Back]

5 minutes ago, Calzone said:

We have a good bullpen. 

That's nice.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Calzone said:

I would trade Trout, Pujols and Simmons right now if it meant we would be getting those type of competitive type teams back in return. Screw these "you win some, you lose some" teams. 

Welcome to the world of parity in sports.  Remember last year when the Cubs were going to be a dynasty?  Or in 2012 when the Cardinals were going to be a dynasty?  Or the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Giants.  The Giants are the closest and they won three World Series, and while they won the WS every even year for six years, they missed the playoffs entirely the in-between years. 

[GrittyVeterans]

This team is not as far off as some think they are to being really good. You have two superstars in Trout and Simmons playing the 2 most important positions on the diamond. You have Calhoun and Cron who are at worst serviceable players (Calhoun should rebound next year). If Upton comes back there's another star hitter. The outfield doesn't need to be touched if he does come back

They will have about 50 million dollars to spend. You can cheap out on one of 2B or 3B to allow yourself to get more pitching. 

Even with a bad minor league system they still have a chance to be really good these next two years because of their core. The only major liability preventing them is Pujols and the insistence to have him DHing and batting 3rd or 4th

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

I would build a team around Simmons and Trout -- and Machete --- but I guess my agenda is different than yours. 

fify

Can't underestimate the value of a rock solid presence behind the plate.   Machete might be the best that the Halos have had since Bob Boone?  Hopefully now that he's had his big games caught increase this season, next season won't be so wearing on him in August/September and his hitting will be a little more consistent as a topper to the GG caliber work behind the plate.   He supplies pretty decent power at the plate.

Get a solid 2B, and the Halos will be the best up the middle in MLB, bar none! 

[Ohtaniland]

24 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Welcome to the world of parity in sports.  Remember last year when the Cubs were going to be a dynasty?  Or in 2012 when the Cardinals were going to be a dynasty?  Or the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Giants.  The Giants are the closest and they won three World Series, and while they won the WS every even year for six years, they missed the playoffs entirely the in-between years. 

Yes I get all that. I'm just kinda wondering when this "let's build a team around Trout" plan is actually going to equal 2002-2009. 

Without having to go back and look I'm pretty confident that those 2002-2009 teams on average won a hell of a lot more games per season than the 2011-2017 Trout teams.

Those Troutless teams were better and more exciting to watch and the one thing we always did during that time was score runs.

We scored over 822+ runs four times during that time. They were fun to watch. Today we have Trout but we just don't have enough run producers to make serious championship runs unless huge changes are made. 

Just look at the current contenders runs scored. 

Houston 815

NYY 795

Rockies 769

Wash 764

Cubs 762

Clev 757

Twins 746

Dbacks 740

RSox 729

Dogs 710

 

 

oh here we are down here...

Angels 657

 

[fan_since79]

This year, our pitching has kept us in games. Bridwell, especially. Angels are 15-2 in his starts in 2017.

The bullpen has also been solid overall. Petit, Middleton, and Parker have been mostly excellent, and even Bedrosian has had success.

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Calzone said:

That seems to be the consensus amongst fans.

 

It's a better plan than letting a guy like Vlad Guerrero go in his prime.

Then selling the team and moving to DC.

[stormngt]

3 hours ago, Dick B Back said:

That's what the numbers seem to indicate.

Numbers are not absolute.  Numbers help explain an event.  Tbey dont necessarily dictate it.  

Translation as good and revolutionary Sabre metrics have bee  on baseball, has its limitations.  Sometime the numbers dont explain everything 

[stormngt]

4 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

There is probably more involved. Variances in pitching and variances in hitting or variances in fielding or a combination of all three.

Or schedule. One thing I have learned about Angel teams since 2009 is that we dont do well against teams that are > or = .500. We are below .500 against teams considered "good" by this measure. Yes, even in 2014, when we won 90-something games, we were below .500 against these teams.

Maybe we began to play mostly teams under .500 after Trout went down? I dont know and dont want to go and research it.

I do seem to recall that Simmons may have caught fire during that stretch. If memory serves, he actually got up to around .305, at one point. 

Looking back at things you maybe right.  Our schedule was weak.  Its not like we played Houston while they were hot, The Dodgers when they won 14 straight, the Yankees when they were hot, and the Red Sox.

While Trout was out we played 24 games against Houstan, Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, and Minnesota.  All over 500 and all ahead of us in the standings.

[mulwin444]

2 hours ago, Calzone said:

Yes I get all that. I'm just kinda wondering when this "let's build a team around Trout" plan is actually going to equal 2002-2009. 

Without having to go back and look I'm pretty confident that those 2002-2009 teams on average won a hell of a lot more games per season than the 2011-2017 Trout teams.

Those Troutless teams were better and more exciting to watch and the one thing we always did during that time was score runs.

We scored over 822+ runs four times during that time. They were fun to watch. Today we have Trout but we just don't have enough run producers to make serious championship runs unless huge changes are made. 

Just look at the current contenders runs scored. 

Houston 815

NYY 795

Rockies 769

Wash 764

Cubs 762

Clev 757

Twins 746

Dbacks 740

RSox 729

Dogs 710

 

 

oh here we are down here...

Angels 657

 

We can't deal in hypotheticals though.  In reality, Trout and Simmons are the closest you have to a "Sure Thing" in terms of performance on the field so, if you want a consistent, competitive offensive team year in and year out, Trout and Simmons is what you build around.  What Eppler has to do is build a better supporting cast around them and that comes from smart drafting, player development and making good decisions when you trade and sign FA's.  

One solid trade Eppler made was for Upton....he gave up one decent pitching prospect and that's it.  While the Angels need pitching, they need immediate help for '17/'18 and Long was not providing that help for that time so he was expendable at the expense of providing support for a line-up that needed "length".  Even if Upton opts out and signs somewhere else, the cost was right and it doesn't hurt the Angels long term for amounts to a rental.  Now, if he does stay, Trout and Upton make a formidable 2/3 in any line-up for a relatively reasonable cost.  Between Upton, Trout and Simmons, you three players at a combined $60 mil in salary that will likely combine for 20 WAR next season.

The question should be more towards what to do with 3B, 2B, 1B, and RF.

Cron always seems to veer somewhere between "hot as fire" and "cold as ice" with his prolonged slumps necessitating a seemingly seasonal demotion to sort it out.  Do they look to replace a "meh" .260 .310 760 110 OPS+ stick at 1B who plays acceptable "D"?  

Cowart's pedigree as a #1 pick might be the only thing keeping him in the conversation for 2B next season as his bat won't allow him to be considered a as starting 3B.  Does he get a shot, or does he deserve a shot even, to establish himself at 2B?

Valbuena is signed for 1 more year and is poised to take Lesscobar's spot at 3B when he departs for FA.  Can the Angels handle a decent fielding 3B who is also a platoon candidate?

Calhoun is signed for three more years so he won't be leaving a for FA but one has to wonder if he might be a trade candidate at some point if he continues to perform below his .750 OPS career average.  Really, we need Kole to push that .780 OPS limit for the offense to really be potent but is he capable?

[Ohtaniland]

3 hours ago, mulwin444 said:

We can't deal in hypotheticals though.  In reality, Trout and Simmons are the closest you have to a "Sure Thing" in terms of performance on the field so, if you want a consistent, competitive offensive team year in and year out, Trout and Simmons is what you build around.  What Eppler has to do is build a better supporting cast around them and that comes from smart drafting, player development and making good decisions when you trade and sign FA's.  

One solid trade Eppler made was for Upton....he gave up one decent pitching prospect and that's it.  While the Angels need pitching, they need immediate help for '17/'18 and Long was not providing that help for that time so he was expendable at the expense of providing support for a line-up that needed "length".  Even if Upton opts out and signs somewhere else, the cost was right and it doesn't hurt the Angels long term for amounts to a rental.  Now, if he does stay, Trout and Upton make a formidable 2/3 in any line-up for a relatively reasonable cost.  Between Upton, Trout and Simmons, you three players at a combined $60 mil in salary that will likely combine for 20 WAR next season.

The question should be more towards what to do with 3B, 2B, 1B, and RF.

Cron always seems to veer somewhere between "hot as fire" and "cold as ice" with his prolonged slumps necessitating a seemingly seasonal demotion to sort it out.  Do they look to replace a "meh" .260 .310 760 110 OPS+ stick at 1B who plays acceptable "D"?  

Cowart's pedigree as a #1 pick might be the only thing keeping him in the conversation for 2B next season as his bat won't allow him to be considered a as starting 3B.  Does he get a shot, or does he deserve a shot even, to establish himself at 2B?

Valbuena is signed for 1 more year and is poised to take Lesscobar's spot at 3B when he departs for FA.  Can the Angels handle a decent fielding 3B who is also a platoon candidate?

Calhoun is signed for three more years so he won't be leaving a for FA but one has to wonder if he might be a trade candidate at some point if he continues to perform below his .750 OPS career average.  Really, we need Kole to push that .780 OPS limit for the offense to really be potent but is he capable?

great post

[Blarg]

Trout sucks.

[gurn67]

Vlad Guerrero September 2004

BA .371

HR 10

RBI 23

OPS 1.164

That's what MVP performances look like.

[Angel Oracle]

Mike Trout

WAKE UP!!!!!!!

[Ohtaniland]

Mike Trout is making everyone here forget about Aaron Judge. 

if you know what i mean.

[Lou]

We know what you mean, and once again, you are completely wrong. 

[Docwaukee]

I mean come on.  This is as bad as we've seen from him.  that pitch was a cookie.  

[Blarg]

Last 11 games, including tonight, Trout is hitting .167

[IEAngelsfan]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

Last 11 games, including tonight, Trout is hitting .167

There's just no way around it.  That's bad.

[Corona]

I love trout as much as the next guy but he's been bad lately.