24-13: Best record through 37 games since 2004

[m0nkey]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Well now you’re talking about something else. 
 

He said 11 games over. He didn’t say .649 winning percentage. 11 games over is 86-75 (I suppose with a rainout.)

Or would 11 games over .500 be 92 wins, since .500 would be 81

[Taylor]

10 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Or would 11 games over .500 be 92 wins, since .500 would be 81

92 wins would be 22 games over .500. 

Actually, it's impossible to finish the season 11 games over (or under) .500. 86-76 is 10 games over .500. 87-75 is 12 games over .500.

[St1ck]

10 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Or would 11 games over .500 be 92 wins, since .500 would be 81

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

18 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Or would 11 games over .500 be 92 wins, since .500 would be 81

That is one way to interpret it but if you do then they’re currently 5.5 over, not 11 over. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 hours ago, Angels 1961 said:

Jeff, how much fun is it being a sports writer watching early results of this team?

I wouldn’t say it’s more fun but it is better for me because more people are interested, which means more followers, more subscribers and hopefully more people buying my book. 

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, St1ck said:

 

apropos, we beat the snot out of the A's this series.  If not for one shitty pitch, we'd have swept and outscored them 18-3.  

[Angelsjunky]

X games over .500 has always been used to refer to how many "extra" wins a team has over a .500 record. So just as 24-13 is 11 games over .500 (11-11), 92-70 is 22 games over .500 (70-70).

Note also that 24-13 is a lot better than 55-44. The former is a .649 winning percentage, the latter .568. The Angels are currently on pace for a 105-57 record, while 55-44 is a pace for 90-72.

Now I don't think they'll win 105 games, but if they play at just an 86-win pace for the rest of the year (.528 W%), they'll reach 90 wins - that is quite reachable, and maybe more.

[Docwaukee]

46 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

X games over .500 has always been used to refer to how many "extra" wins a team has over a .500 record. So just as 24-13 is 11 games over .500 (11-11), 92-70 is 22 games over .500 (70-70).

Note also that 24-13 is a lot better than 55-44. The former is a .649 winning percentage, the latter .568. The Angels are currently on pace for a 105-57 record, while 55-44 is a pace for 90-72.

Now I don't think they'll win 105 games, but if they play at just an 86-win pace for the rest of the year (.528 W%), they'll reach 90 wins - that is quite reachable, and maybe more.

quit your AWsplaining.  

[arch stanton]

.600 gets you to 97 wins

.650 gets you to 105 wins

.575 gets you to 93 wins

Any of those could qualify for the playoffs but of these three I like the 105 win scenario best

[Warfarin]

Just for reference, the 6th best team in the league had the following amount of wins:

2021:  AL - 91, NL - 83

2019: AL - 93, NL - 86

2018: AL - 90, NL - 88

2017: AL - 80, NL - 86

2016: AL - 86, NL - 86

2015: AL - 85, NL - 84

90 wins isn't a guarantee to reach the playoffs, as you can see from above, but it's certainly a strong target.

[stormngt]

16 hours ago, gurn67 said:

Yes. On July 28, 2015 they were 55-44. 

That team started out 54-40 and was 2 games ahead in first place. They went 31-37 after that and finished 3 games back. If they'd just played .500 over those last 68 games, they would have tied for 1st.

If not mistaken weren't there critical injuries?

[Taylor]

10 minutes ago, stormngt said:

If not mistaken weren't there critical injuries?

Pick a given Angels season in the last 10 years and there's about an 80% chance the answer to your question is yes.

[Jeff Fletcher]

7 hours ago, Warfarin said:

Just for reference, the 6th best team in the league had the following amount of wins:

2021:  AL - 91, NL - 83

2019: AL - 93, NL - 86

2018: AL - 90, NL - 88

2017: AL - 80, NL - 86

2016: AL - 86, NL - 86

2015: AL - 85, NL - 84

90 wins isn't a guarantee to reach the playoffs, as you can see from above, but it's certainly a strong target.

You really need to look up what the 7th best team had, and figure that plus one is what you would have needed to make the playoffs in those years. 

[Second Base]

So I'm reading that the Angels should win somewhere between 80 and 93 games. That's cool. 

[Second Base]

I love that we're all riding that high on finally having a winning team and a contender. But for perspective sake, I think it's important to keep in mind that pretty much every year since 2018, when the Angels were healthy and performing up to their abilities, they were winning. 

So the fact that the Angels are winning ball games really shouldn't come as a shock when you consider that all of their good players except Fletcher and Chris Rodriguez, are healthy. And this highlights two critical factors. 

1. The Angels need to stay healthy, something they haven't done in eight years. 

2. It's mid-May. The Angels have been good for 6 weeks. There are 18+ for the remainder of the season.

[Warfarin]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

So I'm reading that the Angels should win somewhere between 80 and 93 games. That's cool. 

Well, it's really not so much of a specific guidance, but rather just an interesting exercise to see the range of wins it took to reach the playoffs each year, nothing more.  Last year was the toughest year (in the AL) of any recent year.

[Angels 1961]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You really need to look up what the 7th best team had, and figure that plus one is what you would have needed to make the playoffs in those years. 

Jeff, any word on return of Stassi or Suzuki? Seems it would be hard to let Wallach go. 

[Warfarin]

17 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Jeff, any word on return of Stassi or Suzuki? Seems it would be hard to let Wallach go. 

 Not Jeff, but from the other thread, they wouldn't be let go - they can just be outrighted back to AAA.  Catching depth is important, and it seems likely that at least one of Stassi or Suzuki will get hurt, so I imagine we'll see Wallach again.

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, Taylor said:

Pick a given Angels season in the last 10 years and there's about an 80% chance the answer to your question is yes.

Its been like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan for years now.

Both the death and destruction of Omaha Beachas well as the old man part before it. Either part works.

 

[Lou]

Just now, ten ocho recon scout said:

Its been like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan for years now.

Both the death and destruction of Omaha Beachas well as the old man part before it. Either part works.

 

I can always count on you to brighten up my day.

[Angels 1961]

1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

 Not Jeff, but from the other thread, they wouldn't be let go - they can just be outrighted back to AAA.  Catching depth is important, and it seems likely that at least one of Stassi or Suzuki will get hurt, so I imagine we'll see Wallach again.

I thought they would have to DFA him before sending him back.

[Jeff Fletcher]

5 hours ago, Angels 1961 said:

I thought they would have to DFA him before sending him back.

If you’re added to the 40 to replace a covid guy you don’t need to go through waivers when you’re taken off the 40 like a normal DFA

And Stassi and Suzuki could both being doing rehabs this weekend I think. Maddon wasn’t sure of the exact plan today. 

[beatlesrule]

On 5/15/2022 at 9:10 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

I wouldn’t say it’s more fun but it is better for me because more people are interested, which means more followers, more subscribers and hopefully more people buying my book. 

[BTH]

18 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If you’re added to the 40 to replace a covid guy you don’t need to go through waivers when you’re taken off the 40 like a normal DFA

And Stassi and Suzuki could both being doing rehabs this weekend I think. Maddon wasn’t sure of the exact plan today. 

Hey Jeff, so why did Whitefield have to get DFA'd and go through waivers even though he was added to the 40-man roster to replace a covid guy (Jose Rojas)?

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 hours ago, Trendon said:

Hey Jeff, so why did Whitefield have to get DFA'd and go through waivers even though he was added to the 40-man roster to replace a covid guy (Jose Rojas)?

He may not have. They probably don't have terminology for when a guy is removed from the 40-man without going through waivers, so maybe they still just call it a DFA. I will try to get a clarification on that.