Angelsjunky

What a strange golf-swing homer.

The Angels were hitting the ball well, at least.

That was a sweet play, though.

I know its only a hypothetical at this point, but failing to extend Trout long-term and losing him to free agency might actually lead me to defect from Angels fandom. If you look at each franchise, there are players who defined the organization - all-time greats. This is the first Angel to truly fit that description. There have been a few close calls, namely Dean Chance, Jim Fregosi, Nolan Ryan, and Tim Salmon, but Mike Trout is the first that could both be 1) An all-time great and 2) a life-long Angel. This should be Dipoto's #1 priority.

The Angels should trade him for the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, the location of Atlantis, and Excalibur.

If the Angels don't call Calhoun up, Angel Oracle and I are going to rip shit up, toss some water jugs around.

Its always been boring, at least for as long as I can remember.

You can give up whenever you want to, Jay. Don't be a douche.

That's what I was going to say. I'm relatively certain that we walk about on Angelswin.com has absolutely no bearing on how the team does. Or does it? Maybe it does? Maybe we're all interconnected by an underlying substratum of consciousness and energy and every time someone bashes Josh Hamilton he sheds a single tear. It could be. But...I'm fairly certain that whether or not we talk about the playoffs has no bearing on whether or not the Angels will get back into contention.

We need a "Dislike This" option.

Remarkable, isn't it? Before the season most analysts were expecting a moderate to significant regression but he's hitting exactly the same, and seems to be getting better. What I find particularly encourage is the fact that 1) his numbers are the same as last year despite a reduced BABIP, and related to that 2) his strikeout rate is way down. If he keeps up improving small aspects of his game and making adjustments, he should be able to sustain a .950ish OPS and even break 1.000 a couple times, and perhaps vie for a batting title at some point.

I completely agree. That 13 game gauntlet will decide whether the Angels have a legit shot at the postseason. Dipoto's actually kind of lucky that its happening when it does, because it could determine whether he buys or sells or stands pat at the deadline. Should be interesting.

Look at the actual, I don't know, win-loss record? 29-22 over the last 51 games. That's a .569 winning percentage which translates to 92-70 over the course of a full year. So for the last 51 games - which is hardly a small sample size - the Angels have been a 92-win team. 92 wins is "very good"; I only wrote "good" in order to allow for some regression and because of the terrible start. But this isn't the same team that compiled a 15-27 record through their first 42 games.

But tdawg, I've written this thread multiple times because the team does NOT suck. As I've pointed out, since their 15-27 start they've been 29-22, which is a 92-win pace. I think that represents the Angels' true talent level - a 90ish win team that struggled mightily out of the gate but has played well overall for the last 50+ games. I don't expect that to change - I think they'll continue winning around 55%+ of their games. The problem, of course, is that this is probably too little too late. If they had played that well since the beginning they'd be right in the mix for the wildcard and division. People get frustrated. I get it. But let's not ONLY look at the fact that they got swept by the Mariners but that they won two series in a row vs. two of the best teams in baseball, not long after sweeping the team with the best pitching staff in baseball...for the second time this year. The Angels are a good team, maybe even a very good one. I agree that they're not a great one and that the chances they make the playoffs are unlikely. I'm not asking anyone to be optimistic - I'm not. But I haven't given up - I think there is still a chance worth caring about, even if that chance is only about 10%.

I know, I wrote about how grim the playoff chances are. But look, despite dropping three straight to the Mariners in Safeco, this is the team that just swept the Tigers and Astros and then took two out of three from both the Cardinals and Red Sox. Yes, splitting with the Cubs was a bit of a bummer, and getting swept by the Mariners left the Angels losing 4 of their last 5 before the break, but this has been a much better team of late - with some great comebacks and walk-off wins. Some great moments here.

Delgado sounds intriguing. How about this for the 2018 lineup? CF Bourjos 2B Lindsey LF Trout 1B Trumbo DH Pujols C Conger 3B Cowart SS Rondon RF Delgado

While I agree intellectually in letting this season go and trading away sellable parts--at least if they don't make up significant group in the next two weeks--purely based on probabilities, we have to remember the actual players on the team. How do you tell the players that you, management, are giving up on the season? But yeah, I agree that if they don't much up some ground against Oakland and Texas then its time to trade away the pieces that you can, whether its Vargas (if he comes back healthy), Hanson (if someone takes him), Downs, Jepsen, de la Rosa, even Howie Kendrick and Mark Trumbo.

The problem with this, as I said in the OP, is that you're assuming none of the other teams - like Baltimore - out-play a mediocre run by the Rangers. My point was that it is less important who is in the wildcard spot right now and more important what their record is, because that's likely what it will take to get a spot. I think, though, that the lowest the wildcard will possible be is around .550, which is 89 wins. This isn't actually true. After starting 15-27 the Angels have gone 29-22 since that's a .569 winning percentage, a 92-win pace, or almost exactly Texas' record for the entire year. Not great but certainly very good and not "very poorly." To reframe what you said, the Angels played very poorly in ST and it carried through the first quarter of the season - 42 games of .357 ball. Since then the Angels have been erratic but overall very good. Unfortunately its probably a case of "too little, too late." By playing at a 58-win pace for the first quarter of the season, and even if they continue playing at a 90-95 win pace for the rest of the year, which is wildcard-worthy, it isn't enough to make up for the difference so they'll likely end with 82-85 wins. After their terrible 15-27 start, in order to into serious contention (say, 90 wins) they would have had to play .625 from then on, which is a 101-win pace. So they've been about nine wins short of the pace they needed.

Aren't good, and here's why. The Angels are 44-49 with 69 games left. The big question is how many games might they need to finish with to earn a playoff spot, whether a wildcard or the division. Let's take a look. Right now the Angels are 11 games out of 1st in the AL West and 9 games out of a wildcard spot, with six teams in front of them and one half a game behind. We obviously don't know who will win the wildcard spots but I think we can safely say the two year-end leaders will have roughly a similar winning percentage as they do now - .573 and .568. Let's translate that to year-end win totals: .574 (93) - Definite (almost) .568 (92) - Probable .562 (91) - Solid Chance .556 (90) - Maybe .549 (89) - Probably Not, but close .543 (88) - Nope, but nice try, though! .537 (87) - Not a chance, but worth paying attention to but not quite So, again at 44-49 currently and 69 games left, this is how the Angels would have to play to reach those marks: Definite: 49-20 (.710, 115-win pace) Probable: 48-21 (.696, 113-win pace) Solid Chance: 47-22 (.681, 110-win pace) Maybe: 46-23 (.667, 108-win pace) Probably Not: 45-24 (.652, 106-win pace) Nope: 44-25 (.638, 103-win pace) Not a chance: 43-26 (.623, 101-win pace) I don't mean to be a wet blanket because I'm certainly not completely giving up hope, but if you're a betting man those aren't good odds. To even have a decent chance ("Maybe") the Angels need to play at a 108-game pace for the rest of the year - that's winning two out of every three games. Of course its possible - and there is precedent, even on the Angels, for such a strong finish. In 2006 the Angels were 35-44 through June and went 54-29 (.651, a 106-win pace) for the rest of year. Of course they fell short of the playoffs, but they played pretty damn good. And of course there's 2002. On July 15 the Angels were 53-38 and then proceeded to go 46-25 the rest of the way (.648, 105-win pace), winning 21 of their last 30 games (.700). So we're not quite at the "So You're Saying There's a Chance!" place. Yet. But we're getting close. Any series that the Angels don't take 2-of-3 from sets them back further and further away. 2-of-3 keeps them on pace, while sweeps or 3-of-4 actually takes them a step forward. At this point I'm just hoping that in September there are reasons to watch Angels baseball other than Mike Trout.

Technically it isn't "half" but quite a bit less - only 69 games equals a bit more than two-fifths. Anyhow, I think they'll do well. The question is how well. The lower end would be about 35-40 wins and a finish around .500. But to make things interesting and challenge for a wildcard they'll have to win 45+, probably quite a bit more. That's winning two-thirds of their remaining games which, while possible, is unlikely.

Nothing mind-blowing but worth reading. It reminds me what a great franchise the Athletics are - year in and year out they manage to remain competitive with a small payroll. Some good stuff on Pujols and Hamilton. The article points out that there are encouraging signs with Hamilton - an increase in line-drive rate, low BABIP, etc, point to a much stronger second half. Albert should improve as well but due to his injury not as drastically.

Trumbo remained hot for a couple weeks after the ASB, including hitting 5 HR in the first 8 games back, and then tanked. At the ASB: .306/.358/.608 15 games later: .306/.357/.604 Conclusion: The Home Run Derby had nothing to do with his decline. Some posited it was due to an injury that never healed, but I think we can now see that Trumbo is just not a .950 OPS hitter - he is what he's been for the last three years, an .800 OPS hitter (and then only if we're lucky - his career line is actually .782).

On a side note, while you might be joking I don't really get the Harper bashing, people always putting him down because he's not as good as Trout (yet). The kid is amazing. He's accumulated a 126 OPS+ in 197 games, 35 HR and 6.1 fWAR all before turning 21. Yes, Mike Trout is literally having one of the best starts to a major league career ever, but Harper is doing just fine and is going to be one of the best players of the next decade or so, along with Trout and Machado and maybe a few others.

Very discouraging - swept by the Mariners?! WTF. Not the way we want to go into the ASB.

23 hits in 50 at bats is good for a .460 average. Oh yeah, and 7 doubles, a triple and 3 home runs makes that an .820 SLG. Might as well throw in the 8 walks and 1 HBP which makes it a .542 OBP. So Trout's last 14 games: .460/.542/.820 Why the hell does he think he is?!