Defense Blows Game Postgame

After two pretty crazy games, the Angels and Nationals settled in to a tight, close affair on Sunday afternoon in Anaheim. While many baseball games are won on great plays, the Angels lost this one due to shoddy defense.

Taylor Ward kicked off the scoring with an RBI double in the bottom of the first inning.

Two runners were left on that inning, which would be a bit of a theme on the day. Washington scored in the top of the 4th and 5th innings to take a 2-1 lead. It would have been 3-1 if not for a nifty defensive play by Logan O’Hoppe.

Jo Adell got that run back in the 6th with an RBI single to extend his hitting streak.

Christian Moore is earning a reputation for being clutch and he added to his lore today, punching in Jo Adell on a two out single.

The twists and turns were just beginning at this point, though. Washington would tie the game at 3 in the top of the 7th. After having a great game last night, Kevin Newman simply misplayed a pop up in the sun and allowed a double and a runner to come all the way around from first. Newman’s was far from the only defensive miscue by the Angels, but this one was critical.

Not to be outdone on the miscues front, Washington then allowed Luis Rengifo to score on a wild pitch in the bottom of the 7th to stake the Angels to a late 4-3 lead. Detmers in the 8th followed by Jansen in the 9th should be all the Angels neeeded.

But Jansen blew his first save of the year; starting the 9th inning with a walk that came back to haunt. He kept the score knotted at 4-4, giving the Angels a chance to win it in walk off fashion.

Christian Moore led off the home half of the 9th with a walk but the Angels could not bring him home. Extra innings we go.

Connor Brogdon did a nice job and kept the Nationals off the board in the top of the 10th inning. The Angels started the bottom half with the speedy Zach Neto on second base and the top of the lineup due up. Washington kept Brandon Finnegan on the hill for a second inning and he kept the Angels scoreless.

Brogdon was unable to match Finnegan and the Nationals took a 7 to 4 lead in the top of the 11th. Brandon Finnegan pitched the 11th as well for the Nats and secured the win.

Subscribe
Notify of
77 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brent
Super Member
8 hours ago

This team is so bad.

How bad?

This loss meant that 28% of the Nats wins for the month came against the Angels.

This was the first series of the month that the Nats won.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend

Skubal’s made a damn spectacle of himself today… 7IP, 1 hit, 13Ks….

Welp, Nolan’s kinda slumping. Have to see how he shakes it off. Neto’s still out with a case of the Cozarts. Half games huh? If only he loved baseball more. Ward came alive just long enough to keep that OPS above .750 and look good as long as you aren’t paying attention. Moore is hitting .200. Yay for clutch hits. But it’s still .200.

On the bright side Jo Adell still really wants his job. Rengifo actually looks like 2024 Rengifo now days. That’s nice. Fermin, Burke and Detmers still look good. Sadly, Silent C is not.

Mike Trout. Still unhurt. Still on the team.

This seasonz a trip carnal.

Let’s make some trades!

RexFregosi
Super Member
9 hours ago

Jo had a good June (1.2 WAR) but this is what’s always been expected. I see about 7 other AL guys had a better WAR than him this month. At the top is Byron Buxton (1.9 WAR). I’d always hope Jo can match Buxton.

My point is yes Jo had a good June but is just now meeting expectations. There is so much more there and he still has a ways to go.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  RexFregosi

I for one won’t be satisfied till he has an eight WAR season

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
8 hours ago

What I like is that Jo is only a couple games like today’s away from a *league average* K rate. Which has seemed unthinkable throughout his career.

We always expected this level of power, but he didn’t strike out once today, and both his batting average and OBP are now a tick above league averages.

Wow.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

I know. It feels like a dream….

CAoldskoll
Trusted Member
11 hours ago

Thank god I at least had seats in the shade for that defensive let down. Hey did someone already mention Brogdon still sucks like he did in the minors.

2002heaven
Super Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  CAoldskoll

Point taken.

ErSTAN
Trusted Member
11 hours ago

At least I got to dance to cumbia and got my Salvadoran jersey. I blame the wife. The last win we saw in person together was the Neto youth jersey game against thr Astros last year.

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
11 hours ago

Particularly tough loss, given Houston and Seattle won. Even with half a season to play, I don’t think there’s any world where they make up nine games on Houston.

And with seven teams fighting for the 3rd wild card spot, and the Angels being the worst team in the AL on defense and strikeouts, and bottom three in walk rate, OBP and team ERA, the 6% playoff expectancy makes total sense to me.

But…buyers.

Fansince1971
Legend
11 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

That’s so nonsensical to me. Why buyers if 6% chance and no real farm system. Why not build by trading pieces like Rengifo, Jansen and Anderson?

Last edited 11 hours ago by Fansince1971
JackFrost
Legend
11 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

I don’t buy/believe the 6% chance. Especially if a team like the Red Sox are listed at 17%. To me that is totally indefensible and I don’t see any possible justification for three days ago having us that low and having Boston at 17 + % at making the playoffs.

Boston is a sinking ship. In addition we showed pretty clearly that we are a better team than they are by beating them head to head. I mean, it wasn’t just one series either. We beat them 5 out of 6 games and it easily could have been 6 out of 6. Twebur posted about this as well, and I don’t accept the numbers that baseball reference put out there as far as our chances, especially relative to a team like Boston. There is no universe where they have an 11 % better chance than we do at making the playoffs… We are simply a better team, despite some of the season stats you mentioned.

Last edited 11 hours ago by JackFrost
Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
10 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

It’s a regression analysis based on future strength of schedule, individual player stats and team depth charts. It involves 20000 simulations and isn’t about BOS-ANA H2Hs – it’s about who each team plays between now and October, what depth they have to survive future injuries, and what ZIPS and Steamer thinks every 40 man player will do for the 80 games.

I get that not everyone’s a statistician, but this is sound methodology, imo, and the Angels have been markedly lucky in both one run games and in starting pitcher health, especially given the age curve of those involved.

That kind of luck doesn’t tend to last over 162 game stretches, and teams built like the Angels don’t tend to make the playoffs. The playoff percentages for a team this fundamentally thin and poor in so many metrics seem intuitive to me. Plus, it’s math based on thousands of past outcomes, neutrally applied to all 30 teams, not some subjective bakeoff by “subject experts”.

Last edited 10 hours ago by Turk's Teeth
Jimmuscomp
Trusted Member
10 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Yeah – this team has been quite lucky. The run differential confirms that too.

The Halos are at -49.

The Sox at +10.

JackFrost
Legend
10 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Oh, I see… so when we win we are “lucky” and when we lose (like today) then that is actually who we are?. That is BS. And one doesn’t need to be a statistician to see that. You sound just like gitch.

BTW, you did not address my comments about the Red Sox. What justtification was there for giving them a 17% chance? The part about strength of schedule for Angels does not make a lot of sense because the Angels have actually done better against really good teams than the poor ones…If you are talking about statistics and trends that would have to be taken into consideration as well ..

It is funny to me that yourself and gitch and other naysayers post this stuff after a particularly bad loss…. I don’t see you guys posting this after we sweep Boston or win 3 of 5 from the Yankees…

Last edited 10 hours ago by JackFrost
Jimmuscomp
Trusted Member
10 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

Man, you can be insufferable.

It’s math. Math is what Turk’s is talking about.

Stats cut through the BS and give you expected results within a certain set of parameters. There are always anomalies – but it’s foolish to expect this team to make the playoffs.

This team is around .500 having scored 50 less runs than allowed. They should be 7-8 games below .500 – the luck is that that are better than they. But expecting that luck to continue is foolish.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  Jimmuscomp

This. The computer has no ego and no favorite team. If we cut that run dif and win a bunch of games it’s gonna be totally comfortable re-calculating and spitting out a new number.

Why? Because it was right last week. But if things change, then those numbers are now wrong and it will plop out a new correct number. And it feels nothing about it, it just wants to be right every time it runs syms and does math.

JackFrost
Legend
10 hours ago
Reply to  Jimmuscomp

No its not, lol. It is not simply “math.”

We are not talking about basic arithmetic or long division.

These are formulas which are created by people. People who decide to value certain things. They choose certain data to include in their analysis and they exclude many other things. There is a huge subjective human element to any such enterprise.

And while I did not major in Statistics I do understand certain basic principles. I also do happen to know something about the limits of human measurement, scientific investigations, the philosophy of science etc.

And just to be clear, in my dialogue with Turks Teeth I was not arguing that the Angels “would make the playoffs.” That is not at all what it was about. It was about the numbers that Baseball Reference recently published about the probability of certain teams to make the playoffs. So, I was arguing the validity of those numbers, not what the ultimate outcome would be.

Last edited 9 hours ago by JackFrost
gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  JackFrost

So what data points do you think they include/amplify and which do they exclude or mute to get this incredibly outrageous 11% difference?

Cause I’m just going off the top of my head, but the Sux have an ace that is more ace than ours. They have better hitters than we do through out the line up that are statistically underperforming/unlucky. They will get Bregman back. They are in a weak division where Baltimore is a ship adrift. Toronto is overperforming their offensive norms. the Rays have had a ton of home games and also have a weak offense…. which will spend most of the 2nd half on the road.

All they really need is some slight defensive improvement and any number of rookies/injured players/slumpers to pick up and they will score a lot of runs to make up for generally bad fielding in the infield. And/Or pitchers start doing well other than Crochet…. which actually Bello, Dobbins and Giolito are all a couple good starts from moving into the “solid” category. While Chapman, Fitts, Slayton, Weisert and Guerrero all look better than most of our pen arms.

While we are getting better but are really still a ship adrift in our division. So yup. I’d say Boston has a 1.7 in 10 chance at the play offs and are likely 11% more likely than we are…. and I’m not even simulating 200 season’s with my hot chips and colorful circuit boards to do it.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  JackFrost

Wait? Why does he sound like me?

Because I say we are lucky when we win and bad when we lose? Cause I’ve never said that.

Or because he is saying you are boisterous in your opinions like a fat drunk lady in a strip mall sports bar and often wrong but it kills you from the soul out to admit it? Which yes. I say that. A lot.

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

I think I actually did address your comments about Boston by explaining the methodology behind FG’s playoff odds. Boston doesn’t have the same H2H schedule as the Angels do, and they have a much more robust depth chart, with one of the better farms in baseball. And 17% isn’t very good odds for them.

Btw, I post data analysis *all the time*, going back decades to Halos Heaven, in winning seasons and losing seasons. Along with minor league and draft analysis, it’s probably what I’m most known for.

I was a data analyst and engineering manager for two decades at Google – predictive modeling is second nature to me, and it also underpins front office decisions for most clubs. I can’t get you to believe in quantitative data analysis or sabermetrics – it wouldn’t be worth our time here – but I think that war is won (or lost) already, given your POV. The most successful teams are neck deep in it, and the last time the Angels sold the farm despite vanishing small Fangraphs playoff odds, the model was right, and the regression set in almost immediately.

I’m going with what I know.

JackFrost
Legend
9 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against the use of advanced metrics or data analysis by teams in order to improve performance on the field.

I think there are numerous examples to show this is helpful, perhaps the most obvious one being the use of spray charts to optimize defensive positioning etc..

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

But meanwhile you seem to be arguing that the outcomes of recent short series should tell us more about playoff odds than decades of game outcomes and a comprehensive survey of every player on every 40 man roster in the game.

By the same logic, the Angels should have much better playoff odds than the Dodgers and Yankees, because the team beat them soundly in recent series.

Last edited 9 hours ago by Turk's Teeth
JackFrost
Legend
9 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Not sure what a “comprehensive survey of every player” tells you about team outcomes. Teams win and lose, not individual players… this is similar to the logical fallacy made with the NBA use of the +/- statistic.

You can crunch all the numbers of individual players and add them up… that does not equal team performance. What about managing ? What about strategy? There is a hell of alot more to consider then the sum total of statistics on the 40 man roster.

Last edited 9 hours ago by JackFrost
Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
8 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

If managing, strategy and team chemistry have disproportionate value, that will be reflected in results both in the short and long term. That’s why the model is rerun and the odds refreshed daily, and why the %s change.

JackFrost
Legend
8 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Hmmm. Well, it sounds like there is indeed an effort to measure and include those things in that model. I am curious how in that model managerial decisions, in game strategy of all types are measured and given a numerical value ?

I honestly don’t know and am curious ….For example, the Angels now have a new manager. How would that be accounted for in this model ?

Last edited 8 hours ago by JackFrost
Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
8 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

If you’re interested in the methodology and the inputs to the model, here are good places to start:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-2025-playoff-odds-are-here/

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/about

And since win expectancies are derived from team depth charts and individual player projections, you can read about those projections (a 50/50 blend of ZIPS and Steamer) here:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-2021-zips-projections-an-introduction/

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/2/22/11079186/projections-marcel-pecota-zips-steamer-explained-guide-math-is-fun

JackFrost
Legend
7 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Well, I looked at the FG methodology and it seems unclear in one or two places and very simplistic overall…

I did not see any information about including data related to the manager, strategy etc… In fact, in regards to my question of how this model would account for the fact for instance that the Angels have a new manager, I found only one thing…

This is how they described their methodology : “We have four different projection modes. These determine our projections of each team’s strength..” They then added “All the other factors are held constant.” This would seem to be saying that if a team had to change it’s manager (like the Angels), or a manager was fired, or a team had to move to another place because their stadium was damaged by an earthquake etc, that NONE of these factors would be taken into account.

This seems like a pretty big weakness to me and thus a major limitation of this model.

Further, the fact that they seem to place alot of emphasis on depth is problematic. While we would all generally agree that depth is important and generally helps, it may or may not help any specific team in any situation… For instance, a team with poor depth may not be punished for that if they are generally lucky and don’t lose key starters to injury.

I know there are statistical models that balance these things out, but they are giving credit a priori to teams for depth that they may not even use or benefit from. That is another problem as far as I can see…

Lastly, they say that their Playoff Odds are determined by these three things:

1) current standings
2) remaining schedule
3) each team’s projected performance

What they don’t explain is how # 3 is calculated. Do they mean to say that they soley use the current winning percentage and the remaining schedule to determine the projected performance ? I would guess not but it is not clear…. There had been previous reference to Zips and depth analysis etc…

So, I want to know HOW exactly “each team’s projected performance” is calculated.

You can run 20,000 simulations but if the data you are using is limited or not especially significant then those projections will still be flawed.

Last edited 7 hours ago by JackFrost
Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
4 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

You’re misunderstanding a number of things here. They aren’t “giving credit a priori to teams for depth” – they are referring to the 40 man roster for each team – more specifically, the predicted value for each player aggregated to a team level.

In short: Depth chart, not depth.

To restate: the model is looking at predicted performance of each player on each team’s 40 man roster based on past and predicted future performance, calibrated to expected playing time.

And they *do* explain how #3 is calculated. By a blended average of ZIPS and Steamer player projections, adjusted for predicted playing time. I provided you additional links to begin to learn about those systems.

Frankly it would be stupid and counterproductive to try to quantify abstract factors like coaching personnel changes – again, if these have positive or negative impact, these will be seen in day to day changes in player, team and game outcomes. Which are the very inputs to the model. Accounting for new additional factors is the very point of updating the model frequently.

Ie, if a new batting coach is responsible for Jo Adell walking more, you account for that by measuring Adell’s walk rate, not by some some fancy coefficient corresponding with “new coach”. ZIPS and Steamer player predictions will adjust if individuals players walk more, hit more, take more bases, etc.

Overly complex models with indeterminate inputs can lead to overfitting, and inefficient and counterproductive results.

Look Jack, I’m not trying to insult you here, but this is one of those moments on the internet where someone without domain expertise is lecturing someone with domain expertise, and that’s not worth either of our time. There’s a saying in my field: “show me you don’t understand the model without saying you don’t understand the model”. That’s happening here at this moment.

Pineapple12
Legend
9 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

“We need a clean up on aisle 8”

milehigh
Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

because the Angels have actually done better against really good teams than the poor ones”

This team is the definition of .500. The record against teams >= to .500 when we played them is 20-20. Against teams <.500, 21-21.
Against RHP 34-34. Against LHP 7-7.

The only thing keeping this team near .500 is extra inning wins, now 6-2, and 1 run games, 16-8. Even both of those out to 4-4 and 12-12 and we’re about 6 games under .500

This team is fun to watch and never gives up. I don’t know who will get the third WC spot. My guess is that Boston won’t and unless Seattle’s offense get off the ground they won’t either. Who knows, maybe if the Angels break the .500 barrier they will shoot up. But based on this season so far that is unlikely. With half the season played they are .500 against >=.500 teams and .500 against <.500 teams. That pretty much says they will probably finish .500.

BTW, per Turk’s point below, the Baseball-Reference numbers are calculated to 90% confidence. That’s the standard for this type of modeling. Used in every industry.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  milehigh

I think the argument is that run dif doesn’t factor in that a bunch of runs come in blow out wins and losses. Which is true. But the giant computer knows this and is looking at a couple dozen other factors when deciding play off odds.

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
9 hours ago

Yeah, run differential isn’t a big variable in their model. But it’s a different shorthand to arrive at a similar conclusion.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Looking at what you wrote above, I am wondering if I have the basics right…..

So if player Jim James walks at an 10% clip over 1000 ABs then the model makes it’s future predictions at a 10% walk rate for Jim James…. and so forth for all his hitting stats.

But say Jim gets a new coach, makes adjustments. Or just gets better.

For his next 500 ABs he walks at a 20% clip.

Now the model has Jim walking at a 12.5% clip in his next 1000 ABs…. accept of course it’s way less simplified than that. It is looking at other factors like parks and opposing pitchers and it’s using all his past ABs and modeling for the next 300, 500, 1000 ABs etc.

And for all of Jim’s offensive stats.

And then it generates an expected value of his total expected performance against his past performance compared to league average for the same stuff.

And it does that for Jim’s teams 40 man roster.

Which gives it an idea of how good Jim’s 40 man will be compared to all the other 40 man rosters… including the ones Team Jim is competing with to win a play off spot.

So, for example, though Jo Adell has been killing it for 120 ABs his actual value to the model doesn’t start shooting up unless he hits for a 2.000 OPS or he hits the way he has been enough to dilute his crappy seasons and change what his “normal” is.

And, of course, that is oversimple too. The model is aware that 1200 AB Jo and most recent 400 AB Jo are “different” guys and it’s capable of making measurements taking all the versions of bad-hot Jo into account and their likelihood.

Sort of how it works?

JackFrost
Legend
9 hours ago
Reply to  milehigh

Not sure why folks think I am arguing that the Angels will make the playoffs… I don’t remember saying that. What I have said is that the majority of people on this site (it seems like the vast majority based upon the number of comments etc… I have not tabulated them however) seem to be unfairly discarding them and their chances.

Look, I am VERY aware of the weaknesses of this team. What I see however, is that very few people who brush the Angels playoffs chances aside are aware of the weaknesses of the teams we are competing with. I think because of recent history and the collective trauma we have been through as a fanbase that we reflexively fall back on pessimism and negativity. I get it. I fall into that as well, and I own that.

But I think we need to be a little more critical of the competition and not only critical of ourselves.

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

Boston currently has a very low % chance of making the playoffs…15.6%. FG’s model is describing a very weak team vis-a-vis the competition.

It really doesn’t matter what I personally am “aware” of – the point of using tools like FG’s model is that it has far more comprehensive inputs, and much fresher data, than my current brain does. Much like ChatGPT and Gemini “know” more than I do.

JackFrost
Legend
9 hours ago
Reply to  milehigh

Funny that you chose to tabulate the numbers of ,<.500 teams for “when we played them.” You could just as easily have taken the current records of all teams, which in point of fact would be more appropriate because it is the larger sample.

If you had done it this way the Angels number against “good” teams (above .500) would look more impressive. Your choice robs us of series wins and the resultant positive record against Tampa Bay and Toronto which if I am not mistaken would put us above .500 against winning or “good” teams…

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Man. I hat these math facts. They are lame and a little fruity. I like being pregnant with anger and sass. Arte. Perry. Nerds. So stupid.

2002heaven
Super Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

Don’t kare abawt the Redd Sawks anymore, anymore than anybody should care about the Patriots in the NFL. Nebraska football sucks too because it’s not 1995 anymore.
Get over them plz!!!

RexFregosi
Super Member
10 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

This has never looked like a playoff club. They keep improving but there’s a ways to go.

They certainly can make the playoffs if they get some luck and continue to improve, but this really isn’t a playoff team.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  RexFregosi

Exactly. And I am happy thus far. No. I watch other teams, teams that will possibly be play off teams. This team is not a play off team. BUT man do they look better than the last couple years. They look like they are climbing towards play off ness.

If they keep getting better, and make a couple upgrades this winter, next season they may be MAYBE capable of pulling a Royals and sneaking in as a vastly overmatched play off team. Still, likely not, but maybe over .500.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Has anyone come out and said we are buyers yet? I keep seeing guys on here doing the same two brains thing they did for the off season as far as “We can sign XXX and try to compete this year but also rebuild.” Accept now it’s “Go for the play offs… but also rebuild”. I hear that it may break Zach Neto’s mind if we sell at the deadline and he will lose all motivation and confidence for years. I here tubes like Guby wanting to go for it and talking like we’re in it. But he’s an ex-player and that’s his job. I know Wash wanted to get more MLB talent because he’s a manager….

But has anyone involved with making trades said we aren’t making trades? did I miss it?

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
10 hours ago

It was two separate comments by Bob Nightengale and Ken Rosenthal who said their FO sources said the Angels were not currently planning to trade any of their assets at the deadline, and Rosenthal expected them to be buyers. The narrative around keeping all their toys seems to be multi sourced. Whether they *also* buy or not could be Rosenthal speculating or actually informed by what he heard.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Gross. Don’t like it.

RexFregosi
Super Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

Im not thinking Buyers at this summer deadline, but if it continues to be a .500 club in 2025, you definitely have to start thinking about key FA spending in the off-season.

steelgolf
Legend
6 hours ago
Reply to  Turk's Teeth

WOW! Why in the hell would they be buyers?

Turk's Teeth
Editor
Super Member
4 hours ago
Reply to  steelgolf

You could ask that about the insane Giolito goofus gambit in 2023 as well, no?

Ownership sees a team two games back of WC3. Not how the team is constructed, how injuries are likely to impact future performance, or how seven other teams competing for a rare chance to play-in makes WC3 a low percentage bet.

2002heaven
Super Member
11 hours ago

comment image
 😡  💩  👎 

Last edited 11 hours ago by 2002heaven
Simba
Trusted Member
11 hours ago
Reply to  2002heaven

Are you saying it’s a good time to get into the stock market?

angelslogic
Legend
12 hours ago

&ltcomment image"

JackFrost
Legend
12 hours ago
Reply to  angelslogic

FYI ;

Ward was 3-5 today with three doubles and was our biggest offensive contributor. Without him we would not have even been in a position to win in either regulation or extra innings…

Last edited 12 hours ago by JackFrost
angelslogic
Legend
11 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

I don’t disagree with that.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  JackFrost

Yup. he had a good day.

steelgolf
Legend
6 hours ago
Reply to  angelslogic

Is he wearing an Angel’s Snuggie?

max
Trusted Member
max
6 hours ago
Reply to  angelslogic

I don’t get the connection between T-Dubs and the SOL. Can you elaborate? That 10th inning AB was ridiculous, I could have walked up there and looked at 3 strikes.

Pineapple12
Legend
12 hours ago

That was a terrible loss.

Newman’s obvious gaffe. Nolan with 2 defensive miscues.

Why in the hell didn’t Rengifo bunt in the 10th?

max
Trusted Member
max
12 hours ago
Reply to  Pineapple12

Hopefully one day I will understand why you don’t bunt to get that guy over with no outs and the winning run 2 bases away.

Pineapple12
Legend
11 hours ago
Reply to  max

the guy sitting next to me was pissed and yelled, “Play the game the right way, Montgomery” lol

ErSTAN
Trusted Member
11 hours ago
Reply to  Pineapple12

Hahahahah. I was like “is this baseball?”. Get off my lawn shit, but no excuse not bunting in the 10th. Frigging insane.

YOUknowulovetheIE
Super Member
8 hours ago
Reply to  max

Aren’t the angels a bad bunting team?

max
Trusted Member
max
7 hours ago

Good Question. At the very least Luis has got to get him to 3rd.

ErSTAN
Trusted Member
11 hours ago
Reply to  Pineapple12

Dude I was apoplectic in the 10th…Honestly, our defense was so shite, we really didn’t deserve to win. We got lucky in the O’Hoppe replay. He definitely whiffed. Lol.

Pineapple12
Legend
11 hours ago
Reply to  ErSTAN

Bro.. I was shocked that call stood. Logan got juked out so badly 😂😂😂

ErSTAN
Trusted Member
11 hours ago
Reply to  Pineapple12

Seriously…such a terrible call. Hahahaha

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  Pineapple12

I’ve asked before. CAN Rengifo bunt? I feel like he just can’t pull it off.

Pineapple12
Legend
9 hours ago

He’s pretty terrible at it. Of course when we need to move the runner over, Rengifo put it in the air lol

Charles Sutton
Editor
Super Member
9 hours ago

Maybe the third base coach didn’t have a sign for “close your eyes and swing wildly in the hopes that you get a weak-ass broken bat squibber in no man’s land between pitcher and first base.” Rengifo might understand it if that was the sign.

Charles Sutton
Editor
Super Member
9 hours ago
Reply to  Charles Sutton

Although he might forget to open his eyes and run to first base.

steelgolf
Legend
6 hours ago
Reply to  Charles Sutton

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Brent
Super Member
1 hour ago
Reply to  Pineapple12

Terrible managing and pitch selection decisions all around.

GrandpaBaseball
Legend
12 hours ago

allergic to .500 can be treated with wins says a Dr. of Numbers.

GrandpaBaseball
Legend
12 hours ago

I will always preach how important defense is, this team pretty much sucks, yup, they suck.

steelgolf
Legend
12 hours ago

But…. But ….. but….. Ron Washington is the defensive Svengali and creates the best defenders ever.

JackFrost
Legend
12 hours ago
Reply to  steelgolf

If you listen to the people at Atlanta and prior Texas and Oakland teams they will tell you that he DID make a big difference with those teams, especially in improving their team defense.

Maybe this team is just cursed ? Because TrAdition ?

Last edited 12 hours ago by JackFrost
steelgolf
Legend
12 hours ago
Reply to  JackFrost

Could be, could be he is a better coach than manager. All I know, is that in the results driven professional MLB, in 2024, Ron Washington took basically the same team Nevin had the previous year, and did demonstrably worse. The final record is the final record. I hope Washington heals completely and gets his health issues behind him, but I also still think he was not a good hire.

JackFrost
Legend
11 hours ago
Reply to  steelgolf

Nevin also had the benefit of having Ohtani on the team, Ron didn’t.

There is no way that Nevin is a better manager than Washington. That said, I have also certainly had my complaints with Ron at various times this season, esp. as regards lineup construction and bullpen management.

gitchogritchoffmypettis
Legend
Reply to  JackFrost

But Nevin. He yell at Donaldson. He have the fire this team need. I hate Donaldson. Nevin makes me feelz safe and strong.

77
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x