MLB Playoff

30 In 30: Los Angeles Angels

On day four we’ve got our first team that finished with a winning record in 2007 and our first division winner — the Los Angeles Angels. (Yes, I’ve given in to the new name. I might as well enjoy some stability before they change it again.) Don’t forget to check out Nick the Greek’s preview over at Home Run Derby.

I’m going with the under, for two reasons. One, the Angels aren’t any better than that (I know that sounds dumb, but they only had 90 Pythagorean wins in 2007) and two, it seems like there are a lot of underrated, improving teams in the AL.

That being said, I also don’t think this team will win fewer than 88 games, thanks to their impressive organizational depth. As Sean points out in the round table, the Angels have too many players deserving of significant playing time. Sure, it would hurt to lose Vlad, Hunter, or Lackey for the season, but their replacement would likely be league-average. That’s a major difference between LA and the other, sub-.500 teams I’ve written about so far. The Royals, Twins, and Nationals just don’t have quality players to plug into the lineup when needed.

The Angels will give up the most runs per game since 2000.

What that really means is that they’ll allow at least 4.6 runs per game, “bettering” the 2003 team. (The 2000 staff appears to have been really bad, allowing 5.36 runs per game, but teams averaged 5.3 runs per game that year.) I realize last year’s rotation had two studs in John Lackey (3.01 ERA) and Kelvim Escobar (3.40 ERA). And I know the team has jettisoned Bartolo Colon’s 6.34 ERA in 99.3 IP and traded for master of the win, John Garland. But I think the whole rotation is overrated:

Read more...