File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
boston fag: tha angels hadda weak division. no wonda they won some many games.

angels fag: what about the 2004 red sox?

boston fag: WOOO TROT NIXON!
>> Anonymous
in b4 shitstorms, tripfags, bandwagoners, etc.
>> St.Feraligatr !VJOf9vVc0E
>>388743
What uh...what are you trying to say?
>> Anonymous
>>388748

I think they are trying to say the Bawwwwwwwston fans don't understand logic.

Thank you for further proving that.
>> St.Feraligatr !VJOf9vVc0E
>>388750
I'm not even close to a Boston fan, man.
>> Anonymous
I'm so fucking sick of hearing about the Angels bad division. Do Bostonians not realize how bad their division usually is?

. Orioles
. Devil Rays
>> Anonymous
>>388755
>>388755

Good thing its the Rays now.
>> St.Feraligatr !VJOf9vVc0E
>>388755
It's because most Red Sox fans and media members only consider the AL East to be the Yankees and Red Sox. Moronic, but whatever.
>> Anonymous
*Know Your Tripfags, Retard* Presents: St. Feraligatr

St. Feraligatr is a fan of the Cubs and 49ers!

This message is sponsored in part by Lurk Moar Industries.
>> Anonymous
>>388757

No shit, but they were the Devil Rays when they were bad.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>388743

The 2008 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim broke a record by being a history-high 16 games over their third-order Pythagorean W-L.

The 2004 Boston Red Sox were, obviously, not 16 games over their third-order etc.
>> Anonymous
I like how Angels fags think 100 wins is impressive in the first place. Not like it's never been done before. Blue Jays fag btw b4 shitstorm
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>388755

The Orioles were 46-43 in non-divisional games this year.
>> Anonymous
>>388765

listen, fuck those stats. people making up ways to say a team/player is better/worse than they appear means nothing. they won 100 games, and had to WIN THEM. so please, get your faggotry out of here.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>388773

22 teams in history ended the season 10 games or more over their third-order Pythagorean W-L.

Guess how many won the championship that same year?

2.

Lucky/Overrated Angels were lucky/overrated. Don't blame the stats for them getting exposed in the playoffs.
>> Anonymous
>>388776

i'm not blaming the "stats". i'm saying that your shitty make believe stats don't mean shit. the fact is that the angels won 100 games.
>> Anonymous
>>388776

Getting exposed in the playoffs/Handing the series over to the Red Sox.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>388780

And those 100 games "don't mean shit" now that the Angels got bounced in the first round.

As anyone with any knowledge of sabermetrics would have predicted.
>> Commissioner Red !5gFoSxriW2
>>388784

Or you could have just seen that they were an AL West team and said "oh, they played in the AL West, there's your problem". It's hard to not win a lot of games and make the playoffs when you have a lot of division games against a division that, outside of your team, sucks harder than Tony Amaeche in a bathhouse.
>> Anonymous
>>388784

that is all well and good. my whole point is that those pretend stats are pointless. the angels lost because they couldn't execute, not because sabermetrics predicted they were a weak ass team.

OP pointed out that the red sox also played in a weak division in 2004, but no one mentions that. i get *SABERMETRICS* proves how awesome the red sox really were that year.
>> Anonymous
>>388791
the Red Sox didn't play in that weak of a division, the Angels were the only team above .500 from the AL West. The Red Sox finished 2nd in their division in 2004 and got in on a wild card.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, a Wild Card that could have went to the Athletics if they got to play 3 teams under .500 18 times.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>388790

I actually considered this, but...

Angels against the East: 30-16 = .652
Angels against the Central: 24-17 = .585
Angels against the West: 36-21 = .631

Their performance against the West was middle-of-the-pack, and they actually did the best against the best division in baseball.

Rather weird. (And I don't have any metrics handy to explain it - you'd be better off asking someone else with more knowledge on the subject than me.)

>>388791

Say what you like, but sabermetrics are correct time and time again. PECOTA had Tampa Bay at 90 wins this year and also correctly predicted that Seattle would be under .500 (though they didn't predict a record as disastrous as what really resulted) when the Mariners were a popular dark horse pick for the AL Pennant and most everyone was still brushing off the Rays.

You don't have to like them or use them. That's fine. Just don't think they're worthless when they're easily the most accurate predictors baseball has seen.
>> Anonymous
>>388791
You have it backwards. They couldn't execute because they were a weakass team. The Stats just happened to show that.

And face it, old stats are dead. Wins/losses aren't what makes good teams or good pitchers. RBIs and average mean little anymore, and errors are a joke.
We've gotten past these stats and use things like OPS, QERA and WHIP to figure out wether a player is really as good as he seems or if he is a product of his situation.