I thought that it meant that they lost a lot of blowouts, too...

The Jays were +104, barely broke .500 and finished fourth in their division.

What it means, for the Angels, is that they executed, they caught and threw, they hit when it mattered, they had a devastating bullpen — and you could barely fit a needle into their margin for error.

This is true - except for the playoffs.

I thought that it meant that they lost a lot of blowouts, too...

No, they were about league average in blowout losses. They were below league average in blowout wins.

No, they were about league average in blowout losses.

Which is alot for a 100 win team. Wouldn't you expect the team with the best record in baseball to be at the top or near the top in terms of blowouts against?

Which is alot for a 100 win team.

Well, it is more than one might expect for a 100 win team, but the 2008 Angels had 20 blowout losses while the last AL 100+ game winner, the 2004 Yankees, had 28. The 2003 Yankees had 20 blowout losses. The 2002 Yanks only had 13 blowout losses and the 2002 A's had 18. The 2001 Mariners had 10 and the 2001 Yanks had 13, but those teams won over 110 games. The 1990 A's had 21 while the 1988 A's had 15 (I only went back to 1988 in the AL).

>>>Wouldn't you expect the team with the best record in baseball to be at the top or near the top in terms of blowouts against?<<<

Here is how the AL brokedown last year in terms of blowout losses frim B-Ref (I only eyeballed the numbers last night):

TOR -- 10
BOS -- 17
CHI -- 17
TBR -- 18
LAA -- 20
CLE -- 20
OAK -- 23
NYY -- 23
SEA -- 24
BAL -- 29
DET -- 29
TEX -- 30
KCR -- 31

AVE -- 22

The Angels were tied for fifth in terms of fewest blowouts, and other than Toronto, weren't far removed from the leaders. Again, one would expect better from a 100 win team, but their blowout loss total wasn't outrageous.