Purgatory Online

Friday, February 27, 2004

Lots of sunshiny good feelings coming from the Register and the Times about Vlad Guerrero's first day in camp. Apparently, he can hit a little.

Meanwhile, the Angels' official site has a little puff piece on Erstad's return to first base. His lack of offensive production over the last couple of seasons is nowhere to be found, and is alluded to only elliptically by Erstad himself:
"My team goals are always the same," Erstad said. "My personal goal, I guess, is to stay healthy for the whole season. Any other personal goals I'll just keep to myself.

In fairness, he could easily have been talking about winning a Gold Glove. But let's hope that one of those personal goals he doesn't want to share involves reaching base a little more often.

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

There's this great old Bloom County comic strip, in which Opus the penguin is lamenting the fact that things are mighty slow in the office of Steve Dallas, the county's only lawyer. "What this town needs," he finally says, "is two lawyers!"

So now that there are four active Angels blogs, we're starting to see some back-and-forth between them; yesterday at 6-4-2, Rob tries to take down the notion that the 2002 World Champion Anaheim Angels weren't heavily influenced by luck, a position expressed at The Pearly Gates by Richard, its proprietor. I want in, boys!

Now, it's not that luck didn't play some role in the 2002 season, because luck always plays a role for every club. A slow bunt rolling along the third base line can hit a random pebble and go foul, then fair again, and turn the tide of a game (see 2002 World Series, Game 4). An outfielder who's lost a ball in the sun can stick his glove out and catch a ball accidentally, avoiding a ball in the face and a trip to the DL. Or, like the 2002 A's, you can catch a couple of breaks and go on a twenty-game win streak.

But let's be realistic. The Angels won 99 games in the 2002 regular season, winning the wildcard by six games over Boston and Seattle. That's a much larger gap than is normally attributable to luck. Additionally, as Richard points out, the Angels' Pythagorean record - the record typical of a team with the same runs scored to runs allowed differential - was actually a couple of games better than their actual record, which is normally seen as an indication that they were a little bit unlucky.

Rob raises a few examples of what he considers lucky factors:

1. The team stayed healthy, except for Sele, and they had Lackey to replace him. Well, no. In point of fact, Tim Salmon was out for nearly a month, from August 11 to September 5. Troy Percival was out twice, from April 3-19 and again from July 12-28. Bengie Molina played in one game between July 13 and July 30. The Angels compensated with a deep, flexible bench that included Orlando Palmeiro, Benji Gil, and Shawn Wooten, all of whom had better than average years, but none of whom had the best years of their careers, statistically speaking.

Of the starting lineup:

David Eckstein played in 152 games, compared to 153 in 2001 (which was his first year in the bigs).

Darin Erstad played in 150 games, compared to 157 in both 2001 and 2000. Since winning a full-time spot, Erstad had averaged 146 games per season prior to 2002.

Tim Salmon played in 138 games, compared to 137 in 2001 and 158 in 2000. Since winning a full-time spot, Salmon had averaged 136 games per season prior to 2002.

Garret Anderson played in 158 games, compared to 161 in 2001 and 159 in 2000. Since winning a full-time spot, Anderson had averaged 156 games per season prior to 2002.

Scott Spiezio played in 153 games in 2002. Spiezio is the only Angels player who could reasonably be described as having a "career year" in 2002, about which more later. It's difficult to assess how "lucky" he was to remain healthy throughout the year, however, since his games played stats for many of his years are low because he was used as a bench player, or platooned with someone else. I would love to find a site that keeps track of the time players spend on the DL, so if anyone out there knows of one, please email me. In the meantime, we can look at the number of games Spiezio played for the Angels in the other years in which he was a full-time player - 139 in 2001 and 158 in 2003 - and tentatively conclude that his 153 games in 2002 were pretty much in line with expectations.

Brad Fullmer played in 130 games in 2002. Again, Fullmer's a bit tricky because he had been used in various ways throughout the years, and indeed was used in various ways by the Angels in 2002. He had played in 146 games in 2001 and 133 games in 2000, however, and I don't think he had a reputation for being injured. Again, this is someone from whom the Angels got about what they expected in terms of playing time.

Troy Glaus played in 156 games in 2002, after playing in 161 in 2001, 159 in 2000, and 154 in 1999.

Bengie Molina played in 122 games in 2002, after playing in 96 in 2001 and 130 in 2000.

Adam Kennedy played in 144 games in 2002, after playing in 137 games in 2001 and 156 in 2000.

Of the starting pitchers:

Kevin Appier threw 188.1 innings in 2002. Appier was out for virtually all of 1998, but, apart from that, his 2002 innings pitched total was his lowest since 1994, and the third-lowest of his career since becoming a full-time starter in 1990.

Aaron Sele's 160 IP was the lowest of his career since 1996.

Jarrod Washburn threw 206 innings, the most of his career. Since it was only his second year as a full-time starter, however, and he'd thrown 193.1 innings in the previous year, I don't think we can infer much about his durability.

Ramon Ortiz threw 217.1 innings in 2002. Like Washburn, this was a career high; like Washburn, his track record included only one previous year in which he'd been left in the rotation - during which he threw 208.2 innings.

In looking at the team's statistics, I don't find a single player who put up games played or innings pitched numbers that were higher than expected. Since the Angels lost Salmon and Molina for parts of the season in the lineup, and Percival and Sele on the pitching side, it doesn't appear to me that the Angels were especially lucky or unlucky when it came to injuries. Of course, considering the history of the franchise, 2002 was a banner year, since there were no especially bizarre injuries, but if you factor that out, they actually had something of a "normal" year.

Note that the foregoing analysis is strictly in terms of injuries, not performance. We'll get to that a little later.

2. Several players had career years, including Benji Gil and Scott Spiezio.
Two does not equal "several." More to the point, one does not equal "several." As I said before, Scott Spiezio was the only Angel to post numbers significantly above his norm in 2002. Gil, like Palmeiro and Wooten, had above-average years, but none experienced the best year of their career. The rest of the lineup either put up numbers that were very close to what they could have been expected to do, or haven't been in baseball long enough to evaluate whether their 2002 season was a statistical outlier (like Washburn and Ortiz). In a few more years, I suspect we may conclude that Adam Kennedy had a career year in 2002, but we can't tell yet, as he's still in the portion of his career where he's likely to improve. For a while, I thought that Ben Weber and/or Brendan Donnelly had also topped out in 2002, but their performances in 2003 seem to indicate that they may just be that good (I'm not completely sold on that, but that's how the evidence looks now).

Regardless, the fact is that it's actually normal for any given team to have a guy or two experience the best year of his career. I mean, you've got nine guys in the lineup and five starting pitchers, plus a closer - even if you don't pay any attention to the bench or the guys in the bullpen, that's fifteen chances for a career year. It would be surprising if someone didn't have a breakout, just as it would be surprising to have no significant injuries, or a player who had a subpar season (for the 2002 Angels, that would have been Bengie Molina).

I don't want to completely dismiss the luck element here, because some Angels players did have years that were above their norm, though not extraordinarily so. Garret Anderson, for one, enjoyed an especially productive season. That's not really "luck," though, it's Anderson reaching his potential, which he proved by duplicating it in 2003. Ultimately, the Angels had a lot of guys who had good years, one who had a career year, one who had a down year, and a couple for whom it's too soon to tell. If those in the latter category turn out to be not as good as they performed in 2002, then maybe luck was a more significant component. If they duplicate those performances, however, the credit should go to their coaches and the guys who scouted them.

3. Appier had his last good year. Probably true, but so what? Appier actually pitched a little bit better in 2001 for the Mets, so his 3.96 ERA for the Angels in 2002 was surprising only in that the Angels are used to seeing free-agent acquisitions (especially pitchers) turn ugly immediately, rather than a year into their contract. Just because Appier was unremittingly stinky in 2003 doesn't mean he was "lucky" in 2002; he was good one year, and terrible the next.

I suppose you can argue that, while Appier himself was good, the Angels were lucky he stayed good for one more year - if he'd had the kind of season he had in 2003 for the 2002 Angels, they would have been much worse - but that's the "and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a trolley" school of reasoning. The fact that he declined so steeply the very next year is irrelevant. They're also lucky they didn't have the 1992 version of Hilly Hathaway.

4. The Angels had great pitching in the minors to draw on. See, that's just not luck at all. That's a benefit derived from good scouting, coaching, and organizational decisions. The Angels still have good pitching in the minors, and will for at least the next couple of years.

All in all - and when I started this post, I had no idea how long it would be, trust me - I think that the Angels were fortunate enough to get solid years from most of the team, but certainly suffered their share of setbacks. While they may have had a little bit of luck on their side, it was the kind that reminds me of the old story of a guy who goes to a boxing match and sits next to a priest. Right before the fight starts, the guy notices one of the boxers crossing himself, and he says to the priest, "will that help him, father?" And the priest answers, "not if he can't fight."

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Hey, Rob Neyer and I actually agree on something!

Me, on February 16:
However, the Yankees also dealt away Alfonso Soriano, who had 8.6 WSAA, and they've yet to announce who will replace him. If the Yankees field an "average" player at second this year, they'll lose all of those, reducing their net win gain to around two.

Neyer, yesterday:
Which is to say, I'm not arguing that Soriano is Rodriguez's equal. What I'm arguing is that the difference between them, right now, probably isn't large enough to justify the argument that the balance of power in the American League East took a big swing last week. The moment the Yankees and Rangers consummated their big trade, the Yankees improved by roughly two games.

Okay, so the math ain't all that hard.

Anyway, Neyer's conclusion, somewhat depressingly, is that the Yankees have enough money to keep spending like drunken Defense Secretaries for the foreseeable future. His forecast for next year's edition - basically, what they have now plus Mike Lowell and Carlos Beltran - is just plain grim. What frightens me is the prospect of a Moreno-Steinbrenner bidding war over someone. Although I can't think of anyone they'd both want right now (a starting pitcher, probably), it seems inevitable at some point.

Monday, February 23, 2004

As it turns out, Derrick Turnbow can be sent to Triple-A this year, due to an unspecified loophole. This is a good deal - it gives the Angels a little more flexibility when dealing with the Sele-Ortiz-Shields conundrum - but ultimately they need to be careful that they don't send him down just because they can. If Aaron Sele can't make the rotation, I see no reason to put him in the bullpen in front of a live young arm like Turnbow's (assuming that Turnbow has a decent spring training).

Friday, February 20, 2004

Baseball Prospectus names Bengie Molina the winner of their Golden Gun Award for the 2003 season, an honor that will surprise no one. By BA's calculations, Molina prevented more runs by throwing out base stealers than anyone in 2003 (and also won in 2002). That's to say nothing of the guys who were prevented from stealing through sheer reluctance to challenge Molina's arm in the first place, of course.

From today's Borowitz Report:
STEINBRENNER BUYS FENWAY PARK

Homeless Red Sox Cry Foul

George Steinbrenner’s buying spree continued unabated today as the New York Yankees owner purchased Fenway Park, the legendary home of the arch-rival Boston Red Sox.

In buying Fenway out from under the Sox, Mr. Steinbrenner has left his Eastern Division rivals without a stadium for the first time in their history, jeopardizing the Red Sox’ bid for the American League pennant.

“It is hard to win a championship without pitching or hitting,” said David Hastings, a sports historian at the University of Minnesota. “But it is virtually impossible to win without a stadium.”

Red Sox owner John Henry, who spent most of the day scrambling to find a high school sandlot where his team might play the 2004 season, held an emotional press conference in Boston to denounce the big-spending Yankee honcho.

“Damn you, George Steinbrenner, damn you!” swore Mr. Henry, shaking his fist violently.

But Mr. Steinbrenner’s shopping day had barely begun, as he went on to outbid the Walt Disney Company for the legendary puppet characters, the Muppets.

While Mr. Steinbrenner did not indicate what role the Muppet characters might play in the Yankee organization, his aggressive purchase of Kermit, Miss Piggy et al reinforced the impression in baseball circles that the Yankee owner is willing to buy anything that is not nailed down.

Having assumed the $250 million contract of third baseman Alex Rodriguez, however, Mr. Steinbrenner acknowledged that he might have to economize by outsourcing second base to India.

In other baseball news, North Korea’s Kim Jung-Il revealed that he attempted to acquire A-Rod until he was told that A-Rod was not a piece of nuclear fuel.

You know, the more I think about it, the more George Steinbrenner reminds me of Mr. Burns in the Simpsons episode where Homer joins a bowling team. Homer goes in to ask Mr. Burns to sponsor his team and Burns, who's been huffing ether, gladly agrees (he thinks Homer is the Pillsbury Doughboy). So Homer runs out of Burns's office with the check, and gleefully tells his co-workers, "If you want to ask Burns for a favor, now's the time! He's doped up, or dyin', or something!"

Hopefully someone will figure out a way to turn Steinbrenner's pathological need to spend and the Yankees' obvious hole at second base into a cash cow.

Thursday, February 19, 2004

Ye Gods, it's yet another Angels blog: The Pearly Gates. That's...uh...carry the two...four active Angels blogs!

The Orange County Register today is dismissive of the chances of a back-of-the-rotation controversy, saying that Ramon Ortiz is the odds-on favorite. I suspect that's how it will turn out, but I really doubt that the Angels will stick Sele in the bullpen without taking a hard look at him first.

Then again, the Register also says that "...if Sele and Shields are relievers, Derrick Turnbow might be looking at another season in Triple-A." Maybe so, but it probably won't be for the Angels. Turnbow is out of options; if he doesn't make the club out of spring training, he has to clear waivers before he can be returned to Salt Lake.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

The party line continues to be that the Angels are perfectly comfortable heading into spring training with six starters. Just to recap, they are: Bartolo Colon, Jarrod Washburn, Kelvim Escobar, John Lackey, Ramon Ortiz, and Aaron Sele. Additionally, the Angels have Scot Shields, who's performed competently as a spot starter, in the bullpen, as well as a couple of minor-league pitchers who may or may not be ready for work with the big club.

It's a logjam. Or an armjam, anyway.

Realistically, Colon, Washburn, and Escobar are pretty close to guaranteed a spot in the rotation. Most of the stuff I've been reading assumes that Lackey is in, too, although a look at his numbers reveals a guy who's been almost exactly average over the last couple of years, albeit with flashes of dominance (and a permanent place in the hearts of Angels fans as the guy who pitched five good innings to start Game 7). Lackey's big advantage is that he's a youngster - 25 years old - and can be expected to improve for the next few years. So he's a good bet to be starter #4.

Neither Ortiz nor Sele is a safe bet to return to their glory days. Ortiz has had his ups and downs, will turn 31 before the season starts, and I get the sense that the Angels have grown just a little bit weary of waiting for him to fulfill his potential. After a pair of good seasons in 2001 and 2002, he had a subpar 2003. Then again, who didn't?

Sele, meanwhile, is three years older than Ortiz, and attempting to come back from an injury, to boot. I suspect that his days of sub-4.00 ERAs are done, but he's certainly wouldn't surprise anyone by being a capable fifth starter. He'll be making somewhere in the $8 million range in 2004, meaning that his contract is virtually untradable at this point. If he impresses in spring training, he'll likely get the slot in the rotation, and the Angels will attempt to deal Ortiz. If he doesn't, the Angels will either release him (bringing the amount they'll spend on starting pitchers not playing for them in 2004 to $20 million), or attempt to trade him while picking up some of his contract money. Either choice would be perilous - keeping Sele means keeping your fingers crossed that he doesn't get injured again, or just plain break down over the course of a season. Trading or releasing him means you end up paying for something you're not using. Fortunately, the presence of Shields as an emergency fifth starter should give the Angels the flexibility to use either Ortiz or Sele as their fifth starter, on the theory that even if they choose a dud and trade away the other, they still have a competent backup.

No matter how many times Stoneman says that all jobs are up for grabs, expect most eyes to be on Aaron Sele. Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow; the first spring training game is versus San Diego on March 5.

Monday, February 16, 2004

Notice how I had it both ways the other day? I was "skeptical" that the A-Rod to New York deal would get done, but, just in case, I hedged my bets by mentioning George Steinbrenner's well-deserved reputation for acting like a rich shitheel.

So now, of course, Alex Rodriguez is going to be a Yankee. Any baseball blog you read today will have the relevant details, and I more or less agree with the majority of my blogging bretheren: yes, it's just another example of the Yankees using their unfair monetary advantage. Yes, said advantage is partially an accident of geography. Yes, there's nothing anyone can do about it, so let's shut up and play ball, already.

In terms of looking at the Yankees, Now with New Rodriguez Action (TM), the only analysis I've done is to take a look at what they've gained in terms of win shares above average. They'll be replacing Aaron Boone, who contributed 0.5 WSAA last year, with Rodriguez, who contributed 15.5. Since three win shares equals one win for the team, this tells us that, if Boone and Rodriguez performed the same in 2004 as they did in 2003, that's five big wins the Yankees have picked up.

However, the Yankees also dealt away Alfonso Soriano, who had 8.6 WSAA, and they've yet to announce who will replace him. If the Yankees field an "average" player at second this year, they'll lose all of those, reducing their net win gain to around two. Since they'll be paying A-Rod $16 million, dropping Soriano's $5.4 million salary, and adding an average second baseman's salary, those two wins would cost the Yankees approxmately $11 million American.

Realistically, the Yankees are unlikely to stand pat with their current options at second base, the most palatable of which would be Miguel Cairo, who's compiled a .269 batting average and a total of 19 home runs since debuting in 1996 (Soriano, of course, hit 38 home runs last year). They'll more than likely add a handful of win shares back into the equation with whomever they manage to acquire to fill that particular hole, meaning that, when all is said and done, they'll be somewhere around three to four wins better than they were before acquiring Rodridguez.

So, what does this mean for the Angels? Well, there are two ways of looking at this. One is that it makes a potential wild-card contender a fair bit stronger, which would hurt the Angels if they don't take the A.L. West crown. Fortunately, that's a load of hooey.

Before the trade, I think it's fair to say that the Yankees and Red Sox were pretty evenly matched going into 2004, and that the Angels, and possibly the A's, were right up there with them. Now, of course, the Yankees become the team to beat - but the Red Sox, thanks to the unbalanced schedule, will have to play them more than twice as often as the Angels. Boston plays New York nineteen times, to be exact, versus the nine games Anaheim will end up contesting. So, although the Angels will be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis New York, they're compensated by the fact that Boston's schedule becomes harder relative to Anaheim's. Since either New York or Boston was going to win the East anyway (barring divine intervention from the Canadian baseball gods), everyone outside the East gets a little help from the fact that the standings are more likely to end up with New York at 100 wins and Boston at 94, instead of, say, New York at 97 wins and Boston at 96. To illustrate the point more clearly, take it to an extreme - imagine the Yankees were so good they won all their games. The Angels would drop nine, sure, but so would everyone else - except the other Eastern Division teams, who would drop ten games in the loss column that would be "in play" for everyone else.

Meanwhile, the Angels, A's, and Mariners get to play the A-Rod-less Rangers nineteen times, which should, in the short term, mean a couple of extra wins, unless the Rangers can spend the money they're saving effectively enough to make up the difference between Rodriguez and Soriano (alternatively, of course, they could also get increased production from an admittedly young and talented core). However, given that the Rangers have agreed to pick up something like nine million dollars per year on Rodriguez's contract, and also given that, of the $16 million they're saving, $5.4 million will go to Soriano, and further given that part of the reason they made the deal was to cut payroll, their financial flexibility from this deal is probably somewhat less than the flexibility the Mariners got when Kaz Sasaki decided to head on back to Japan a couple of weeks ago (for some truly shocking numbers about the effect this deal has on the Yankees' and Rangers' payroll, see the invaluable Dugout Dollars blog).

So, in the end, I think this deal should change most people's minds from "The Yankees and Red Sox will slug it out for the East, with the loser probably getting the wild card," to "the Angels and A's will slug it out for the West, with the loser fighting Boston for the wild card." That's not to count out the Mariners, of course, who may be a decent dark horse - just an attempt to distill the conventional wisdom. Which - thank God - is scheduled for obsolescence as of the first pitch of the season, to be thrown on March 30 in Tokyo.

Saturday, February 14, 2004

"ESPN News Services" is reporting that Alex Rodriguez may be dealt to the Yankees for Alfonso Soriano, Jose Contreras, and minor league catcher Dioner Navarro. Rodriguez is said to have agreed in principle to play third base.

I am, of course, skeptical. It's not that the Yankees and Rangers have pulled off crazier nonsense, although this would rank way, way up there for both franchises (especially the bit involving Rodriguez playing third, while the much less talented Jeter plays short). But moving a contract that big, as we saw during the Rangers-Red Sox fiasco this winter, leads to all kinds of unforseen consequences. Then again, when you're egomaniacal, rich, and insane - hi, Mister Steinbrenner! - those kinds of obstacles tend to fade into the background a bit.

We'll have to wait and see, of course. In the meantime, though, let me say the following to ESPN:

1. Please hire people who can write better ledes than "The Yankees are in serious discussions with the Rangers to acquire Alex Rodriguez and move him to third base, where he'd play alongside shortstop Derek Jeter, if you are to believe Newsday." If I am to believe Newsday? Is there some Newsday believability scandal I should know about? Also, try to avoid consecutive subordinate clauses at the end of a sentence.

2. The guy's name is "Alex Rodriguez," not "A-Rod." Yes, we all call him that. But not in a straight news story, okay? And the following needs to be sent back to the teacher for an edit or five:

The Red Sox and Rangers talked extensively this winter about a deal involving A-Rod, but could not get it done, thanks to A-Rod's contract. The two teams did agree to a trade in December, but the union refused to approve it, declaring that A-Rod was setting an unacceptable precedent by diminishing his contract's value.

Rangers owner Tom Hicks then announced that Rodriguez would stay with the Rangers, and last month the team named A-Rod its captain.


Thank you.

Friday, February 13, 2004

The L.A. Times story on Eckstein's arbitration hearing notes that the Angels' payroll for 2004 is $108 million. Meanwhile, Jim Callis at Baseball America ranks the Angels' farm system fifth in the majors.

What an amazing turnaround. To be honest, I don't even know how to begin to deal with the fact that the Angels are starting to look like one of the best organizations in baseball, both in terms of ability to attract free agents and ability to find and develop younger players. I guess I've got a couple of weeks or so to get used to the idea, before Vlad Guerrero and Dallas McPherson have an on-field collision...

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Rotoworld.com is reporting that Eckstein has won his arbitration hearing, and will make $2.15 million next year. Not much of a surprise, frankly.

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Since there's not much going on in Angeldom today, in lieu of actual content I present to you my distilled takes on a troika of stories at ESPN.com:

Regarding Sean McAdam's discussion of why football, not baseball, is now the national pastime, save a big chunk of that blame for fans who get their panties in a wad when there's a baseball work stoppage, but couldn't care less when it happens in football. You want more people to watch baseball? Maintain competitive balance. You want competitive balance? Revenue-share and salary cap. You want revenue-sharing and salary capping? Ain't gonna happen without a long work stoppage, bo.

In another head-scratching bit of timing at ESPN, Jim Caple asks that evergreen question, "when's a gay active ballplayer gonna come out, anyway?" Caple makes the laughable assertion that, assuming a 3% national homosexuality rate, "we can expect an average of perhaps one gay player per team." Yo, Jim - that 3% don't extend across all groups, you smell me? Some professions are going to be a lot higher, and some - like baseball, which normally requires a grueling, years-long climb through the minors in an organization that's not exactly gay-friendly - are going to be a lot lower. I'd say maybe one gay player per league might be about right. Beyond that, though, the question is why on Earth any sane person would want to have everybody and their dog talking about their sexuality? Maybe the gay Major Leaguers (if there are any) just don't want Jim Caple camped out on their doorstep, asking them how it feels to be a symbol.

Finally, and best, we have Doug Glanville's account of his off-season trip to South Africa. This has nothing at all to do with baseball, and yet it's kind of nice to see a ballplayer make the effort to put a few paragraphs together on a subject that interests him. Good for him.

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

The Angels don't seem terribly concerned (see the last question in the article) about the fact that they're not likely to start the season with a left-hander in the bullpen. It makes me a little nervous, but not too much - both Frankie Rodriguez and Brendan Donnelly had sub-.200 batting average against numbers when facing left-handed hitters last year, so it's not like the Angels have no options when it comes to getting them out. Additionally, of course, since neither of them is a left-handed "specialist," they can be left in against righties, rather than using up a bullpen spot on a guy who would only come in to face one or two batters.

Would I like to have a southpaw version of K-Rod to call upon? Sure. But if you go out and grab somebody just because he's left-handed, and his BAA or OBP numbers are higher than Rodriguez's or Donnelly's, well, that's just pointless.

Monday, February 09, 2004

Uh-oh: looks like someone got a call from his accountant. The Angels and David Eckstein look like they're on their way to the crazy crapshoot that is arbitration over a difference of $550,000 ($2.15 million versus $1.6 million). You've got to think that if Cristian Guzman can make $2.525 million in 2003 despite subpar defense and an OPS that was 77% of the league average, Eckstein has a decent shot at getting his number approved by the panel.

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Purgatory Online will take a brief nap while I'm in historic Austin, Texas over the next couple of days. Back Monday with fresh material, or you can meet me at Lovejoy's. Hang around there long enough and I'm bound to show up.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

The owner of the brand-spankin'-new 6-4-2 writes to tell me of the launch of his Angels/Dodgers blog. As Count von Count would say, Three! Three Angels blogs! Ah-hah-hah-hah-ha!

Meanwhile, Rob Neyer finds the Angels' placement at the top of the ESPN fan satisfaction survey "interesting." He's somewhat incredulous that championships don't have a larger impact in the rankings, a sentiment I actually share, but fails to grasp a couple of salient points, namely (1) the impact of championships fades rapidly over time (find me ten Red Sox fans who remember any of those five World Series championships, Rob), and (2) "satisfaction" is influenced by both performance and expectations. So, while Neyer is obviously hemorrhaging from the nose while trying to figure out how the Yankees aren't atop this list, the fact is that all those previous championships have inflated expectations in the Bronx to the point that anything short of championship number umpty-zillion actually diminishes fan satisfaction, a fact that gets repeated so often I'm ashamed to even mention it. Meanwhile, Angels fans are still basking in the warm glow of their first-ever championship, an experience that no New York fan has known since approximately the fall of Constantinople.

Adjusting for a big drop-off in the championship utility curve, as it were, and for Yankee fans' hyperinflated sense of self-importance, the only teams that have provided recent satisfaction in terms of a championship are the Angels, the Marlins, and the Diamondbacks. The Marlins, of course, have a pretty good case, since they've won two World Series out of the past seven, but the fire sale after 1997 choked off any goodwill among their nascent fan base. I note that, last year, the fish were twenty-sixth out of the MLB teams, but leapt to fourth this time around. I'd say that's a pretty big impact, wouldn't you? Most fascinating tidbit: in 2003, their "ownership" ranking was 118th overall; their "stadium" ranking was 120th (out of 121!). In 2004, the exact same owner and stadium were ranked 82nd and 103rd, respectively. So, in fact, ESPN's seemingly low weighting to championships may reflect the fact that, inevitably, championships improve how fans perceive other portions of the survey.

And the Diamondbacks? They're second in the 2004 poll, and in 2003 they were first. So it's obvious that the fans do care about championships, just not championships that are more than a few years old (or, in New York, a few months old).

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

ESPN's second annual fan satisfaction rankings are out, and the Angels are rated sixth out of the 121 franchises in the four major professional sports. They're first among MLB teams, finishing strong in all areas of the survey. This bodes well for Moreno; Angels fans are taking notice of what's been going on, and they're liking it - even after the kind of year they had in 2003. It's hard to imagine that they won't break three million in attendance again this year.

Monday, February 02, 2004

The Angels' website has a spring training guide up today. Sigh. Maybe next year.

Home