The Failo Mentality

[Angel Oracle]

5 hours ago, Stradling said:

Honestly, because of the 90's I have perspective. Also the 90's were different.  I didn't have a community like this to read and try to contribute to.  I truly had zero idea before message boards that people's favorite team made them miserable and that some people had no faith so early in a season.  Also in the 90's 50 games were televised a year.  Maybe it's more of familiarity breeds contempt.  

Back in the 90s, we didn't have all of the different sources for information that we have today.    It was a little more blind faith back then.

[Mark68]

I have been an Angels fan my entire life. I made it through the dark times of the 70s and much of the 80s and 90s. I, like most of you, have become spoiled since 2002.

I still follow and root for the team, and I'll watch when they're on national TV. However, I won't go out of my way to buy MLB Extra Innings, for instance, because I have very few disposable dollars to spend and can't see spending extra money to watch the team this year. If they somehow are making a run late in the season, and I'm still in the States and not doing work-study/internship things in Berlin, I might reconsider.

I feel like Arte has painted this team into a corner. He wanted Pujols and Hamilton, and he got Pujols and Hamilton. Then he had a childish hissy fit when Hamilton shockingly relapsed, so now he's not spending money on free agents any more. That's fine, if you have a strong organization otherwise. They don't. They have the worst farm system in MLB, as rated by many sources, and have spent poorly on the international market. So things do look bleak. This is what happens when you're in "win now" mode for several years. Eventually, your string of good seasons runs out, unless you draft and develop players well. It happened to the Phillies. It happened to the Yankees. It happened to the Red Sox. It's now happening to the Angels as well as the Tigers. All of these teams had core players that have not aged well, and not enough young talent to mix in. The Phillies are just now overcoming that because they finally realized they needed to trade some of their not-yet-too-old assets while they could. But they've also been able to draft and develop players like Maikel Franco and Aaron Nola, and then hit a miracle inside straight draw (you poker players will understand) when they plucked Odubel Herrera out of last year's Rule V draft. They have decent talent evaluators there. Do we?

When I heard Richards was going to try stem cell treatment instead of opting for surgery, my first thought was that it might be delaying the inevitable and put his 2018 season in jeopardy in addition to the rest of this year and next. Same with Heaney. I don't know what the success rate is with stem cells or PRP treatment. I fear we are only aware of the success stories. It's a risk that not only effects them personally, but also the viability of this team for as much as the next three seasons. That is not me being pessimistic, it's me being realistic, but also knowing how these things typically have worked out for this team.

So, long story short, I'm still a fan of this team, I'm just not going to feel obligated to spend extra money on them until I feel like it would be worthwhile, which might mean until Arte Moreno sells the team.

Luckily, I'm also a fan of the game and have been playing Scoresheet fantasy baseball for over 20 years now. And I pay attention to the game because it helps me to do well at that.

[Chuck]

3 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I'm not Strad but the 90s was an interesting time for me as a fan...  I wasn't that far removed from playing college ball, I was still very much one of those anti-stat old school types that felt his having played in thousands of games from little league through Div1 ball gave me a greater insight into the game than it really did.  So as the Angels went about stinking I went looking for reasons to be hopeful.  That led to following guys I had played against in college and how they were progressing... that in turn ultimately led to following minor league baseball.   Seeing guys who I knew had all the physical tools to be something utterly fail, I started looking for reasons why... which led to reading a lot more about the game and ultimately this guy named Bill James.

The best part of being an Angels fan in the 90s for me was watching the farm system start to produce, and how certain statistical indicators lined up as predictors...  Learning to spot the difference between George Arias and Troy Glaus and playing in places like Midland .vs Cedar Rapids also cut down on the amount of letdown -- that's helped me survive ever since, it's also why this is probably a harder time for me than even the 90s... As bad as the 90s were -- the farm system was a lot of fun to track.  At one point between 1985 and 1999 the Angels had put more people into MLB than any team in baseball -- not many star players but a lot of solid everyday players you could build around.  

But if there was really ONE thing that helped keep the 90s together it was the advent of the internet and coming into contact with others that shared my love for the Halos, and my growing interest in stats.  Having lived through that with people I never would have met, Tank, Brian, Superdave and my favorite Indians fan of all time, Bads85 made the trip much much more enjoyable -- the common hate for the Dodgers was a nice bonus too.

Looking forward, I'm optimistic when I hear from people in the Marlins and Reds organizations telling me they have lost scouts to the Angels since Eppler took over.  I'm overjoyed to hear the international staff has guys in the DR full time for the first time since Stoneman.  I'm happy to hear that many of these guys are being put through a stats boot camp before being assigned...  Right now all it's all just hope.   Maybe come June there will be reason to believe it's more than just that.. 

Be good to each other you asshats -- you're all here for the same reason.   Go Halos...

 

This!

[DMVol]

9 hours ago, WallyWorld said:

.....condescending.....smug....

You nailed the original post with those two words, Wally.....over the top criticism of your sports team (or anything or anybody else) is silly but venting is a human emotion.....recognizing the difference isn't that difficult....

Edited May 18, 2016 by DMVol

[Jason]

Just because we are fans doesn't mean we aren't realistic as well.  The Angels aren't very good but that doesn't mean it can't be entertaining to watch the games. For instance, last night I knew they had no chance of sniffing a victory but I watched because Kershaw is going to entertain with good baseball. Also if, by a miracle, they beat Kershaw that would be awesome. I think the fact that anything could happen in a game keeps us coming back most nights. I do think there are a group of fans that does want them to fail thinking that it will force ownership to make dramatic changes to front office and coaching staff (especially Scioscia). That's lame.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Angels N Skins

[eaterfan]

I've given up on this season and really next season too (especially with all the injuries to our tradable assets). Does that make me a failo? I still watch the games when I can. I'll go to my usual 10 games a season. I'll enjoy Trout ABs and Simmons robbing people at SS. Why can't that be enough to make me happy?

I want the Angels to win (because while the baseball draft is important the position isn't as important as it is in football or basketball, although now with the slotting bonus the differences at very top of the draft does matter a little more). That being said, I don't want the Angels to make deals that will effect their chances of winning 3 years down the line in any sort of fashion. Sign Tim Lincecum to a short term low cost deal? Sure! Sign someone who costs us a 1st round draft pick for a big salary long term? Heck no! Trade anyone who is a legit "prospect" in our system to get a SS while Simmons is injured? Absolutely not! Be over the Luxury Tax thresh hold this season and keep us from spending in the future (penalty for going over 3 years in a row)? No! Hold onto a Houston Street, Escobar, Nava, Soto because they might get us to .500 this season (though I think 75 wins is even pretty optimistic) instead of trading them for prospects who can help us in 2-3 years? Heck NO!

It's really frustrating for me when people accuse people like me of wanting to waste the next 2-3 seasons of Mike Trout's career rebuilding. IMO those years (I'm including this season) have already been wasted. I'm trying to salvage the remaining time after that instead of clinging to unrealistic hope of a miracle in the immediate future.  

[Blarg]

7 hours ago, WallyWorld said:

angelswin.com, shaming the non-believers one thread a time 

Can you please explain why you are so defensive in this thread? In fact not even defensive but outright angry and for no other reason, it seems, that you think it is all about you.

@Inside Pitch I go back way further than the 90's by another couple of decades. So I've seen the organization at it's worst, most incompetent, most devoid of talent while they still had young star players that would never see real success. For those that state there wasn't any expectations in the 90's, they didn't see the 80's and all the near misses. There have been fan expectations since the beginning.

The difference between toady and rolling back the clock is you didn't get to see the game unless you went to the game. Televised games were rare because the mindset of the owners is that it would subtract from their gate instead of understanding that it is a 3+ hour infomercial coaxing fans to go to the game. So people of my generation listened to the games on radio and once in a while scrapped up enough dollars for some cheap seats. It was a special moment to be at the ballpark and actually see the players instead of reading about them in a printed newspaper the next day. Newspapers where your primary source of information about the team and that information was controlled both by the front office of the team but also by the newspaper that wasn't about to piss off their readership digging up dirt on their own guys.

Media back then was minimal. Most of you guys under 35 grew up on ESPN and 24 hour sports news services. We geezers grew up with ABC Wide World of Sports that had a couple hours of ski jumping on Sunday and the Game of the Week on NBC. One game. Not all 162 (except in a state that has no In N Out) of every team in baseball at your fingertips, but just a scant few and often it was from the Minnesota feed. That is reaching back, those that remember when the Angels traveled to Minnesota you got to see that game on TV but not home games.

We are now saturated with content and and like a moral in one of Aesop's fables, the Fox and the Lion, familiarity breeds contempt. As you become more and more familiar with how the minor to major leagues work, how free agency works, what the salary structures are and how the economics of the game works, you develop a different point of view of a subject that you once held in a higher regard. You go from fan to critic and it is actually kind of sad because the joy of the game is stripped away and you reason with numbers rather than enjoy with a kind of blind faith. 

How may times do you see the statistical life of a player as it relates to any at bat against any said pitcher and say, he is going to strike out, or ground into a double play. 20 years ago you anticipated a hit, today you resign yourself to failure. The game is an overwhelming statistical monolith of failure in every aspect and you cannot see the sunlight from the shadow of that monstrosity. The numbers are never wrong.

 

But the Mets won the 1969 World Series.

And at age 10 I realized you can't predict a single thing in baseball. Not the 1969 Mets, the 6-14 Angels of 2002 or the 83 win St. Louis Cardinals popping corks after the last game of the 2006 World Series or Shoemaker actually pitching 6 strong innings.

That is why some fans wonder how you can count your own team out in May. Numbers are great to calculate, the variables are what make the game fun to watch.

[mtangelsfan]

As one who has started a couple of these kind of thread I can say they normally do nothing.  Each viewpoint has merit and most who have chosen a "side" are pretty set in it.  I see the failos as radical liberals and nutswingers as hard core conservatives.  They are loud, noisy and get most of the attention but the bottom line is that most fans are right in the middle.

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Back in the 90s, we didn't have all of the different sources for information that we have today.    It was a little more blind faith back then.

Hah, I guess I have more in common with you than I want to admit. I just wrote the same thing before getting to your post.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

9 hours ago, stormngt said:

Wasn't really referring to you.

I know. I have seen others say this, though.

[cez]

I'd like more interaction between WallyWorld and Stradling, please. 

We left off about here, I think:

Strad: How can you call yourselves fans when all you do is torture yourselves, failos?

WW: There are many different types of fans.

Strad: But baseball is a long haul, and I think you need to be more patient and enjoy the game.

WW: It’s condescending of you to tell others how to be fans.

Strad: That wasn’t my intention. I was just curious.

WW: It still came off as a little condescending, whether it was intentional or not.

Strad: Why do you have to be such goddam woman?

WW: With that, all you’re really doing is proving that you’re being condescending.  

Strad: 

Edited May 18, 2016 by cezero

[Junkballer]

I saw all these people from both sides getting crapped on in this thread and thought, "I gotta get in on this crapfest".

As a longtime Kings fan, other than brief windows here and there, I'm used to having playoff hopes die early.  That doesn't make me lose interest in the team, it just shifts from a win now perspective to a draft, young player development, who's showing character perspective.  

As long as the team is reasonably diligent about building the team in line with a coherent philosophy it's easy to root for a team no matter how things go awry.  Not understanding the philosophy or seeing management go against  the purported philosophy makes one feel that we as fans are getting sold a bill of goods.  That's what makes it hard for me to watch the Angels right now, lack of observable direction.   Well, rephrase that to an unclear philosophy of rebuilding the team with a viable longterm plan to fully utilize the gift we've been given in Trout.  I am an optimist and give GM's a chance until they soil the sheets and have high hopes for Eppler.  However, my confidence in Arte has eroded as he has Admiraled the sinking of the fleet.  While he is hopefully learning from his billion dollar mistakes, he should deprioritize attendance in favor or doing what is necessary to rebuild this organization from the ground up, whatever the cost (not free agent cost but the price you have to pay to fully optimize player scouting, drafting and development).  The more I see a coherent direction, the more I can get excited about the team regardless of what the current standings are.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Grit

[mulwin444]

@Blarg Pretty much my thoughts.  My first game I went to was when I was 4 and got to see Ryan pitch in the mid-70's and was able to see some absolutely putrid offenses with my grandfather's season tickets through the late 70's.  It started to turn around from '79 through '86 as it felt like the first era they actually had a nice mix of young talent (Mike Witt, Frank Tanana, Don Aase, Gary Pettis, Ron Romanick, Kirk McKaskill, Wally Joyner, Chuck Finley) and solid vets (Brian Downing, Rod Carew, Bobby Grich, Doug DeCinces, Don Baylor, Fred Lynn, Bob Boone, Reggie Jackson) that gave you hope year in and year out.  After '86 though it was a barren wasteland with an occasional oasis popping up here and there ('89, '95, '98) but mostly it was a demonstration on how not to create a winning organization.  Gene Autrey tried but his magic touch with signings like Grich and Baylor was no longer there.  Then there was Jackie Autrey who didn't try and basically viewed the OC/LA market as akin to Portland, OR.   They traded some solid young talent for little return (Devon White, Dante Bichette, Damion Easley, J. T. Snow), had some bad luck with injuries (Bryan Harvey, Joe Grahe), and signed ancient relics (Claudell Washington, Dave Winfield, Von Hayes, Hubie Brooks, Eddie Murray, Cecil Fielder, Tim Belcher).  It wasn't until the late '90's that a solid young core starting developing into consistent impact players but, by that point, it was over a decade of mediocrity that made the early 80's success a distant memory.  

All these memories are what i carry with me from season to season when I watch the Angels, so, even as they struggle now, I guess I don't view it as hopeless because I have seen the empty desert that was the post-'86 Angels with their odd mixture young but mediocre talent and old free agents.  This team actually has financial resources those team's never dreamed of and, while it sucks Arte is not willing not exceed the luxury tax threshold, previous teams wouldn't have threatened it enough to be part of the conversation.   

[DMVol]

Just now, mulwin444 said:

.....so, even as they struggle now, I guess I don't view it as hopeless because I have seen the empty desert that was the post-'86 Angels with their odd mixture young but mediocre talent and old free agents.  This team actually has financial resources those team's never dreamed of and, while it sucks Arte is not willing not exceed the luxury tax threshold, previous teams wouldn't have threatened it enough to be part of the conversation.   

^^^This^^^....I am not happy with where we are and not happy with Arte for closing his wallet but it could be, and has been, much worse....

[Stradling]

16 minutes ago, cezero said:

I'd like more interaction between WallyWorld and Stradling, please. 

We left off about here, I think:

Strad: How can you call yourselves fans when all you do is torture yourselves, failos?

 

 

WW: There are many different types of fans.

 

 

Strad: But baseball is a long haul, and I think you need to be more patient and enjoy the game.

 

 

WW: It’s condescending of you to tell others how to be fans.

 

 

Strad: That wasn’t my intention. I was just curious.

 

 

WW: It still came off as a little condescending, whether it was intentional or not.

 

 

Strad: Why do you have to be such goddam woman?

 

 

WW: With that, all you’re really doing is proving that you’re being condescending.  

Strad: 

 

 

It would be like that almost exactly, but at some point he would call me a superfan because it's easier to do that than to explain his feelings.  

[cez]

Just now, Stradling said:

It would be like that almost exactly, but at some point he would call me a superfan because it's easier to do that than to explain his feelings.  

To be clear, I wasn't taking sides, really. 
I'm an equal opportunity troll. 

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

@Inside Pitch I go back way further than the 90's by another couple of decades. So I've seen the organization at it's worst, most incompetent, most devoid of talent while they still had young star players that would never see real success. For those that state there wasn't any expectations in the 90's, they didn't see the 80's and all the near misses. There have been fan expectations since the beginning.

Ha...  I remember the 80s well...  I remember when the best part of going to Angels games was to sit in the upper view level of LF watching the tortillas fly towards the field and the moth eating contests.  I remember Bobby Grich's catch being ruled a trap and the team blowing that two games up lead in the ALCS in 82.   I remember the dread I felt when Donnie Moore was summoned from the bullpen on October 12th, 1986.   You're absolutely correct when you say nothing in the 90s compared to the utter heartbreak of the 80s... 

Those demons weren't exorcised until Darin Erstad wrapped his mitt around a lazy fly ball in 2002...  Minus the 80s and the 90s, I don't think 2002 would have been as sweet.  In that respect all of us that survived those days were very fortunate to have lived through it.  

[nate]

This team has largely sucked for the last 5-6 years so what is to say they wont suck for the next 5-6.  Other than Trout this team has almost nothing.  The farm is barren and there is Pujols crippling (much like Pujols himself) contract.

 

It is not a failio attitude it is just realistic expectations.

[Blarg]

The moths,  so many here don't have any clue what you are referring to.

The first game I took my fiance to we could only afford the cheap seats in what they now call the 500 section and a moth about the size of a hummingbird splashed down in her drink. They had been buzzing us for a couple innings but that was the last straw,  she screamed and tossed her cup and thanks to the Angels  not yet filling the stadium for games that didn't feature Ryan,  the cup landed harmlessly three rows down. We moved out of the bleachers and snuck into some terrace seats. It's not like there was anyone sitting there either.

 

 

 

[Troll Daddy]

15 hours ago, Blarg said:

Wally, remember that thread a while back where you said you would quit being a fan, never post again if Aybar hit lead off? How did that work out on the bullshit meter?
He didn't point a finger at you, you did. Try not to get your feathers too ruffled when you see yourself in this thread as someone you don't think you are.

Bullseye

[Inside Pitch]

7 minutes ago, nate said:

This team has largely sucked for the last 5-6 years so what is to say they wont suck for the next 5-6.  Other than Trout this team has almost nothing.  The farm is barren and there is Pujols crippling (much like Pujols himself) contract.

 

It is not a failio attitude it is just realistic expectations.

They averaged 87 wins the last 5 years, only once in that span did they finish below .500, which was the only time they failed to win at least 85 games.   Please, tell me more about realistic expectations.  

[Adam]

If a fan objectively believes this roster is subpar and not competitive over the long haul, does that make them a failo? 

[nate]

They also only made it to the playoffs once and were swept in the first round.

 

In fact, they are going to miss the playoffs for the 6th time in the last 7 years despite having one of the highest payrolls in baseball over that period of time.

Edited May 18, 2016 by nate

[Inside Pitch]

So "largely sucking" isn't really based on anything other than whether or not a team makes the postseason?  Gotcha.   My opinion of suckage is obviously different than yours.  Vive la différence.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Inside Pitch

[Inside Pitch]

14 minutes ago, Blarg said:

The moths,  so many here don't have any clue what you are referring to.

The first game I took my fiance to we could only afford the cheap seats in what they now call the 500 section and a moth about the size of a hummingbird splashed down in her drink. They had been buzzing us for a couple innings but that was the last straw,  she screamed and tossed her cup and thanks to the Angels  not yet filling the stadium for games that didn't feature Ryan,  the cup landed harmlessly three rows down. We moved out of the bleachers and snuck into some terrace seats. It's not like there was anyone sitting there either.

The moths were a legit event...   those moth eating contests were about as close to living on the edge as a 7 year old could get.