Angels Never Die

"You have screw loose to follow sports any other way." "It's like making the Angels your "significant other team" which is not a real commitment" So, you're crazy if you follow sports in a way other than your own, and it's not a real commitment. If that's not an example of an "I'm a real fan"/"I'm a better fan" post, then nothing is.

Brandon, this is an actual example of an "I'm a real fan" "I'm a better fan" post.

Well, 2 months of Lester, and supposedly Boston is confident they can possibly get him back, and in return, they get a solid everyday player who's under contract for another year. I don't know if Boston had better options, but from the A's POV, I thought it was a very reasonable gamble, I just don't think that about the Cubs trade. It's correlated, but that's hardly enough evidence to support it being causal, especially when other A's players dropped off in terms of production in the second half (and Cespedes did worse after the trade as well, so perhaps his production was destined to drop off too.) Is it a loss in hindsight? Perhaps, they are out Cespedes and (likely) Lester with no division title or playoff success to show for it, but that's all in hindsight, a gamble can still be a good one even if it doesn't pay off. So I think their failure after the trade was merely incidental.

One game is a very pitiful sample size, so I agree with them, but if they were to have won and then they attributed that one win to sabermetrics or whatever, then they'd be hypocrites.

Some players just can't deal with not being as capable as they once were, it's totally understandable. If he doesn't feel he can't play up to a certain standard, then retiring when his deal is done makes sense.

Yeah, the Cubs trade was such a huge mistake, and not even close to being a necessary gamble. Addison Russell was their best position prospect in the last 10 years, if not longer. The Lester trade though? I don't see that as being a bad gamble or a big loss, as I don't think Cespedes is really all that great or hard to replace.

Why are you acting like I ever brought up the subject of whether they should have played him and/or trade for him? I was responding to his flippant remark towards the A's "Moneyball" reputation, when that book painted players like him in a better light than what was traditionally thought. Players like him were viewed more positively and valued more after Moneyball. I mean, it has at least seemed that way to me over the last 10 years, but maybe you don't agree.

The last line would only resemble that if the content that preceded it was truly judgmental. I hope you're not implying that all attempts to re-assure/clarify are necessarily indicative of the opposite being true. I didn't scour every post, and I never implied there were no positive feelings about KC winning in addition to satisfaction with the A's losing, but I saw plenty of people happy that the A's lost and not just for any possible practical reason (like not wanting to face them in the next series.) Maybe I just can't see what I said very well from outside my own perspective, but I was just trying to express my reaction to it and hopefully understand where other people come from better, which I think I do now based on others responses. I have no interest in ideas about what makes a good/better fan, I think a fan is whatever people want it to be, it's entirely subjective. If anything, my attitude is much more likely to be met with accusations of not being a "real" fan.

Do you really think that's what I was trying to say?

Well, clearly his best days are past.

Moneyball had emphasized putting less value on batting average and strikeouts, while putting more value on walks and obp. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been valued without that, but I remember when people used to get far more on his case about his BA and K's, and then it became increasingly less of an issue people had (until he couldn't really maintain it with the White Sox, of course.) It was over the middle of his career when these attitudes about these basic stats were changing, I think he benefited from that.

Jeez, you guys make it sound like the "underdog" always wins.

Yeah, I can see that since Beane has been kind of a celebrity GM. To be fair though, what the A's do with their payroll, is naturally going to be more interesting than what the Angels do with theirs.

I don't really pay attention to sports media all that much anymore, but do people really still talk about Moneyball? They do know that book is like 11 years old now, right? The impression I've more often gotten from the media is that it's the ones who hated it who can't stop dwelling on it as if it's still relevant in some way.

I guess that aspect of it has never really appealed to me.

I think Moneyball went a long way in people appreciating hitters like Dunn more, so maybe he should be a little less flippant about it.

I'm not saying it's weird or anything that you guys are reacting this way to the A's game last night, it's obviously completely expected reactions, but it just really doesn't resonate with me personally. I've always respected their organization, and have had no reason to have negative feelings towards them. I guess it's just hard for me to revel in other people's misfortunes, especially when I have respect for how generally well run their organization is. I've always thought the A's have been great adversaries to the Angels and have helped create good memories in fights for the division. I wouldn't have minded playing them in a series at all, it would've been fun to finally meet in the playoffs since it didn't happen in '02 (which I was both relieved and disappointed about.) I suppose it's all harmless ribbing, but it was a one-game playoff, any team can lose like that at least once. I'm not saying they haven't fallen off for the last couple of months as well, but it's not like the Angels haven't been there before themselves. Anyway, I'm just getting some thoughts out, not trying to judge anyone.

You can't expect to have every single advantage against a team.

Besides the desire to say his name in your best Bill & Ted voice.

Why are people making it out like he could only be using it therapeutically or to help his game? Maybe he was using it recreationally,

I think I'm going to go with that Trout guy since he's the best player on the team and all.

Beat me to a Mussina reference.

I'm going to the game! It's been a while since I've been to a game.

Shoemaker is saving our asses right now.

This is depressing the shit out of me right now, I feel so bad for him, I hope he can come back and be himself again eventually. It must feel so terrible to be taken down like this in what was probably the most exciting period in his career. He needs to take as much time as he needs to get well.