monkeywithahalo

Apologies, I didn't realize AW was such a PC environment. How about we just go call the most hated Angel a "Mathis-American"?

Seeing how there is a lot of negativity going around today, I figured I'd take advantage of that while simultaneously bringing a little levity. What I want to know is who should be the Angel we all most hate now? You can check the post for the full list of nominees, but I'll provide a spoiler alert that Joe Blanton's performance last night seems to have skewed the results thus far. And before anyone gets on me, I mean this (almost) entirely tongue-in-cheek and thought this would be a good way to blow off steam that doesn't involve nitpicking Mike Scioscia's every decision. Enjoy!

I think you are all missing the point. The real news here is we got two new nicknames out of this! -Mike Scioscia = The Big Catorce -Trevor Bell = Bozo the Ass Clown

In the immortal words of John McClane: "How does the same sh!t happen to the same guy twice?"

Sorry, but there is reason to be concerned. Compared to last season, his velocity is the fourth-lowest amongst all qualified SP. He would only beat Mark Buehrle, Barry Zito and knuckleballer R.A. Dickey. That isn't to say he is toast because of the loss of velocity, but it is going to make it very hard to dominate. Deception, command and changing speeds can only carry you so far.

Here is a little feature I thought I'd post if only for the sake of some stupid fun on an off-day. It is the weekly Angel Player Power Rankings. I fully expect everyone to complain that Hamilton is not ranked low enough.

How about that three of their losses were by one-run? That stuff all evens itself out over time, unless you are the Orioles and thus have the backings of wizardry at your aid.

But they are 9 for 16 on him for his career, so...

I don't have a problem with them charging for content. I happily pay for places with great, unique content. Hell, I deliberately pay the monthly price at Baseball Prospectus instead of the cheaper annual price because I want to support them more. But $38 a month or whatever for the digital edition of the OCR? Hell no! Why in the world did they make it all or nothing with such an expensive price? The only thing I read the OCR for is the Angels coverage. If they just charged $5 a month to view just the sport section, I'd sign up for it. Maybe I am alone in that because, frankly, their coverage is not great. Fletcher is a good beat reporter, but at the end of the day, he is just doing stories that the other beat guys are doing. Mike DiG at LA Times and Alden on the Angels site provide all the same info. That would mean I'd actually be paying for hacks like Jeff Miller and Mark Whicker, which actually makes me rethink whether or not I'd pay that $5 I suggested. I just don't see the all-or-nothing pricing model working.