Am I crazy, or was it wildly inappropriate for the Angels to soak the jersey of a victim of a fatal drunk driving accident in beer and champagne during the celebration? Is their not a director of symbolism on staff in Anaheim?

Alcohol doesn't equal drunk driving. As I read it, Adenhart himself liked a drink now and again. They trick is not to drive. If those guys celebrating and spraying the bubbly didn't get behind the wheel afterward all is well.

You may as well say it's wildly inappropriate to have a big memorial on the OF wall of a stadium from which thousands of people drive away after drinking.

I thought it was pretty cool. They were just toasting a mate in my opinion

I didn't think it was inappropriate. They didn't mean any harm. It came from a sweet place and that overrides any conflicting symbolism. It's not like they were vandals with ill-intent.

Yeah, I think it was a way for these guys to toast their friend. I don't have a problem with it, but I wonder if there was any hesitation before they went through with it.

Maybe "wildly inappropriate" is putting it too strongly. I agree that the intentions were warm. I also I agree that alcohol doesn't equal drunk driving. I do think, however, that there is a difference between a wall memorial at a place where beer is served and the literal drenching in alcohol of the jersey, and that the effect of it was pretty damn awkward, however well-intentioned.

Avril Lavigne would at least suggest it is ironic.

Is their not a director of symbolism on staff in Anaheim?

There's apparently a copy editor for Shysterball...

FWIW, Craig's wife's husband, I basically agree with you here. It's hard, because how else do you include him in the celebration, but I think that this was probably something they shouldn't have done.

Angels Trail Rangers By Only Nine Games in 5th Order Standings!!!

Can someone please explain to me what this means? I assume it's some sort of joke based upon something with which I am not familiar.

Great Andrew Volstad's ghost. I don't think the method of his passing should preclude one's homie from the ritual pouring of libations.

Can someone please explain to me what this means? I assume it's some sort of joke based upon something with which I am not familiar.

I believe it has something to do with the tendency of the Angels' to outperform their pythag and for many baseball watchers to undersell them as a result.

Given that none of us knew Adenhart and all of the Angels did, is it really for us to judge the appropriateness of their celebratory tribute? If Adenhart's mother wants to say something about it, then maybe that would be different. If I were to die and my friends were to do something in my memory, I don't feel like it would anybody else's business. I don't see why this should be different just because Adenhart was a ballplayer.

Given that none of us knew Adenhart and all of the Angels did, is it really for us to judge the appropriateness of their celebratory tribute? If Adenhart's mother wants to say something about it, then maybe that would be different. If I were to die and my friends were to do something in my memory, I don't feel like it would anybody else's business. I don't see why this should be different just because Adenhart was a ballplayer.

Sure it is. The Angels decided to do it where it could be seen, so I think it's OK for us to judge the appropriateness. If they want to do something private, then I'd agree with you, but they chose to do it in a public way.*

* This is independent of whether this was or wasn't inappropriate, which ultimately, is a matter of opinion.

And I think he's saying our opinion doesn't matter. Adenhart's family, AFAIC, are the only folks who can legitimately complain. As it is, if I were them, I'd be very touched that his teammates - who couldn't have known him all that long or all that well - remembered him many months later fondly and as part of the championship.

Sure it is. The Angels decided to do it where it could be seen, so I think it's OK for us to judge the appropriateness. If they want to do something private, then I'd agree with you, but they chose to do it in a public way.

I think it would be more inappropriate to spray his jersey with champagne and beer in private. Hell, that would have been just weird.

As it is, if I were them, I'd be very touched that his teammates - who couldn't have known him all that long or all that well - remembered him many months later fondly and as part of the championship.

He didn't have a lot of time on the active roster, but they did have about a month and a half of spring training to get to know him. He may have trained in the offseason with some other players as well. I believe that he was going to be roommates with Jered Weaver this season.

And I think he's saying our opinion doesn't matter. Adenhart's family, AFAIC, are the only folks who can legitimately complain. As it is, if I were them, I'd be very touched that his teammates - who couldn't have known him all that long or all that well - remembered him many months later fondly and as part of the championship.

Individually? No. But if Craig's reaction, magnified, was the reaction of 95 percent of the Angels' audience, then their opinions on the appropriateness would undoubtedly matter. Even if the Adenhart family gave it the thumbs up.

I didn't see the celebration last night because Extra Innings always cuts away right when the game ends, but my favorite part was Fuentes tossing his empty over the outfield wall. Probably won't be the only thing that leaves his hand and goes over the wall in the next couple weeks.

I didn't think it inappropriate at all. They included him in the celebration as if he were there. Which I thought came from a really sweet place. By all accounts, Nick's been a big part of their season. Jepsen takes his jersey from the clubhouse to the dugout before each game. Weaver pays tribute at the right field memorial before each home start. Torii points to the memorial at times. So I think it's only fitting that they celebrate as if he were there.

But if Craig's reaction, magnified, was the reaction of 95 percent of the Angels' audience, then their opinions on the appropriateness would undoubtedly matter.

Why? If that audience's sole connection to the incident was the fact that they saw it on TV and had read about Adenhart's death, I don't see why their opinions on this matter outweigh those of the people who actually have a real connection to this tragedy. All opinions do not get weighted equally in this vote, and I don't see why people with such a tangential connection to this should really get counted at all.

He didn't have a lot of time on the active roster, but they did have about a month and a half of spring training to get to know him.

And more than one Spring Training at that. Plus he pitched a fair amount in the majors last year.

It's hard, because how else do you include him in the celebration, but I think that this was probably something they shouldn't have done.

Had he been driving drunk and got in the accident, or had his death been the result of driving with someone who was drunk*, I think you guys would have a point. But failing that, I don't see an issue.

*And yes, I know she had alcohol in her system. Don't try to convince that a .016 BAC is anywhere near "impaired", even for a 20 year old woman.

I believe it has something to do with the tendency of the Angels' to outperform their pythag and for many baseball watchers to undersell them as a result.

I was flabbegasted by that myself. IS there even a fifth order of standings?

Why? If that audience's sole connection to the incident was the fact that they saw it on TV and had read about Adenhart's death, I don't see why their opinions on this matter outweigh those of the people who actually have a real connection to this tragedy. All opinions do not get weighted equally in this vote, and I don't see why people with such a tangential connection to this should really get counted at all.

Because if a major league team does something that offends a bunch of its fans, then that team generally recognizes the need to apologize for said offense (even with the old non-apology apology).

If some Angels player makes a homophobic slur, aren't I allowed to be offended, even though I don't know the player nor am I gay? The general level of antipathy around here toward Todd Jones would say otherwise.

The Angels did something very publicly. Craig thought it inappropriate. I'm not sure I agree with Craig, but I'm damn sure that his conclusion is both a defensible one and one that shouldn't be summarily dismissed just because he didn't know Nick Adenhart.

Put another way: Did anyone ask that kidnapped girl what she thought of that OC Register dumbass's column before concluding it was wildly inappropriate?

Don't try to convince that a .016 BAC is anywhere near "impaired", even for a 20 year old woman.

That's what, 1 beer or glass of wine?

IS there even a fifth order of standings?

I think Bert was being more than a little bit sarcastic when he posted this :)

-- MWE

That's what, 1 beer or glass of wine?

Probably after a couple hours.

IS there even a fifth order of standings?

To the best of my knowledge, they only go up to 3rd order right now. Somebody needs to create 4th order standings first. I was kind of expecting a link to the Onion and not LA Times.

I will revise my statement then. I was really conflating two different arguments. I will agree that the opinion of unconnected third parties can matter in determining the appropriateness of an action, but I think there is a higher level of clearly offensive that must be met before someone who is merely an observer can really comment. I don't think that is met here. The celebration the Angels engaged in was clearly not offensive in and of itself, but only becomes offensive in theory because of the nature of his death. Since the people who were engaging in the celebration were much more closely affected by his death than the observers, their opinion should override ours.

In the case of the OC Register's column, the guy who wrote the column was just an unconnected third-party himself, his opinion of his column doesn't override anybody else. If the kidnapped girl herself wrote the column, I think it would clearly not be inappropriate.

Had he been driving drunk and got in the accident, or had his death been the result of driving with someone who was drunk*, I think you guys would have a point. But failing that, I don't see an issue.

*And yes, I know she had alcohol in her system. Don't try to convince that a .016 BAC is anywhere near "impaired", even for a 20 year old woman.

Huh. It was my memory that he had been killed while his driver was legally drunk, so that's where I was coming from. If this is the case, then yeah, I'd agree there's no problem.

Shredder is spot on re: Fuentes.

And her BAC was .016 not .16 right? Legal limit is .08 and pretty damn drunk is .16. She was .016. Notice the extra "0".
Am I right here with my math, I am a musician and guitarist so who knows about those decimal points...

Jeff, I think the issue might be the age. As a 20 year old, any amount of alcohol in her system meant she was breaking the law. But one drink a few hours ago is not going to impair a driver, unless it's a rare case of being allergic to alcohol or something.

Speaking of which, a friend of mine in high school partied a bit and wound up in the hospital having his stomach pumped. I thought when I first heard it he must have done 15 shots or something. Turns out it was one drink. He had never had one before, and found out he was severely allergic.

AROM got it right. She was "legally" over the limit because she was 20, and for a 20 year old, the limit is zero. That does not mean she was drunk. Jim, you are correct. It was .016, which is 1/5 the legal limit for someone of age.

It was .016, which is 1/5 the legal limit for someone of age.

Hell, I even thought she wouldn't have been over the limit for an underage driver because my impression was most of those laws set the underage limit at .02 because anything below is within the margin of error.

A friend of a friend told me about the first time he drank -- his friends were giving him shots, and after a ridiculously large number, they started putting dishsoap in the shot glasses, until he was ultimately drinking only dishsoap. Not surprisingly, he vomited profusely, and the doctors told him that it actually saved his life, as he would have probably died of alcohol poisoning had he not vomited from the dishsoap.

As a fan, I did see the irony in dousing the jersey, but I don't count on professional athletes for nuance. It was heartfelt, and that's good enough for me. It's nice to see him being remembered.

(Pitching coach) Mike Butcher was texting with Adenhart's father when the guys went out to the center field memorial, so I'd imagine he told him of the jersey-dousing and of what was going on in the outfield at that time. Butch and Adenhart's father have been in constant touch throughout the season, communicating at least once per week according to published reports. The organization seems to be going out of their way to include Adenhart's family and memory in everything they do. They've also done a reasonably good job of honoring the memory of those who were with Adenhart -- when Jon Wilhite (the survivor who is coming back from internal decapitation) threw out the first pitch before a game earlier this year, I believe there was a relative of Courtney Stewart's there as well.

Others have mentioned this before me, but I think it would be a nice gesture -- assuming they would be up for it, of course -- to have Adenhart's parents throw out the first pitch at ALDS Game 1. Now, his parents are divorced, so I don't know if there would be an issue there, and obviously that may be something that one or both of them may have no interest in. But I do think it would be nice to give the team and fans an opportunity to provide just a moment of support to the people most damaged by the tragedy.

Also, in their postgame interviews, basically every player was talking about Adenhart first. Chone Figgins even eschewed wearing the official division championship t-shirt in favor of a t-shirt with Nick's image and name on it, and spoke eloquently about it when interviewed. I'll forgive them the symbolic confusion; they were just doing the only thing they could to try to include the kid in the celebration.

I'm kind of shocked that people are concerned about the tribute last night- I thought it was a really nice touch. If, instead of toasting Nick at the wall, the Angels all decided to drive home piss drunk running red lights, that would have been in poor taste. However, toasting a friend of yours that passed too soon is always good in my book.

As far as my 5th order standings- just tweaking the BP folks who, as of last night, still didn't have the Angels in first in their standings. I'm aware those standings are "numerical" not "personal"- but they still make me smile.

Stepping away from the Adenhart stuff for a bit ...

... I don't really have anything against the guy, but it was fitting that the last out was made by Ian "Get the #### off our field!" Kinsler.

Is this the year the Angels break the Curse of Gary Lucas against Boston?

Robinred...

I hope so, but don't think so. Fuentes frightens me in the post-season.

I'm known (by anyone who cares - ok, by robinred) as one of the more vociferous anti-drunk-driving and generally anti-drunk posters here, but even I didn't see anything wrong with this tribute. Adenhart would have wanted to be involved, and so therefore, they involved him the best way they could. You can't expect a mob scene to think deeply about context, nor should they have, in my opinion.

Avril Lavigne would at least suggest it is ironic.

Was your mistake there meant to be ironic?

Jon Wilhite (the survivor who is coming back from internal decapitation)

Holy ####.

I believe it has something to do with the tendency of the Angels' to outperform their pythag and for many baseball watchers to undersell them as a result.

Is there a soul on the planet that didn't expect the Angels to win the division handily? That looked like one craptacular division to start the season. I know it's fashionable to paint yourself as an underdog, but please.

Is there a soul on the planet that didn't expect the Angels to win the division handily?

You don't remember the "experts" pointing to the Angels "modest run differential" as proof that this would be the year that they only win 83 games? All the usual suspects were just sure last year's luck would run out and the Angels would win fewer games than they have since '03. More specifically, I recall Neyer picked the A's to win the west and he wasn't the only one wishcasting that way.

You don't remember the "experts" pointing to the Angels "modest run differential" as proof that this would be the year that they only win 83 games?

Yep. Eighty-three wins and division leaders by 6 games, as I recall. Who cares?

Neyer picked the A's and just wrote a piece saying he was off by only a few moths, look how great they have been this last week.

Less than 10% of people polled on HalosHeaven thought the jersey-dousing was inappropriate.

There seemed to be a reasonably sized minority that picked the A's. Probably fewer gave Texas a chance, and almost none picked Seattle. At the beginning of the year you had some who thought Matt Holliday would play like he did in STL instead of how he actually played for the A's, and Jason Giambi had another .240, 100 walk, 25 homer year in him.

The biggest problem I had with people picking the A's was that their pitching in the second half last year was awful and there was no credible reason to assume it would improve enough to let them compete with the Angels. Even under a best-case scenario offensively, they still had no chance.

I can understand why people didn't pick the Angels to win 90 plus, I disagreed but it was certainly a legitimate forecast. That said, the A's beating the Angels this year was wishcasting and nothing more.

Well, a 100 win team lost Teixeira, had an aging Vlad, and was starting a bunch of guys who hadn't proven themselves. Did anyone expect even 25 homers and 85 RBIs from Kendry, let alone 35/100, with a .300 average? Did we really expect Figgins to walk 100 times? Aybar to hit over .300?

Of course, all of those surprises were offset by injuries and inconsistency to the starting staff, and pure suckitude for much of the season from the pen.

If you told me the day Teixeria signed with New York that: Vlad, Hunter, Lackey, and Santana would miss significant time (as in months); Saunders would suck hardcore for a while, then go on the DL before finally returning to form; Shields would miss almost the whole season; Speier would get worse; Adenhart would die; Escobar would not recover; Arredondo (remember how many people wanted him as the closer?) would suck donkeys; Kendrick would suck bad enough to get sent down at one point; and that 31 starts would come from Shane Loux, Matt Palmer, Trevor Bell, and Sean O'Sullivan; that Brandon Wood and/or Sean Rodriguez had still not arrived; yet they'd still clinch the division with a week to go, I'd probably be pretty surprised. If you had told me all those things, yet still said that at one point late in the season they would start 9 guys hitting over .300, I'd try to have you committed.

Before this year, I thought the window was closing for the Angels. Now, after what I've seen this year, I'm more convinced then ever that the window is wide open. The lesson? Do not ever doubt any team that is managed by Mike Scioscia.