RICHARD: Naturally, we'll start at the end. 95 wins, a second-consecutive division title, a playoff victory over the Yanks, and ultimately a difficult to swallow loss to the White Sox in the LCS. I know Angel fans' expectations differed wildly entering the season. In your estimation, was the 2005 season a success?

JOSH: It certainly was a success. I predicted that at the beginning of the year, the team would win around 90 games and win the division, but lose in the ALDS. I thought they would be the 4th best team in the league, when they turned out to be second best. Not only that, but if Eddings isn't a douchebag, the whole ALCS is different. Very good season.

R: Agreed. They certainly beat my expectations (granted, those expectations weren't nearly as lofty as yours), and so I'm happy to admit that I was wrong about this club. I still don't think the 2005 Angels were as good as they could have been or should have been, but it's hard to be unhappy with the final result.

J: Ok, so we are agreed, the Angels played above expectations. Do you think that another manager could have coaxed more wins out of this squad, or do you think Scioscia did as well as could be done?

R: Some of his pre-game decisions were pretty inexplicable, especially in the playoffs (Steve Finley?), but I can't find much to complain about. His teams are always active on the basepaths, but they're always pretty good at it (74% SB%). He has a reputation for "small ball" and giving up outs, but the team was actually fourth in the AL in sacrifices. And I never did get all the criticism over his handling of the bullpen (where was he to turn when Shields, Frankie and Donnelly were all struggling?). Hell, even the contact play gets a bad rap according to Chronicles' count.

Could someone have done it better? No doubt. But I don't think Scioscia was a detriment to this club.

J: I actually feel that Scioscia did about his worst job this year. His major mistake had to be in never giving up on Finley. Also, (and this is purely in hindsight), I don't think he handled the Eddings situation quite right...if there was ever a moment for Scioscia to go Lou Piniella, call out the umpires, etc. that was the time. Instead he chose to go "mellow" and call out his team and they didn't respond. Of course, it is hard to argue against 95 wins and being 3 games from the World Series, and I do not think any other manager could get better results. He was able to artfully get Escobar into the bullpen for the stretch run, where he would most help the team. I don't know if it took any arm twisting for Escobar to be so willing, but it is a credit to Scioscia that that went off without a hitch.

Oh, and I think that the Chronicler stated he stopped counting the contact play at some point.

R: I don't think playing the victim in the Eddings fiasco would have changed anything (not that we weren't the victim...). I rather liked the way Mike handled the situation. I know I didn't take it nearly so well.

And speaking of the Devil, how important was the "Eddings effect" to the end of the Angels season? Would things have been different? Some folks think the Angels died with that call.

J: Well, the Angels certainly weren't alive after the call, so it did not help. As I said before, it is purely in hindsight that I don't think it was handled well...at the time I wanted Scioscia to do more, but I felt what he was doing was what was needed to keep the team's head in the game. Now, I don't think the Angels would have been a lock if the call never happened, but they would have had about a 40% chance to win that game. If that had happened, the Chisox would not have been dead, but they would have been reeling badly. Of course, it is doubtful that the Angel offense would have been improved (of course, it could hardly get worse), but I don't think the team would have looked so dead.

R: I've said my peace on the subject. Now I'd be happy to not hear or think of Doug Eddings for the next five months.

J: Agreed, enough about Eddings. Moving on to the regular season in general, what did you find most surprising about this team?

R: Hmmm... that's a hard one. There weren't a whole lot of "surprises" in how this team played. The inconsistency from the bullpen was shocking, I suppose. The big three all had fine numbers over the season; we just couldn't get them all to show up in the same week.

As for surprising players, it's got to be Ervin Santana. Not that he was phenomenal, but considering that the guy practically skipped AAA to be thrust into the rotation of a contender, throwing the most innings of his life, he preformed about as well as could have been hoped. He's really the anti-Ramon Ortiz, when you think about it.

J: Santana would certainly be up there for me, not so much for his performance, but for his composure. He consistently shut down the good teams and didn't let anything unnerve him.

My biggest surprise was really how hot and cold Vlad was all year. Normally he does this, but each stretch lasts about 1-2 weeks at a time. This year, he would be scorching for a month and then be completely extinguished the next. And up until mid-September (when he presumably jammed his shoulder), he always seemed to have the ability to step up in big moments (his grand slam against the Yankees, scoring from 2nd on a sac bunt in the 12th inning of a game), and I was genuinely surprised when he did not do that in the playoffs.

R: Like I said, Santana is the "anti-Ramon Ortiz". And good point about Vlad. His OPS from month-to-month (including the playoffs) went like-a-so: .996, .697, 1.273, .640, 1.047, 1.060, .481. A portrait of inconsistency.

Let's talk about the best moments of the season (more than a couple of which were provided by Vlad). When you look back on 2005, what image pops out at you? (And if you say Doug Eddings, I will kill you.)

J: Probably Santana coming in for Colon in Game 5 of the ALDS. Colon deserves some kudos for doing what he could to start the game, but it was too much. Suddenly, Santana walks in, struggles at first, but ends up shutting down the Yankees long enough to get it to the bullpen. He should be in playoff folklore for his performance (unfortunately, it will probably be forgotten by most people).

As far as the regular season goes, I have to say Erstad railroading Estrada. It wasn't that Erstad plays with a particular "football mentality" as the media was saying, but that he knew that that was the only way to score the run. No matter his ability at the plate, this play exemplified Erstad's will to win.

R: Forget about the image of Erstad's hit - I can feel the damn thing. As for me, I'd have to go with Vlad scoring from second on a Bengie Molina sacrifice. Simultaneously the dumbest and most incredible play of the season. But that's Vlad for you.

J: Those plays certainly give credibility to the idea that plays at the plate are the most exciting things in baseball. What do you think was the most predictable thing (player, group of players, play, etc.) about this team?

R: Steve Finley. Hated the signing the moment it happened, and time has proven me correct.

J: I'll agree with you there. He was unpredictably bad (in the sense that he was much worse than I think even the worst prediction), but after about May, every at bat was basically predictable. Ground out, pop out, strike out, or foul out. Every time.

R: Yep, Steve Finley may have been the biggest "disappointment" - if you want to call it that - in all of baseball. So which non-Steve Finley Angel was the most disappointing in 2005?

J: I think I have to go with Dallas McPherson. When he played, he was that extra power threat, and it was obvious he was starting to get a handle on big league pitching. His bat in the lineup everyday would have essentially replaced Finley's (I like to think, anyway). And now, because of his injuries, next season is essentially do or die for him...meaning he doesn't get a chance to figure things out at his own pace (which he would have been able to do this year).

R: Once again, we're in agreement. He may have been one of the club's few power threats, but the sub-.300 OBP and the injuries made for a disappointing season.

J: So, Finley and McPherson (the two guys that were supposed to add power to the lineup) were the biggest disappointments. How about the MVP?

R: Do you have to ask? It could only be one person...

J: Actually, I do...I can see a number of people being considered MVP. Without Vlad, obviously there is no offense whatsoever, but the last couple of weeks of the regular season were played essentially without him and they averaged 5 runs a game (season average = 4.7). Without Figgins, the team is unable to weather the terrible performances and injuries of people like Finley, McPherson, and AK. Without Lackey turning a corner in late April, the team is hurting severely at starting pitcher. Without Byrd, the team still has someone like Ramon Ortiz or Aaron Sele as the 5th starter, which certainly can't be good. And without Santana, the team is dead in the water in August and September. This doesn't even mention Colon, Washburn, AK, and Bengie, who all put up great performances at key moments. Vlad was just too inconsistent this year for me to call him the MVP; I have to go with the versatile and fast Chone Figgins. Very few players can be plugged into 6 positions and play defense at each adequately (much less above average at most), but he was able to do it and still remained one of the most feared base runners in the league.

R: Finally, something we don't agree on.

In my mind, the inconsistency argument just doesn't fly if you're going to turn around and talk about a bunch of guys who produced at "key moments." Even with the injuries and the frustrating inconsistency, Vlad still lead this club in every offensive rate-stat: AVG, OBP, SLG, and RC/27. His 27 win shares finished sixth in the league, not to mention tops on the Halos. Not only did he lead the club in homeruns, but he hit nearly twice as many as the runner-up (32 vs. Anderson's 17). He also lead the club in total bases and RBI, and had he not missed nearly a month to injury, he would have lead in every statistic short of runs scored.

Put simply, he was the Angels best hitter, and by no small margin. His was the only bat opponents had any reason to fear. Without him, the Angels finish dead last. Chone Figgin's defensive contribution can't nearly make up for that.

OK Josh, I think we're just about done here. You want to wrap this puppy up?

J: The Angels had a successful season. They beat my expectations and were able to make the ALCS. The team was able to overcome offensive and bullpen inconsistencies and was able to ride the starting pitching to a division crown. It is difficult to complain about a season that ends that way. However, there are some complaints: most of them involve Steve Finley and several of the others involve the ALCS umpiring crew. Every regular on the team showed flashes of brilliance (even Esteban Yan) and were able to generate excitement over a whole season. Some of my favorite plays ever happened this year (Vlad's jaunt from 2nd on a sacrifice bunt and Erstad railroading Estrada, to name two), but some of the most painful plays I have seen also happened this year (Frankie's tantrum and Orlando Cabrera "not" tagging up in a Red Sox game, for instance). This was a good team, with some gaping holes in the lineup and bullpen that killed the team at times, that had good results.

R: I don't have anything to add to that, so I'll just let the people know that we have a similar Season Preview on the way at some point (hopefully before the 2006 season kicks off). Watch for it.