In 2002, the Anaheim Angels won 99 games during the regular season, and then they won the first World Series in their 43-season history.

In 2003, the Angels are 56-64 and in moderate danger of finishing last.

	Darin Erstad has scored just 35 runs this season in 67 games.

To be sure, the Angels have been unlucky. They've lost one of their best hitters, Brad Fullmer, to a season-ending injury. And their record is far worse than their run differential (545 for, 533 against). But they're obviously not playing as well as they did last season; wins and losses aside, in 2002 the Angels had the best run differential in the major leagues.

A year ago, the Anaheim Angels scored 851 runs, fourth in the league (and only eight runs behind the Red Sox, who were second). They did that, mostly, with a .282 team batting average that was five points better than anybody else. The Angels were 11th in walks and 10th in home runs.

At some point or points, I wrote that the Angels wouldn't repeat their scoring success in 2003 unless they drew more walks and hit more home runs, because an offense built upon batting average is a house of cards.

At least that's the theory. I have to admit that I didn't actually present any evidence to support the theory; it just felt right, so I presented it with confidence.

Well, the Angels are making me (and Joe Sheehan, who made exactly the same point, in more and better detail) look like a genius. They're 11th in walks (again), seventh in home runs (just barely) ... and 11th in runs scored. Why? Because while they're not drawing more walks or hitting more homers, they've dropped from No. 1 in batting average to No. 10.

The biggest differences?

Last year, David Eckstein batted .293; this year he's batting .255.

Last year, Adam Kennedy batted .312; this year he's batting .268.

Last year, Scott Spiezio batted .285; this year he's batting .256.

Last year, Darin Erstad batted .283; this year he's batting .252.

Last year, Benji Gil batted .285; this year he's batting .192.

Last year, the Angels' fourth outfielder (Orlando Palmeiro) batted .300; this year their fifth outfielder (Eric Owens) is batting .222.

Should we have known that each of these players would do what they've done? No, not exactly. But each of them did play better last season than we might have expected, so we might have predicted that each of them would decline somewhat this season.

Should we lay any of the blame at the feet of general manager Bill Stoneman?

Sure. If the Angels were winning, we'd give him some of the credit. They're losing, so he deserves some of the blame.

One of these days, I'm going to compose Rob Neyer's Laws of Baseball. One of them is, "There's no such thing as a pitching prospect." (I didn't invent that one, but I'm going to co-opt it.) And another is, "You should never think you're good enough."

Bill Stoneman thought the Angels were good enough. When I talked to him last March, Stoneman expressed regret that he didn't have exactly the same 25 players that won the World Series last October.

His exact words? "I wish we were more the same."

He wanted to bring Orlando Palmeiro back, but Palmeiro signed with the Cardinals and Stoneman replaced him with Eric Owens. That wasn't a good swap -- Palmeiro entered this season with a .361 career on-base percentage -- but it wasn't a terrible one. And otherwise, they were the same.

What could Stoneman have done? Who could he have replaced? Well, Adam Kennedy and Scott Spiezio pretty obviously enjoyed their career years in 2002. But it's hard to replace a second baseman who just batted .300 (Kennedy), and it's hard to replace a switch-hitter with some pop who can play good defense at third base and great defense at first (Spiezio).

The big mistakes, in terms of the long-term health of the franchise, were spending immense amounts of money on Darin Erstad and Kevin Appier.

The Angels paid Appier $9 million this season, and he posted an 5.63 ERA before drawing his release. The Angels will pay him $23 million over the next two seasons, while he either pitches for somebody else or relaxes at his ranch in Kansas.

But you can't consider Appier's contract a "mistake," because when the Angels assumed that obligation, they sloughed off Mo Vaughn's contract at the same time, and I believe they saved approximately the same money on Vaughn that they lost on Appier. And this doesn't even consider the fact that in 2002 Appier won 14 games for a team that wound up winning the World Series.

So Kevin Appier's not really the problem. Or rather, his contract wasn't. His 5.63 ERA was a problem, and for that matter he's not the only Angels starter who's struggled this season. If you look at the Angels' team pitching stats, you'll find something strange. Among Angels pitchers with more than 40 innings, the five worst ERA's belong to the five pitchers who have started the most games. This suggests that 1) the Angels' relievers have been outstanding, and 2) the Angels' starters haven't.

And both are true. Anaheim's bullpen has been outstanding, and the starters have struggled, with only Jarrod Washburn enjoying what might be considered a good season. Fortunately, the relievers have been so good that the Angels' 4.15 team ERA actually ranks fifth in the league.

No, if you want to pinpoint just one problem, it's obvious: Darin Erstad.

Last year, Erstad signed a four-year contract extension. At the time, I thought it was crazy ... and today it looks crazier than I thought. Erstad's making $8 million this season, and $24 million over the next three seasons. That's $32 million over four years, for a player whose last four seasons look like this:

       	OBP	Slug        
2000	.409	.541
2001	.331	.360
2002	.313	.389
2003	.309	.333

The Angels have received next to nothing for their $8 million this season. And they didn't have to spend that $8 million (not to mention the $24 million still to come). They gave Erstad the extension because ... well, because he plays great defense, hustles and because the Angels were doing well last summer.

And who knows? Maybe if Erstad hadn't been so thrilled with his extension, he wouldn't have 1) batted .421 and scored four runs in the Division Series, 2) batted .364 and scored four runs in the American League Championship Series, and 3) batted .300 and scored six runs in the World Series.

Maybe the Angels had to spend $32 million for the two-and-a-half months of Darin Erstad that helped them win the World Series.

But that seems to me like one hell of a price to pay. The Angels didn't get better in 2003, in large part, because they didn't think they had to get better. Winning the World Series will do that to you. But they also didn't get better because they couldn't afford to keep all their good players and pay all their not-so-good players and get better at first base, and in the rotation. And going forward, the Angels simply owe too much money to Erstad, Appier, and Aaron Sele ($8 million this year, $8.5 next year).

The Seraphs have some fine prospects in the minor leagues, and by 2005 or 2006 they might again be competing for a division title. But the wonderful 2003 season was just that: a wonderful season, rather than the beginning of something wonderful.

Senior writer Rob Neyer writes four columns per week during the baseball season. His new book, "Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Lineups," has just been published by Fireside. For more information about the book, visit Rob's Web site.