Anaheim Teams Aren’t All That Bad; Go Figure

The grass is always browner inside Anaheim Stadium, or so it has seemed since the early morning hours of Jan. 1, 1990, which Orange County sporting fans have come to know as the dawning of the Dark Age.

The Rams are 24 games under .500 in the 1990s, including this year’s horrific 2-6 start, and they enter today’s can’t-we-miss-it encounter against Atlanta with the same old worn-out battery--Jim Everett, incomplete to Henry Ellard and Flipper Anderson.

The Angels are 40 games under .500 in the 1990s, including last season’s 71-91 finish, a 10-year franchise low, and are rebuilding, again, around a nucleus of young players who will be disbanded in 1995 or 1996 or whenever they start making too much money.

And now, on the other side of Katella, there are the Mighty Ducks of puck, an expansion hockey team that is already seven games under .500 and setting out to test the limits of our tolerance for headlines that read Ducks Play Hard in 4-3 Loss .

Anaheim’s professional sports teams have been down so long, the city has developed an inferiority complex. The New Cleveland, it has been called. The Big L. Can’t-a-heim. Land of 10,000 Mistakes.

I am here to tell you, however, that things could be worse.

I am here to tell you that there are places in these United States where losing has become a greater part of daily life than Anaheim. Four of them, in fact.

I come, then, bearing tidings of comfort and good cheer.

Exhaustive research conducted a few hours ago has determined that when it comes to losing in the ‘90s, as done by communities owning at least two professional sports franchises, Anaheim weighs in no worse than fifth in the majors.

Washington D.C./Landover, haven to the gun-powderless Bullets and the lower-case Capitals, has witnessed defeat in the ‘90s at a greater frequency than Anaheim. So has Minneapolis, burdened as it is with basketball’s most hapless expansion team, the ever-falling “Timber!” Wolves.

Denver, double-teamed by the Westhead-era Nuggets and the expansion Rockies, ranks second on this list of losers.

And No. 1?

Hard to believe, given the current furor over the football coach’s hunt for George Halas’ all-time victory record, but it is Miami.

Yes, Miami--home to Shula and Marino, Jackson and Stoyanovich, Byars and Fryar . . . and three expansion teams--the Heat, the Marlins and the Panthers.

The bottom 10:

Team W L T Pct. 1. Miami 227 337 3 .402 2. Denver 222 328 0 .404 3. Minneapolis 575 752 34 .433 4. D.C./Landover 315 386 28 .449 5. Anaheim 324 395 2 .451 6. E. Rutherford 331 400 42 .453 7. Dallas/Metroplex 484 566 4 .461 8. San Diego 327 377 0 .464 9. Milw./Green Bay 493 544 0 .475 10. Indianapolis 185 204 0 .476

You will notice no Tampa Bay on the chart. That is because of this study’s two-dink minimum--eligible cities needed to have at least two losers in existence throughout the ‘90s, and the Lightning wasn’t around before 1992. Before that, the Buccaneers ruined the last four months of every year in Tampa, but the other eight were relatively trouble-free.

Other ground rules:

-- Records are up to date through Friday’s games. Baseball and football teams were rated on performance from the 1990 season on, basketball and hockey teams from the 1989-90 season on.

-- Teams are designated to those cities where the losses occur. The New York Jets and the New York Giants play their home games in New Jersey, so they are East Rutherford’s problems, along with the Nets and the Devils. The Yankees, Mets, Knicks, Rangers and Islanders, meanwhile, compose the New York-Long Island delegation.

-- No trash sports allowed. Only the four majors--football, baseball, basketball and hockey. Anaheim, therefore, receives no credit for the Bullfrogs’ Ming-like roller hockey dynasty.

Some observations:

-- The science behind this poll is not exact. More statistical weight is given to bad basketball and hockey teams than bad football teams because they play nearly five times as many games. But that makes the losing football experience no less unsavory, as Ram season-ticket holders can wearily attest.

-- Cleveland, if you’re wondering, is No. 11, at .477, just a slim percentage point ahead of Indianapolis. What a rivalry, too: Friday night, the Cavaliers won, and the Pacers lost, and by that much, the cities swapped places.

-- Angelenos continue to harp about the passing of the glory years--where have you gone, Magic and Marcus?--but L.A.’s five sports teams are a collective .523 for the ‘90s, better than New York (.495) and Philadelphia (.493) and just shy of Atlanta (.531).

-- Anaheim ranks fifth, although the half-empty-glass crowd would demand some asterisks be attached:

* Miami has the Dolphins, who are 37-19 in the ‘90s and reached last year’s AFC title game.

** Denver has the Broncos, who played in the 1991 AFC title game. Also, the Broncos have John Elway.

*** Minneapolis has the Twins, who won the World Series in 1991, and had the North Stars, who were Stanley Cup finalists the same year.

**** Washington has the Redskins, who won the Super Bowl in January of ’92.

Anaheim teams, over the same time span, have not produced a single winning season. No other city on the chart can make that claim.

Not quite as good as New Jersey, but better than Landover--that is Anaheim’s place in the grand scheme.

Sounds like a season-ticket campaign slogan if the Rams and the Angels ever heard one.