This is going to be a busy offseason, and I'm already chomping at the bit for baseball to crown its 2012 World Series winner. I'm ready for Josh Hamilton to be on another team; I'm ready to see what's to come of Elvis Andrus, even if nothing at all; I want to see if David Murphy will be moved, if we retain either of Mike Napoli or Koji Uehara; I'm just ready for the moves to start taking place.

I have no idea if we're going to acquire a Justin Upton-type talent to replace Josh in the outfield. I don't know if we're going to sign or trade for a TORP. But I do know a lot of shit is going to go down.

2012 didn't end favorably, and I think there's going to be a philosophical change as to how Wash runs the team. Because if he doesn't, and the team again fails, his head will be on the chopping block.

One idle thought I had this morning that makes me believe 2013 will be a positive year is this: After Alex Rodriguez got traded to the Yankees before the 2004 season, the team greatly overachieved the following year. It was the miracle Rangers team, led by the young core of Blalock, Teixeira, Young and Soriano, with a rotation headlined by de facto ace Ryan Drese. The team outperformed all expectations, and were in serious contention to win the division until the final week of the season.

I believe Josh Hamilton's absence on next year's roster could be a positive thing. I don't like using cliches, but one that would be apropos is that it could be addition by subtraction. That 2004 team had an extra chip on their shoulder to prove to the world that they didn't need Alex Rodriguez. I feel like the same type of phenomena could take place in 2013 sans Josh.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps. It's hard to replace Josh's mammoth production he's given the franchise when healthy over the last 4 years. But I have this prescient belief that says next year's team will have a little something extra to play for, and we'll see -- after numerous down years from many members of our core -- the scales tilt in the opposite direction.

Thoughts?

Good stuff as always, eric.

I'd like to discuss more in detail later, but for now, I'd like to say I agree with your assessment of Josh. As we know, Josh is capable of putting a team on his back and basically carrying them for a while, when he's hot. And as we know from a couple months this season, he's also capable of being an almost-guaranteed out at a crucial position in the lineup. Given that, it's possible that addition by subtraction takes place.

Let's use Upton as an example, just because his name has been thrown around a lot. Upton may or may not be as good at his peak as Josh is at his, but he seems more likely to have his production fluctuate less over the course of the season than Josh. Such it is with Josh, I think. If Upton were to, say, produce along the lines of 4 fWAR over the course of the season (less than his best year, but a reasonable expectation floor going forward), without disappearing for weeks at a time, it might do better in keeping our lineup more consistent than Josh, even if he had a 5-WAR year.

I guess we won't know until/unless it happens, but it's a reasonable theory.

Apparently, someone's trying to angle for Joey's position while he's away. Hint: start you OWN blog instead of wishing you were Joey. BBTiA is taken, but the position of asshole seems to suit you well.

@Andy

I think the point you make about a consistently-distributed 4-WAR Upton being better for the team than a 5-WAR three-months-taken-off Josh Hamilton holds some serious weight. That's an interesting way of looking at things. If we're talking about the bottom line, I'll take the 5-WAR player > 4-WAR guy any day of the week, but Josh has replacement-level stretches that have been seriously detrimental to our lineup.

D, there is nothing wrong with what eric has presented. The forum, as far as I know, is a free place to express one's thoughts in regards to the Rangers. Eric has presented a concise assembly of thoughts, as he perceives a similarity between the A-Rod saga and Josh Hamilton. Try not to be so hypocritical with your bantering of the asshole term, buddy.

And eric, I could definitely see the 2013 Rangers having an extra chip on their shoulders, due to both the Josh Hamilton situation and the disappointing end to the 2012 campaign. And I definitely agree with your assumption that this will be a very busy offseason. I know I'm excited to see what will happen.

D is a troll.

Andy brings up a good question in that does a massive spurt of production along the timeline of a season, followed by long cold stretches, equate more to wins, as compared to a player who consistently produces all season long?

My point exactly, eric. The one thing that makes WAR less than desirable, in my opinion, is (and this is based on my limited examination of how to calculate it) that it doesn't take into account the context for each action. For example, in the game when Josh hit 4 HRs, 2 of those were essentially superfluous to the game's final score (yes, they were insurance runs, but still, it can be reasonably assumed). Ergo, WAR gives him credit for extra things that don't actually help very much.

Take, on the other hand, the Angels game a few weeks ago. IIRC, in a pitchers' duel, both teams put up only 1 run for 8 innings, and Beltre hit a homer off Frieri to break the tie, which ended up being the winning run. Beltre's homer did more to win that game than at least 2 of Josh's HRs did to win that game.

Point being, I think it would be easier if we had a stat that took each action into context, thus giving a better estimate of a player's contributions. Having a black hole in your lineup, which Young and Josh were for prolonged periods this year, makes it hard to execute with RISP, which, as we know, was our biggest problem in the last couple weeks.

Andy, that's a very good point, but wouldn't taking game situations into context be too subjective?

Andy, all good stuff, and I agree. I think if we're talking about context, then WPA, or win expectancy, is probably what to look at. I'm sure RFan could probably explain it in better detail, but it is a quantifiable metric. They even have shutdowns and meltdowns for relievers to determine if an appearance added or subtracted 6% to the game's outcome. It's a crazy age we live in.

It's because of the limits to general stats like "Saves" that make some of the metrics so valuable. A one-run lead requires more clutch in the 9th inning than a 3-run lead, and so forth.

@Mike: I'm not sure. Maybe we should ask somebody who knows more about WAR than we do.

@eric: good idea. Maybe we should look at WPA in conjunction.

Regarding next season in general: I think we all expect some big changes, but we shouldn't get our hopes up too much, lest we risk being disappointed. But we know several things. One, after coming so close in 2011, there was plenty of reason to think that the team, with as few changes as possible, stood as good a chance as possible of finishing the job. That didn't happen. But this team is in a good spot now, with fan count at an all-time high, a capable front office, and owners that seem to be willing to spend (reasonably speaking) what's necessary to foster a contending team - meaning they probably won't spend like the Yankees or Red Sox or Phillies or Angels, but they aren't operating on a budget like the A's and Rays are.

I don't expect so big an overhaul that we won't recognize the Rangers in 2013, but we have every reason to expect some key differences, mostly for the better.

Hey D, Eric does have a blog, you should check it out. I don't understand the hate a bunch of the newer readers have for a few of the guys who usually have the best posts. I guess they don't like the frequency or the intelligence? Anyway, D....check it out, its good.

http://nolanwritin.com/

Hey guys, new to here. Great reading. The only comment I have going forword is that I hope Wash saw that it is OK to pinch hit for a slumping "star" . Thank you Giraldi for the -----. Thanks again guys.

I think next year is a great opportunity to get the young guys involved further with Profar, Olt, Martin and Perez all playing key roles (unless they get traded). Fresh faces, hungry hearts and some good old fashioned optimism to help get through the year.

Now saying that, we'll obviously have to live with some ups and downs but that's part of the fun, eh?

As per the OP, the addition by subtraction theory could be in play here because I think people just get beaten down by the same questions all the time, and Josh leaving would do wonders for not having to answer them.

Addition by subtraction would work even better if JH and MY were gone...

Addition: Subtracting Troll "D" from the blog... lol

Sing On, Eric!!

All this wise blather from geniuses that never saw this collapse coming. Yep, D, I'm spending two seconds reading these sportswriter wannabes.