It is time to end this post it is headed towards its fifth page. Eric do not limit yourself to just 'statistical data' when it is your opinions that have as much interest and weight. For you know, like I know, that in baseball stats is not the whole picture just a very useful measuring stick, To give example, look no further then Andrus. If you went by stats, Andrus is another Eddie Brinkman. His intangibles have as much weight to the point that the Rangers would not or have not been willing to trade him for Upton, when going by statistical analysis there is not even a debate. But when considering other factors, including but not exclusive to positions on the field, JD has not given in and appears like he may not. Forum is an opinion poll as much as anything else, if an opinion appears for any reason disagreeable, just move on to the next.

les, don't get me wrong. I justify my points with the data. I don't exclusively rely on Fangraphs to make opinions; it just helps. I perceive the game my own way, and at this stage I know certain things (OBP > BA; ERA > W's/L's) are more important than what we've been traditionally told.

Basically, I know who's good and who isn't good.

As far as Elvis Andrus is concerned, I think we all know better by now that on-field production is more important than things like intangibles, which we can't quantify. Michael Young is the prime example. Apparently the Rangers FO don't believe Justin Upton justifies giving up Elvis. It has nothing to do with what isn't on the stat sheet, though. This FO is fueled by the metrics. You can look up and down our roster to understand that.

SS > RF

Eddie Brinkman spent the first eleven years of his career playing for this franchise. One can only hope.

"Basically, I know who's good and who isn't good."

There you have it folks, the arrogance of youth.

Eric, I am not one of your enemies here, but take it from this old fart: you could stand to mix in a dose of humility here and there. Make a joke at your own expense, or openly ponder the possibility that you are wrong now and then, etc. Whether you are knowledgeable or not is beside the point - that point being, that nobody likes an arrogant prick. I'm not saying that you are one, just that you can be perceived as one sometimes.

From one Ranger fan to another, I hope you can take this constructive criticism the way it's intended: as advice, not as condemnation. Some day if I'm sitting at the ballpark and you happen to be in the seat next to me, I'd gladly buy you a beer and we can talk shop while we take in the game.

OUCH !

I may have bashed Eric in the past, but going off on him for nothing but a miscommunication on les' part is ridiculous. And yes les, your post was extremely vague and your short fuse was ridiculous. Everyone needs to shut the hell up. All I see are troll's in every damn post now. Even when Eric isn't even feeding it. It needs to be stopped. I know a few of you have the power to ban people, please do. This shit is out of control. Leave the guy alone. He provides more knowledge and facts than most on this website. While he may be arrogant at times, as he has admitted, it doesn't mean there needs to be bs after every single one of his posts. As much as I've bitched about him in the past, I've learned a ton. That's what this forum is for. Learning. Not having to skip through page after page of bullshit.

Oh eric, you really think your statistical knowledge makes a point? Fans in earlier days
knew Ruth was a superior player, as was Musial, Williams, Mays, Mantle etc, etc. It's a
crutch for your lame azz perception. You're just a nerd kid with a gm wannabe wetdream.

"Basically, I know who's good and who isn't good."

There you have it folks, the arrogance of youth.

I don't believe this statement reflects the gist of what I was saying, but yes, looking at it in isolation does seem like a pompous remark. The point of what I was saying is that I'm not a slave to sabermetrics. I take in between 140 and 150 Rangers games a year, so it's not difficult to tell, over that time, who's fast and who's slow, who has defensive range and guys like Michael Young, and that OBP is more important than batting average.

Essentially, before looking at a guy's WAR total, we can get a pretty good grasp on who has a higher WAR and who doesn't, strictly based on perception. Sometimes those perceptions are wrong, but most of the time they're accurate.

And yes, I would love for you to buy me a beer. I'm a firm proponent of free booze.

Oh eric, you really think your statistical knowledge makes a point? Fans in earlier days knew Ruth was a superior player, as was Musial, Williams, Mays, Mantle etc, etc. It's a crutch for your lame azz perception. You're just a nerd kid with a gm wannabe wetdream.

If there weren't stats, then sports discussions would be one giant he-said-she-said. Statistics are the proof, the justification, and often times, the deciding factor. I don't say anything unless I can rationally back it up.

Eric, thanks for the reply. I tried to offer some genuinely constructive criticism and it sounds like you received it as such. I appreciate you not having thin skin about it. You're all right in my book.

P1 Stefen, I don't know if your last post was aimed at me but I sure hope it wasn't. I'm not a "troll" like the people who just log on to lob their one-liner insults. Even you admit that you've "bitched about him in the past" your fair share.

Good god, January sucks for diehard baseball fans. Here we all are talking about senseless crap. Can we just forward to Opening Day?

Duuuuuude,

All the preconceived notions about me on here are from people who don't like me. I can only assume it's because we've gotten into heated discussions in the past, and I didn't back down, because the objective data won't allow me to. Many on here like to play the "We all have opinions; no one is right or wrong" card, but even baseball issues do have right and wrong answers. Your answer is correct if you can reasonably back it up. It's wrong if you can't rationally explain yourself, and the people in the latter category typically resort to the name-calling and such -- because they know they're wrong.

But yeah, I'm not such a bad guy. And I'm certainly not here to fight.

My input was leaning towards the "SABR aspect" of stats. No one talked of WAR or UZR
during the tenure of the Stars I mentioned. Cobb was the first voted into the HOF- No SABR,
but as the "eye confirmed", so did SABR. I may have been out of place, sorry eric, but I think
SABR= "good tool", but not as much a science as most want to believe. For me? An opinion only

It's a bit difficult for SABR to have existed during a period where things such as racism and bigotry ran rampant (not that it doesn't today between the lines but I digress). Not exactly an era full of forward thinkers. Also, Bill James was in diapers.

My input was leaning towards the "SABR aspect" of stats. No one talked of WAR or UZR during the tenure of the Stars I mentioned. Cobb was the first voted into the HOF- No SABR, but as the "eye confirmed", so did SABR. I may have been out of place, sorry eric, but I think SABR= "good tool", but not as much a science as most want to believe. For me? An opinion only

This is fair. However, we live in the age of wisdom. Why is there such a strong objection to sabermetrics through the media? It bleeds down into baseball fans, and all it does it stir up controversy. It's almost like there's this certain wing of "baseball people" who want to keep all the secrets away from the common fan. That's why they denigrate SABR-types as nerds in front of computer screens. It's a ridiculous practice of close-mindedness.

Why are people so afraid to learn about new things?

Sabermetrics have more utility than simply quantifying a player's actual worth on a season-to-season basis. I mean, yeah, that's the primary purpose, but it also gives us all a legitimate benchmark of what constitutes a good contract vs. a bad contract. It helps us to understand if our organization is making sound transactions.

We are extremely blessed to be fans of the Texas Rangers in this current, winning era of baseball. They pretty much only make smart moves. It beats the hell out of rooting for a team like the Angels or Dodgers or Phillies, who are clueless when it comes to issuing contracts.

It's a lot like the time I traveled to New York, a couple summers ago, and everyone there seemed busy. The buildings and apartment complexes were stacked, one on top of the other. It was a destination filled with so little wasted space that I didn't know such a concept was even possible. Coming back to Southern California, everything looked so wide open -- it looks like we aren't maximizing the potential. It's a wasteland.

Stats say what people want them to say.

Stefen, I agree all of this diatribe hurled at Eric could have been avoided by me being clearer in the point I was trying to make. Also, and just as important, if we all agreed all the time we would not have much of a Forum. It is in the disagreeing that drives the interest, it just would be much better for all to make its MAJOR focus the Rangers.

Not an ERA of forward thinkers? How do you think we got to this point?
We landed on the moon in 1969. The 20th Century was all about forward.
I'm thinkinking Tesla was much ahead of his time. Every genius has his
day. I appreciate Bill James. Yes, we now can apply SABR to Cobb's Era.
He was uber-great.

Ty Cobb played in 1969? Ty Cobb wasn't a racist bigot? Given Bill James wasn't around (that was a joke dig at his age), that era did not lend itself to open minded forward thinkers regardless of the advances made throughout history.

Basically what it comes down to is the difference between ignorance, intentional ignorance, and the quest for knowledge. It doesn't matter if you're learning how to speak to girls, how to dance, how to write, how to add 2 + 2; it's all the same. Some people care and others choose not to. We're all fans of baseball on this board. It doesn't make sense why some reject learning about sabermetrics, if for nothing else that it might expand some horizons and open some minds.

Mark Twain, one of my favorite people I ever learned about, said "A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read."

@eric
There's never been a period without the lack of wisdom... just enlightenment.
Also the freedom to expound on ones enlightenment, as Galileo, during his era.
Learned truth practiced, begats wisdom, enlightenment and fullfillment of living.

Even our American Fathers knew the depth of slavery, but decided best not to
include, but to elude to the next generation & beyond. The next generation, hopefully
will pick up the baton and keep running forward in our societal evolutionary race. It's innate.

How many times have we all viewed sometihing so simple and said, "I coulda or shoulda
done, invented or changed that..."? Yeah, enlightenment and in the moment changes history.
Attitude is a choice.

James forever changed baseball statistics. Someday, some kid will change SABR to a degree
we all may say, "Wow, right in front of me too. I shudda seen that aspect or curve".
Open eyes, open ears, open mind... shut your mouth. A learned simple truth to pracitce for most.

Interesting news from MLBTR and Buster Olney. AZ wanted the Mets' Zach Lee for Upton and was rejected. Olney, quoting unnamed people in MLB, suspect the Rangers and other teams may be holding onto their prospects to be able to make stronger offers for Price or Stanton, who may be traded next year.

These roads still lead to trading Elvis this year, as he would not be valuable to either the Marlins or Rays. Either use him to get Upton or someone else now, or trade for prospects for the future.

Hubz, never has there been a period in time where we know as much as we do now. Now, I understand that every other era in time we could say the same thing, but it's a bit different in the 21st century.

Back in the days when America was being born, we couldn't send rockets to outer space. We didn't have computers. Knowledge was limited to the words of teachers, and usually only the richest people got the best education. Nowadays, everyone gets a public education from when they're 5 to when they're 18, regardless if we've doctored up the history books to say what we want them to say. After all, the countries that win the wars get to write the history.

Basically, we didn't send a ship to space until 1969. The Internet didn't start booming until the 90's. This era of knowledge is much more accessible in any other era. There is literally nothing you can't learn about if you search in the right place.

I second Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. I'm tired of trade proposals. Let's play some baseball! Houston in +/- 75 days.