I'm taking these statements as both of your concessions speeches because you have no credible data to use in defense of Mitch Moreland. Rather than attacking the topic, you attack the person whom you disagree with.

That isn't how you succeed in arguments.

I really don't see how either of those statements are attacks against you. If were offended, I apologize. But I thought I already explained that Mitch made significant improvements in 2012, including hitting against LHP. Since you seem to ignore my argument altogether I'll elaborate. He posted a .737 OPS with 3 HRs against left-handers in 2012, compared to a .577 OPS in 2011. He made the highlight reel at first base with nice plays more often than he did the previous seasons, and Fangraphs shows that he improved his fielding rating from -3.5 in 2011 to 2.6 in 2012. I stated that overall, he was more productive last season; he was one solo HR shy of matching his production from 2011 despite having 155 fewer plate appearances. So while you say that Mitch Moreland isn't extremely young and basically, "is what he is", he's not a long-time veteran like Michael Young, either. He's clearly made improvements and there's still room for him to continue doing so.

Everything else I said about Mitch were simply personal reasons to enjoy watching him as a player. Additionally, I don't know why you seem to have such a problem with other posters liking players you aren't very fond with. I'd also like to remind you that no team has superstars at every position. If you're complaining so often about guys like Murphy, Elvis, Mitch, Harrison, Cruz, and their flaws, then why not just become a fan of a different team.

Bazinga!

Silver Slugger for the win.

SilverSlugger21 writes: Everything else I said about Mitch were simply personal reasons to enjoy watching him as a player. Additionally, I don't know why you seem to have such a problem with other posters liking players you aren't very fond with. I'd also like to remind you that no team has superstars at every position. If you're complaining so often about guys like Murphy, Elvis, Mitch, Harrison, Cruz, and their flaws, then why not just become a fan of a different team.

I don't have a problem with posters I disagree with, I just can't take a disagreement seriously if one person argues using proven metrics, and the other says things like "he was a hero" and "he was the toughest out in our lineup" or "he made the highlight reel at first base with nice plays more often than he did the previous seasons." I'm sorry, that's just not enough to convince me.

Also, I don't personally dislike any Rangers. I like most of them, actually. I only talk about improving the team, and where the holes are. Mitch Moreland is not a deep hole. He is also not a hill. He is an evenly-filled. Smoothly-paved. Average. Hole. I can admit that as an objectivist, because just as I give stupid love to the Rangers I especially like, I keep it stupid real on the players who are just meh like Moreland. Or worse.

I'm just not disillusioned enough to blindly say players like David Murphy and Mitch Moreland are what they really aren't.

Murphy is important because he is an "above replacement level" player in a position in which we do not, and cannot, affort a super star due to the fact we already have some "super stars" at other positions (Beltre, Andrus, Kinsler, Darvish, Harrison, Holland, Pierzynski). These "super stars" are allotted as such simply because they have contracts that say we want them around and are willing to make that happen - long term.

Granted, we do not have a Josh Hamilton sucking in $$$ and pissing out consecutive abysmal ABs, anymore. We don't have a Cliff Lee, anymore. We didn't get a Zack Greinke, Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Justin Upton, Giancarlo Stanton or David Price, either. But, I like the way JD is playing behind the money curve, for now, until he and his organization understands fully how their finances can be applied.

Going all Arte Moreno or Stinebrothers can put you in a financial bind so that you can't go and stay ahead of the talent curve in Latin America, the Rule 4 Draft and elsewhere. We need the David Murphys and Mitch Morelands to, sometimes, just be adequate and fill in around those guys we are paying because, as I've said before and as Slugger noted above, we can't afford (not even the Yankees could afford...) an entire team of A-Roids. Man... would that suck, or what... ?

Not everyone is going to be a super star. But, we love them because they add personality to the team when a Hamilton would be a downer for us. We love them because, against the odds, all of a sudden, they succeed and that makes us happy. We love them, because, unlike the super stars, they love us back and they're the ones still in there trying to win a spot on the team and giving notice to those "super stars" that their position is a target and they'd better maintain.

Kittenface. Mitch. Murph. Soto. And, even Lowe, Tatayama, Uehara, Andres Blanco... these are the guys that add the color to the game. Otherwise, you get black-and-white. Monochrome.

What's funnier: Josh Hamilton hitting 4 2-run bombs against Baltimore; or jelly-belly Benji Molina legging out a triple to complete the cycle in Boston? Which is more important to the history of the franchise? I'm not gonna be the one to choose.

Without the joes of the world, the world has no texture. These are the guys that give our world texture... they are the color.

The problem is admitting what they really are...
Murph and Mitch are STARTERS on a team, that as fans, we want to believe can continue a string of playoff appearances. That to me is the disappointing aspect of the off-season. Murphy will not be the worst COF we run out on a regular basis. Mitch will likely be the weak link in the starting in-field, or worse with the recent info from Miami. There is a possibility that MM might very well become the weak COF and that we will be wishing for the days we could have him as a plus defender at 1st base, while comparisons to MY abound as another MIF tries to plug the hole in the dyke that is 1st base for the Rangers.

I don't have a problem with posters I disagree with, I just can't take a disagreement seriously if one person argues using proven metrics, and the other says things like "he was a hero" and "he was the toughest out in our lineup" or "he made the highlight reel at first base with nice plays more often than he did the previous seasons." I'm sorry, that's just not enough to convince me.

Also, I don't personally dislike any Rangers. I like most of them, actually. I only talk about improving the team, and where the holes are. Mitch Moreland is not a deep hole. He is also not a hill. He is an evenly-filled. Smoothly-paved. Average. Hole. I can admit that as an objectivist, because just as I give stupid love to the Rangers I especially like, I keep it stupid real on the players who are just meh like Moreland. Or worse.

I'm just not disillusioned enough to blindly say players like David Murphy and Mitch Moreland are what they really aren't.

Fair enough. I'll admit that Mitch hasn't shown to be very much above average in his career when it comes to his overall value to the Rangers. But based on what I've seen from him I think he can still improve, and thrive in a full-time role.

Just out of curiosity, what numbers would he have to put up this season in order for you to change your mind about wanting the Rangers to move him?

I'd like to see 2.0 wins out of him.

Last year there were two 2.0 fWAR 1B's, and their numbers looked like this:

Yondar Alonso -- .273/.348/.393 (108 wRC+, 4.2 UZR)
Freddie Freeman -- .259/.340/.456 (115 wRC+, -4.0 UZR)

I think the potential is there for Mitch to put up 2.0 wins, but he'll have a difficult time finding the necessary plate appearances if he's sitting against lefties.

That seems like a reasonable goal.

To me Moreland is looking like a player who is a nontender candidate in a year or two, based on salary escalation. So far he basically doesn't hit LHP, despite his OPS up from last year. I tend to discredit the two extra HR which made his 51 PA look better despite having a lower OBP. All SSS caveats apply. I'm curious to see if we keep Snyder around this year and actually run him and Moreland in a strict platoon. I think we could get mid 800s OPS from that platoon.

To me Murphy is a different deal then Moreland. Murphy is already known to be a good platoon player who has use, Moreland is still needing to prove his. Murphy is about to get more expensive. Murphy has to prove this year he can be a full time player to really think about giving him a contract coming out of this year. Basically he's Cody Ross, who you can't even think about putting in CF, and will likely get a similar deal next year, 3/26 or so. Murphy to this point in his career has been worth that deal once.

I agree with the guy who says players like Murphy and Moreland are needed on teams. They are needed on teams while they are cost controlled. When they are not cost controlled they are the type of players that hurt a teams ability to field a consistently winning team.

JKolar, I'm in agreement with everything you said pretty much down to the word. I think some things I say about the Moreland's and Murphy's of the world get a bit misconstrued, because it's true that you can't field a team of All Stars. Obviously. Players like that are necessary lubricants in lineups filled with guys like Kinsler, Beltre and Andrus.

I just can't bring myself to muster up the blindness to say something like "they should be everyday players no matter what," and ignore a litany of historical information relating to how they can't hit lefties. I'm expecting a precipitous falloff in David Murphy's production vs. LHP in 2013. I just hope Ron Washington learned more from the Michael Young situation last year than most of us are giving him credit for. We can't afford to function with a hole in our lineup this year.

I don't expect Murphy to sustain a .433 BABIP against LHP, but I wouldn't say I expect a "precipitous" dropoff. That's just me, though; I believe in Murphy and I think he'll do alright this year. Considering how much better he did last year than Cruz, I expect more out of him than the guys at either of the other 2 OF positions. Yes, the 2 CFs could combine for more WAR than Murphy puts up. That wouldn't be surprising. But unless Nellie has a huge bounce-back year (and that will be hard if he ends up missing 1/3 of it), I think Murphy will likely be the most productive OF we have overall.

Of course, I also still believe in Gentry, and even though I'm not sure it would be best to make him a full-time CF, I think he'll get on base a lot and catch practically everything hit to CF when he's playing. I was right about him last year.

Andy, I agree on Gentry. I was pounding my keyboard in hopes that he would be the primary CF in 2012, but it wasn't the case. Can't fault David Murphy for having the best season of his career.

With that said, Murphy's career 4.0 fWAR year is an aberration pinned up against every other season. His previous career-high was 1.9 fWAR. Now, if you wanna say, "Well, he's always been a platoon player," that's cool, but it doesn't dismiss the fact that, based on his 2012 Michael-Young-esque career triple slash vs. LHP, that he didn't deserve to be a platoon guy.

I'm just focused on the idea that the Rangers are going to need to squeeze out every last drop of offense in 2013 to win the division, and we might not be able to afford wasting at bats. If Murphy was a plus defender (like Gentry), I'd feel differently about him playing every day. But that's not the case.

Murphy was a pretty good outfielder, in 2012. And in 2008, actually. He might be in 2013 and he might not. But I think you can probably pencil him in for a UZR > that of Cruz; I'd bet on that. I don't expect Murphy to necessarily put up all-star numbers again this year, but I do expect him to play most days and be a solid part of the lineup.