What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
0-162 you all blew your chance to sign me hmm what's a desperate al west team that thinks they are better than they actually are and is willing to screw themselves long term... I'm going to Seattle
Just like seeing yourself post huh Dan?If its so old explain to me why you are reading? Or better yet why wasting your precious time replying?
No response necessary.
Nompton has nailed it. great analysis and reasonable prediction. gonna be a long yr
What is a "trickydick"? Is it like a dildo?
Nompton writes, Also, do you really think JD would say he doesn't think this team will compete for a Series?
No, I don't. I think if JD had your mentality he would have shied away from making any public expectations for 2013 in fear of disappointing fans, and try to focus more on the fact that they are at least set up well for the long run. Instead, he said with certainty that the Rangers are going to be a good team this year. JD expects the Rangers to win now and in the future, and so do I. I don't think a 'good team' will be one that has a good chance of finishing below .500 as you are suggesting.
A "good team" is one or two down seasons away from an average team.
Of course the same can be said for a good team being one or two pieces away from a great time.
Here's my reasoning: In order for the Rangers to be a playoff team, they have to outperform every projection out there. They also need everyone else to either fail to meet, or fall below expectations (not surpass). Second outcome basically assumes everyone meets their projected outcomes in which case the Rangers are outside, looking in. Third outcome is that the Rangers fail to meet expectations and everyone else (Angels) surpass theirs.
Of course you could have various combinations of the above situations, but boiled down, the Rangers have odds against them, from where they stand now, to have a break-out year.
And what are you basing all of this on? Why should Ranger fans have such low expectations for a team that had two consecutive AL Championships, three straight seasons with 90+ wins, and a roster with pitching that has never been more talented in the history of the franchise?
Because we lost 5.8 bWAR (4.4 JH + 2.4 Nap -1.0 MY). 6.4 pWAR (Adams, Koji, Demp, etc). Who are we replacing them with?
Berkman? Ok, he's not going to post numbers to replace Hamilton. AJP? He's not going to replace Napoli. Martin? He's never gotten full playing time, he may bust. Scheppers? Ok, his never really seized a BP spot last year. Perez? Lindblom?
Pitching was as talented in 2010. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the team that won 90+ games the last three years isn't the same team taking the field this year. Again, there are way too many question marks to confidently say, the Rangers will be as good as they were last year.
I'm not saying fans should expect this team not to be competitive, I just don't think they'll be competing for a Series. I imagine they'll be comparable to the 2012 Braves or 2012 Rays.
Do you need a tissue Nompton?
I say this team goes 90-72 and make the second wild card spot. From there we will find out how the playoffs go but I still think this is a playoff team. Congrats to JD for getting promoted from head of baseball operations. Should have been earlier than he could have told Wash to "SIT Michael Young and PLAY Profar and Olt more!"
So you've just taken the Rangers' record from 2012 and simply subtracted the WAR that they lost in order to determine how well they will likely fare in 2013? That is ridiculously oversimplified. I am well aware this team has its question marks - new young players and incoming guys who are in their late 30s - but to assume that none of them will perform above replacement-level is beyond asinine. Not only that, since you're only using last season, you're also assuming that the team will be held back again by an unusually high number of key injuries to the pitching staff and career lows by key parts of the offense, which is also unlikely.
Slugger, you are overcomplicating it.
The point is, last season's WAR does play some part in projecting the next season. For instance, last year David Murphy was a 4.0 fWAR player. Since I'm not expecting him to duplicate that, I see it as -1.5 wins lost (since I see him as a 2.5 fWAR player in 2013).
Ian Kinsler, on the other hand, was a 3.0 fWAR guy in 2012. My gut tells me he accumulates 6+ wins in 2013, but to be conservative, I'll say he makes 5.0 fWAR. That's +2 wins. Between he and Murphy, that's about a half of a win. They cancel out.
Now, apply the concept to the rest of the team. I don't view the team to be as drab as Nompton, I don't think, but I only see 87 wins right now. Last year I predicted we finish with 96 wins.
So now we are GUESSING what WAR will be? Good Lord
No. This is why WAR gets mis-construed. I'm using WAR to illustrate a point, not solely justify my point.
You can project WAR for every player on the Rangers, but you can't predict DTD injuries, streaks, and promotions/ demotions. In a vacuum, WAR is a perfect indicator of predictive performance... but we're not in a vacuum. I use a couple key injuries to demonstrate the vast amount of "non perfect" outcomes for a season of baseball. The beauty/ curse of baseball is the fact it yields a large enough sample size to have multiple variables affect the outcome of a season. Simply, in order for the Rangers to win 90+ games, everyone must live to their potential and we have to live in a vacuum. I take the more average route, assuming there'll be a couple bumps along the road.
I use WAR to illustrate the concept that, like Eric aptly said, Murphy outperformed his career average (as best measured by WAR) while we're losing "production" with the departure of Napoli and Hamilton.
What make more sense: saying the departure of MY, JH and Nap have intangible effects and leave the Rangers at a loss for power, OR saying we're losing approximately X amount of wins. Philosophically speaking (yes, I'm going there), we like quantifiable and tangible concepts and items. Being able to put things into number helps create tangible evidence to add credibility to a point.
I don't like taking the cop-out method and saying that Y players brings certain intangibles to a team. I like using terms like Y has 7 grade potential with a 6+ hit tool, 7 power and 6+ run.
Yes, bravo. Yes.
Honestly, I see this as more of a discussion about "how confident are you in this year's team?" than it is about WAR. You either believe in the WAR paradigm or you think it's a bunch of nonsense. It's not for answering questions, but to know it gives you a strong, objective reasoning towards whatever point you are trying to justify.
So are you implying that the differences in WAR for the rest of the team also cancels out, and there isn't any expected significant gain or loss? For some reason I don't buy that.
I was using WAR to show that the departures of several 2012 contributors will have a greater effect on this team than we're acknowledging.
I'm assuming (which makes an ass of you and me), that:
1. We're losing significant production with the departure of Nap, Hamilton, Adams, Koji, etc (by using WAR as an agreed upon best-fit measure)2. The remaining carry-overs from 2012 will have a year which hovers around their career average (Kinsler's improvement will be canceled out by Murphy's regression).3. Additions and call-ups cannot account for the perceived "deficit" remaining between this year's team and last year's team.4. Any injuries could knock us further down.
Like Eric said, this is becoming more of a confidence searching exercise (which is OK). If you don't buy WAR, that's OK too, just know that it's one of the more agreed-upon measures with some predictive power. It's not perfect, which is why I don't use it to illustrate my point by its self.
I see the Rangers going this season as the middle of their starting rotation goes, and as the in-game managing of Wash goes. I expect Yu to be great and Harry to be serviceable to good, but if the wheels fall off of Holland and Ogando (and later Colby) it will obliterate our already downgraded bullpen and...well...around here we all know what it's like to have those kinds of pitching woes.
Barring a potential pitching apocalypse, the Rangers can still win but it will have to be with an offensive emphasis on manufactured runs, for lack of the power game we've enjoyed the past few seasons. This will require consistently good day-to-day and in-game managerial decisions, in which Wash utterly failed and got exposed last season for the coach that he is (as opposed to a true manager) when the low managerial-maintenance talent around him started to erode and his guidance was needed to put players in the best position to win. If the unveiling process of Wash's managerial incompetence continues, the lack of offensive talent to cover that incompetence may prove catastrophic, and we could see a managerial change mid-season.
As to the division overall, if the overpaid Angels underachieve again, and the underpaid A's fail to overachieve again, we could be looking at a very mediocre division. My dark horse is the M's, who could be on the verge of a breakout of sorts, though probably not to the epic degree we saw from Oakland last year. Reality will probably see LA underachieve again to the extent they don't run away and hide, and Oakland overachieve again to the extent that they are battling LA for first place. Reality will also probably see the two issues facing the Rangers mentioned above be more problematic than not, relegating them to a battle for third place with an oncoming but not fully-arrived M's team.
Another factor I will watch with interest is the effect of our new hitting coach on our new-look lineup. If Madagan can have an effect similar to what Clint Hurdle had a couple seasons ago it will possibly mitigate some of the managerial incompetence I anticipate from Wash. Better hitting means more scoring and runners in better position to score, eliminating some of the need for Wash to make decisions he could botch.
Sluggo writes: So are you implying that the differences in WAR for the rest of the team also cancels out, and there isn't any expected significant gain or loss? For some reason I don't buy that.
Murphy and Kinsler were examples. The point of the exercise was to honestly go up and down the roster and project positive and negative regression.
I think it's a fair assessment to presume that David Murphy will not replicate his 2012 season in terms of WAR. I just cannot fathom Murphy continuing to hit LHP like he did in 2012 (.347/.405/.440), even though it was a small sample size (just 75 AB). That said, I think the bullpen will be a big question mark all year in 2013. It'll probably be a transition year for Joakim Soria as he begins to return to form. Tanner Scheppers is an incredible question mark (I'm not one for the intangibles, but I think it's evident that Scheppers isn't much of a gamer). Josh Lindblom, although he has a great arm, has much to prove. Robbie Ross will likely be in the bullpen in 2013 and he is also a big question mark (after the AS Break, Ross essentially broke down due to the workload given to him in the first half. Will this continue?) Jason Frasor should be decent if healthy. And Joe Nathan is probably the only certainty in the bullpen. And as for the rotation, both Holland and Perez (I think he makes the rotation out of Spring Training) have alot to prove.
For the 2013 Rangers to compete, health will be of the upmost importance. Adrian Beltre's nagging leg injuries are worrisome, and the importance of having a healthy Lance Berkman in the lineup everyday cannot be understated.
As for the positives, I think Kinsler will have a return to form, flirting with a 30/30 season and being either #1 or #2 on the team in WAR. Darvish should stand a great chance to become a top 5 starter in all of MLB by year's end. And I really think that the Martin/Gentry platoon in CF will be very productive both defensively and at the #9 slot in the batting order. But to win the division, acquisitions will have to be made, and if difference-making players are made available on the trading block, the Rangers have plenty of prospect currency to make a deal.
Hou will keep us (Tex) fm being the cellar keeper
good to see kins is in mid season form
And then there's this:
@ProfessorParks#Rangers prospect Martin Perez took a nasty comebacker off the arm. It didn't look good. He was escorted from the field immediately.
Perez out until May most likely. He wont throw for a month, likely will take at least 2-4 weeks to get into throwing shape. Major bummer.
ReEnter waiting in the Wing: Kyle Lohse new whisper won't go away will they? tic toc tic toc
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.