What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
I was watching the game tonight and thought of something that made me smile. I know it's early but still...
The Angels lost their opening day starter. as did the Rangers. But, According to the "analysts" the Angels had a much better rotation than the Rangers because the obtained Blanton, Vargas and Hanson. We as Rangers fans were a little worried, but we need to remember that there is a reason we didn't let these guys go in trades this offseason. We all need to remember that the Ranger's staff has done a pretty good job lately.
Well let's see we are 20+ games in, and the Rangers have 3 starters on the DL (we'll consider Feliz a starter for arguments sake but that makes me a little nauseated, but that's another thread) At this point in the season the Rangers are using 2 pitchers that were scheduled to be in AAA at the beginning of the year. And the Rangers are #1 in the AL in ERA right around 2.40, better than #2 by more than .5 per 9 innings. #2 in all of MLB. And have yet to lose a series!!!!!!
If both pitching staffs were this
Angels: Wilson, Blanton, Vargas, Hanson, WilliamsRangers: Darvish, Holland, Ogando, Tepesh, Grimm
Be truthful, who would you have guessed would be 16-7 and who'd be 8-13 at this point in the season?????
GET A LIFE
I'd have to agree. I admit I was a little worried about our 5th spot going into the season. That coupled w the poor outings and eventual loss of Harrison and I was becoming skeptical at best. I'm impressed w grim and tepesch so far but I'm eagerly anticipating the return of a veteran like Lewis.
I think Vargas is capable of winning at least 10 games, with good Angels offense taken into account.CJ must work hard for the team as a spearhead and also substitute for the ace Weaver.
Tepesch (spelled correct?) is forward going on and on. Who knows how far he goes.Maybe, he might be an All Star this summer, who knows.
Pretty safe to say baseball "analysts" on ESPN/MLBN are generally dull, and that the Rangers had the better on-paper rotation than LAA before the season started. This shouldn't come as a surprise. The fact that Tepesch and Grimm have been so solid is a surprise, but we are talking about two-to-three start samples, so we have a ways to go.
The Rangers team ERA is 2.77 right now.
The three worst starts of the year were opening day when Harrison gave up 6, Harrison's second start when he gave up 5 and Ogando's 5 run start in the drizzle in Chicago.
23 starts and there have been three bad outings. I wouldn't have expected that with a healthy staff and certainly wouldn't expect the two AAA call ups to have been this sharp.
The pen has done a better job than anyone could have expected. Ortiz is this year's Ross so far. Scheppers has made real progress since last year. Lowe delivered a terrific outing when Tepesch got hit.
Feliz, Soria, Lewis and Harrison will all be available at some point this year to strengthen the staff.
The caveat in all of this is that, outside of the Angels, we have not been playing elite offensive teams. But, they've done the job against the teams that they've faced.
When you talk about "Elite" offensive teams, to me, there is really only 3-4 of these in all of Baseball. On paper at least.
*Detroit*LA Angels*LA Dodgers*Reds (Maybe??? The closest thing the NL has at least)
With the loss of Hamilton, and the gain of Berkman and AJ I am hesitant to call our team a dominant offense. Put a Hamilton, Fielder, Stanton or someone else of that caliber and I would put us up there, but not willing to say we're as good as we've been in the past couple seasons just yet.
That being said, I bet we've played an elite offense as much as any other team in the league has in the first 20 or so games.
Pretty sure Washington is considered an elite offense, and no arguing that Atlanta and possibly even the Rockies make it in there.
It also depends on how you measure "Elite." From your list, those are more power-driven teams. The Rangers success lately hasn't been from the HR as much as small ball. Several teams find ways to win and put a lot of runs on the board without the long ball, and I'd consider them equally "elite."
Atlanta, maybe. Washington I do agree with I just overlooked them.
I wish someone would make an "ELITE" post.
Dear Ranger Santa, Please give me a 0-1 loss today in Minnesota. Thank you, JD
Dear JD, You got it. All the best, Ranger Santa
If Holland wants to get a Cy Young, he is going to have to develop BALLS. He does not have the mental make up. Doubts stuff and gets into 3-0 to willingham. grimm and tepesch have better mental make up. YOU SUCK UNTIL YOU DEVELOP CONFIDENCE. THAT MAY NEVER HAPPEN
I'll phrase it a different way. 16 of our 23 games coming into today have been against the Astros, Mariners, Rays, Cubs and Twins. Those are average at best, and poor on the whole, offensive teams.
The staff has done what you want with that kind of schedule. Props to them and here's hoping for more of the same.
"If Holland wants to get a Cy Young, he is going to have to develop BALLS. "
geeez the gay refernces on here
Holland doesn't pitch to win Cy Youngs. Sure he made one bad pitch today. The Offense missed their fair share of bad pitches when it counted. They are responsible for this loss.
Bak on track with post, I personally never read one article claiming the Angels to have a better pitching staff...pretty sure the Blanton, and Hansen moves were questioned
I never read that either Djones. Most of what I read glossed over that glaring inconsistency and talked about their prolific offense. And everything else I read bemoaned the loss of three hitters that did absolutely nothing after May last year for Texas.
All I read on here is bitching & moaning
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.