Secret Sauce And The Rangers
Eleven? Yeah, eleven. These are, by and large, opposing teams with true-talent winning percentages somewhere in the .400-.450 range that the Rangers are lining up and picking off with deadly efficiency, but they're still major league teams -- teams that have given Texas periodic fits over the years. I guess what I'm saying is, don't take eleven for granted, because the odds lean towards some number of years elapsing before we see a run like this again.
With the already-growing-old refrain of "eleven" ringing around in our heads, naturally our eyes persist in wandering down the road and towards the division crown and beyond (and, of course, towards the trade market, which seems to be a point of discussion at a remarkably early date this year), but some aren't quite sold on the "beyond" part. One of the ideas that has proliferated over the last month or two is that Texas, by virtue of ostensibly not matching up well with Boston or New York or Tampa Bay in a short playoff series (and thus, in the eyes of some, not being a legitimate World Series-contending ballclub yet), should stand pat and reserve the trade ammo for a later date.
Of course, windows of contention do not remain wide open -- or even slightly ajar -- indefinitely, nor do things always work out the way you envision; a few high-profile prospect busts and some major league regression here and there and you can conceivably find yourself cast back into .500-level territory rather quickly. One of the simpler counterarguments would boil down to "take your shot now, because you don't know if/when you'll get another shot." But for the sake of further discussion, let's take this first argument at face value and ask the operative question(s): "As presently constituted, can the Rangers contend for a World Series? If not, what do they need to do to get there?"
Long-time readers of Baseball Time in Arlington will no doubt recall what I'm about to reference, but many others won't, so let me familiarize those who aren't up to speed on the "secret sauce" concept. Four years ago, former Baseball Prospectus managing partner Nate Silver went about determining -- and articulating -- which specific characteristics of playoff teams correlate with post-season success, and found only three such characteristics: (a) a power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate, (b) a good closer, as measured by WXRL (BP's version of relief wins above replacement), and (c) a good defense, which can be somewhat reliably be measured in this day and age with one of the now-freely available play-by-play-based defensive metrics.
As Silver stated: "Of the dozens of team characteristics that we tested for statistical significance, in terms of their relationship with winning post-season games and series, these were the only three that mattered." Not surprisingly, all three are somehow interwoven with run prevention, which assumes heightened importance in a post-season context. And, interestingly enough, the Rangers have posted a top-five "secret sauce" score in all of baseball, which would seem to contradict the notion that the Rangers are not equipped to compete in the post-season:
[Teams No. 1 and 2 were the Giants (8) and Padres (10), respectively. I ditched BP's fielding runs above average (FRAA) metric for a hybrid of Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) and the plus/minus (+/-) defensive rating systems, which I felt better reflected team defensive talent levels. 'Score' is simply the summation of all three rankings, a method employed by BP on its own "secret sauce" page.]
Considering the current plight of the Rangers' back-end rotation options (neither Rich Harden nor Derek Holland will be available until after the All-Star break, and the only thing the former has going for him is that he wields higher upside than similarly undesirable starters Matt Harrison and Dustin Nippert), you'd have a difficult time protesting the idea that Roy Oswalt or Cliff Lee would help propel Texas closer to the top; granted, neither is really a traditional power strikeout pitcher, but they're both posting their highest strikeout -- and swinging strikeout -- rates since the mid-00s, and would both represent upgrades over the status quo in that regard.
We can argue about the merits and flaws of differently composed hypothetical prospect packages for the Lee/Oswalt tandem all day long and end up right back where we started; some would call that one of the more annoying aspects of the trade deadline, but I find it all rather entertaining in its own way. What I'm not sure can be so easily argued is that the Rangers are assured of a one-and-done appearance, provided they persevere into October. Between that strong "secret sauce" ranking and the reality that anything -- I repeat for emphasis, anything -- can happen in a five- or seven-game series, such a defeatist position may be even more untenable than you would assume at first glance.
37 Comments | in Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (37)
All of this is well and good; but the second half of the season, the Rangers aren't playing 16 or so games against also-rans and has-beens. Right now the team is beating up (and well they should) the less unfortunate.
That's good for what ails ya. Kinsler, Smoak and Borbon have been feasting as of late on the diet of no-goods, much less the resurgance of the other fellows.
I'm thinking even Seattle could have gotten out of the basement if they had the Rangers' schedule.
When July-August-September comes, there will be hell to pay.
And certainly, having one of the top-rated farm systems in baseball allows for the Rangers to make some deals. And I'm all for it, provided those deals don't involve Smoak, Scheppers, Perez, Ogando and a few others (all pitchers.)
The Rangers aren't near as good as their record indicates.
Is the glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty?
If this winning streak is simply a result of the Rangers playing inferior teams then why haven't the Yankees ripped a 10 to 15 game streak off? Streaks like this in baseball are very hard to do,
I don't think the Yankees are as good as their record indicates either. I think they are going to wear down as the season goes on.
However, suppose the Rangers are not as good as they look right now?
Suppose they sweep the Astos and the winning streak ends at 14 and the Rangers play .500 ball the rest of the way?. That puts them at 92 wins for the season.Because of this streak all the Rangers need to do to stay in contention is avoid a long losing streak.
They do not need to add much to become a legitimate WS threat this year.
Its less about what happens in June and July and more about how your team plays in August and September. I don't buy into the notion that we are that far behind the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays though, never have this year. Yes they all have great players that are vetrans and experienced but I see some similarities between us and the Rays of a couple years ago that shocked everybody.
I think we should make a deal, you do your fans who are just starting to buy into this thing a diservice, and you do your players a disservice by not taking a shot at this. If I had my druthers I would go after Roy Oswalt rather than Cliff Lee, and I am a big Cliff Lee fan. I go for Oswalt because I want the next year with him too, I think we are past the point of needing extra draft picks and are ready to make headway into making this team into something special.
Regardless of who this streak is against this is a fun time. Every team, every year gets a chance to start extending leads in their races against the less fortunate teams at some point in the season.
"also-rans and has-beens", agreed, but we haven't always taken care of these teams like we are this year. The July - Aug - Sept part of the season will definitely tell us how "good" this team really is, but without April - May - June, they could be very good but not have the record to show it. Build the record now so we can hang on (hopefully continue) in the upper echelons of team rankings.
James Mason -- yep.
Half empty, half full... either way I'm drinking the kool aid. Even against .400 teams the Rangers should have lost 4 out of the last 10.
@James Mason: "The Rangers aren't near as good as their record indicates." I will argue that they are since this is what good teams are suppose to do against inferior competition.
I think the Rangers have a chance to win a championship in 2010 & 2011 and then it's time to reassess.
Although Tampa was a house on fire early and a good candidate to become a juggernaut, they've slowed down. I see lots of real good teams in the AL (NYY, Boston, Tampa, Minnesota) but no obvious juggernauts and at least one of those three teams in the East is staying home. Without a doubt, the current Rangers are in their best spot since the 2004 season ended.
Windows of Opportunity to win it all don't last near as long as you think they will, especially when your best players are between 28-34 years of age.
The Rangers have beaten up bad teams (over the last 2 weeks) and regardless of the sport, that's exactly what great teams are supposed to do.
Has the schedule helped... yes of course, but every team in baseball has played sorry opponents.
I'm not sure the Rangers are in a position to say they are better than the Rays/Yanks/Red Sox because those 3 teams beat the heck out of each other... but by the same token, and apart from the last 2 weeks, the Rangers have had a difficult schedule.
Regarding Lee or Oswalt. The Newberg Report discussed these guys earlier this week and Jamey brought up a bery good point about Oswalt that I did not consider; he makes a TON of money... and as a result, it might hamstring the Rangers this off season (or at next years trade deadline). Yes, Lee is only a 2 month rental but if he leaves via FA (and we all know he will) he's a true Typa A and therefore the Rangers recoup 2 draft picks... Oswalt is a Type B right now (again, I'm stealing this from Jamey's column).
I think that JD and co. did a great job of building legit pitching depth and as a result, this team has endured a few injuries and/or poor performances, that most teams cannot.
I was listening to two dufus' on 105.3 yesterday (around 5:30pm... those two guys SUCK) discuss a Chris Davis/Martin Perez for Lee trade offer. I would do that trade in a second. If you're going to add an ace, you have to be willing to give up a future ace. Perez is 19 yrs old and at best, is 2 yrs away. God only knows what could happen to him in that time (for fear of jinxining him, I'm not going to say his arm could blow out... but you get my point). Even with his upside, you just never know what could happen. Odds are not in his favor. Lee is a sure thing and without a doubt will make this team better...now!
I would NOT however give up SEVERAL pieces of the future... no way. I would stand pat and ride my guys the rest of the way (that doesn't sound right... please, no "that's what she said"" comments).
I personally detest the notion that the Rangers can't beat the Yankees or any other team. It's not true and stems from a defeatist attitude borne by long-suffering fans.
Seems that this is kind of a mute point as it appears that any potential trade is ultimately in the hands of a bankruptcy judge.
I have an idea and I wonder if the Rangers have thought of it: bring up Omar Beltre to be a starter.
As a starter, the batting average against him is .203 (as a reliever it's .300.) Although he's only worked a little over 21 innings as a starter, he's been very good.
If I were the Rangers, I'd give him the Harrison start vs the Angels on Tuesday and see what happens.
Well if James had his way, being the genius that he is, Texas would have long ago fired Ron Washington and then all their problems would be solved - and they'd be a winning team now. So they really deserve this pathetic, mediocre situation they have gotten themselves into with that loser of a coach they have.
Don't trade Scheppers or Perez!
Well if James had his way, being the genius that he is, Texas would have long ago fired Ron Washington and then all their problems would be solved - and they'd be a winning team now. So they really deserve this pathetic, mediocre situation they have gotten themselves into with that loser of a coach they have.
The Rangers, with their fairly easy schedule, have won despite the "skills" of their manager. I dare say I'm not the only one who thinks this to be true.
The bottom line is winning, no doubt. But I caution - look who they are playing.
James don't discount wins against bad competition too much. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some tempering of expectations when we're tearing up bad competitions, but the Redsox have ten losses to the Orioles, Royals, and Indians for a 10-10 record against those teams. Beating up the dregs isn't a good predictor of future success, but taking care of business against those teams makes a huge difference.
I would rather have an 11 game winning streak against Boston or the Yanks. But you have to win the games on the schedule now. And Texas has.
I share Joey's view that Texas is stronger now than most people think. The defense and pitching are WAY better than in the playoff years of the 90s. I am on record as saying that Elvis is a big part of that reniassance. I expect it to continue.
As for the possibility of trading for Lee or Oswalt: I think Oswalt is only a little better than what Texas already has and worry that he will be cost-prohibitive (both in terms of salary and package required). So I don't want him.
I think Lee is better on the mound and cheaper to pay. But again, I think he will cost a lot and be the most sought-after player on the trade market this summer.
Before trading for either of them, can we put Ogando into the rotation? I know that he would need to be stretched out. Is it possible that he could be a legit 6 inning starter by September? If so, I say to stay with him instead of dealing away the cream of the minor league system. And I feel the same about Scheppers.
I know that the reason to get a vet like Oswalt or Lee is that they bring poise and playoff experience. But on a team where nobody else has that much-touted experience, would ONE pitcher who has it really make that big a difference? If so, then do it. If not, then let's go into the playoffs with this roster (and minor league system) in place and take our chances. Next year the core of the team will have that playoff experience and maybe we can celebrate a WS win.
Pabloesque: Type A and Type B free agent rankings are determined by the two most recent seasons of that particular player. If Oswalt were a free agent this year, he would be a type B free agent. However, this is primarily because last year was one of the worst of his career (still wasn't that bad though). If he pitches anything like this season next year, he would definitely be a type A free agent. Jamey posting anything about what type of free agent he might be is a little misleading. He probably should've neglected to post anything about that. At any other point in his career, Oswalt would have been a Type A.
If you'll indulge me for a minute, I'd like to present a case for trading for Brett Myers rather than Lee or Oswalt. Let me first say that I'm not his biggest fan, and I'm not exactly sure how I would feel about landing him.
He costs 3.1 million this year (a little over 1.1 million the rest of the way if the deal comes at the deadline). He has a mutual option in 2011 for 2 million. So he'd only cost about 3.1 million in total. The cost in prospects should be considerably less than Lee or Oswalt (or Haren).
Myers currently has a 3.59 FIP which would rank right between Tommy Hunter and Colby Lewis for 2nd on the Rangers. He averages more innings per start than anyone on the Rangers. He's accumulated a 1.9 WAR which is tied with Colby Lewis (Myers has one more start than the Cobra). Essentially Myers would be the second best pitcher on the staff in terms of total production for the year behind Colby. He might might slot behind Holland and Hunter if both are healthy. It seems that at worst he would be the 4th starter on this team. While he hasn't always been great this year, he's had his moments, AND he hasn't had any of the complete meltdowns that Wilson, Feldman, and Harden (Rich in particular) have had. Myers has been at the very least consistently decent; he's yet to go less than six innings or give up more than four runs in any start this season.
He's not necessarily my first choice, but he's someone we should consider -- especially if the ownership situation continues to drag.
" we need a new manager... so we can be winners.. " - posted by billydpowell a couple of days ago.
Billydpowell!! You old dog! All along I assumed that you realy did hate Ron W, buy now I realise that I had been totally fooled by a very dry sense of humour. I salute you!
@James
The Rangers aren't near as good as their record indicates. ?????????????????????
How many games did you say Washington has cost them? So if Wash has cost them games aren't they better than their record indicates?
While I agree with you that Wash isn't a good manager (and BTW I hope I am dead wrong and there is a method to his madness), this is the best team the Rangers have every put on the field and I have been a fan for a very long time. Long enough for Juan Beniquez to have been my favorite Ranger at one time.
Joey I think you are dead on these Ranger can compete in Oct. I don't want to trade for a hired gun just because that is what you are supposed to do.
Lee's numbers at the Ballpark
ERA 7.62
WHIP 1.55
Avg A .311
Dance with the one that brung ya.
@Dave H. - How many games has Myers pitched in Arlington, TX? Let's see if he's still in the middle of the Ranger's pack after 10-15 starts.
@texrollie - It's MOOT point, not MUTE point. And in the words of the great Cosmo Kramer "oh I really think you're wrong"...
"Anything" does not usually happen in the playoffs. As Nate Silver's correlation indicates, TORP and an excellent closer are strongly associated with success. The Rangers top three SPs do not compare favorably against the top three of TB and the NYY. Adding a Cliff Lee would certainly close part of the distance.... and it could shorten the Ranger's window of competitiveness for a WS, depending upon the talent they would relinquish.
To say that the current Yankees and Rays are stronger teams than the Rangers, is more a rational and historically accurate argument than a stereoptypical "defeatist attitude."
The "secret sauce" is not much so hush hush and even less of a condiment but more like the blueprint that many clubs (Minnesota, Oakland, Atlanta, etc.) are and have been using to build perennial contenders. The Rangers have acquired a pool of high ceiling pitching prospects who will reach critical mass at the ML club soon. Young, talented starting pitching is the currency of MLB. The Rangers are just beginning to realize that value and should be positioned for many years to grow from within AND trade for the critical pieces necessary for a championship run. Knowing when to trade potential for performance is critical to JD and Ryan's success.
This summer, the Rangers need an ace-caliber starter and for Holland/Hunter to step us this year in order to be more than first round playoff fodder for the NYY/BOS/TB.
I hope the Rangers can acquire Lee this year and make a serious push for championship. The team will need to embrace the idea of being both buyers and sellers next month and realize that the court will be a barrier to significant improvement.
The drama will be entertaining and I will be watching.
Anthony in Australia ... Cheers!!
I dont HATE anyone, I do think Wash is a GREAT coach and the players friend, I have said this for two years. but I am talking about his ABILITIES, not the MAN
@ billydpowell . Silly me! I had always been under the impression that when our team scores more runs in a game than the other team then that counts as a win, and that makes us winners. Perhaps a different manager would get the team to win by greater margins? Or perhaps squeeze 14 wins from 11 games?
@Pabloesque: He's only had one appearance in Arlington, and it was a while ago (a poor outing though). Here's some of his stats from the parks in the top ten in Park Factor in which he's had more than one start:
CIN: 3.81 ERA, 26.0 IP, 5 HR
NYY: 4.20 ERA, 15.0 IP, 3 HR
PHI (Citizens Bank): 4.17 ERA, 458.0 IP, 76 HR
MIL: 2.92 ERA, 12.1 IP, O HR
COL: 3.92 ERA, 41.1 IP, 9 HR
ARI: 5.00 ERA, 18.0 IP, 2 HR
HOU: 2.97 ERA, 75.2 IP, 5 HR
U.S. Cellular Field (#3), Camden Yards (#5), and our lovely stadium (#8) are also in the top ten in park factor, but he's only started one game in each stadium. He hasn't done well, but I don't know which year's teams he was opposing and the sample size is too small to really count.
Basically, it's not certain how he would do pitching in Arlington. However, the Rangers have a significantly better defense than Houston, and they also have Mike Maddux. I don't think he would drop off very far just because he's pitching in Arlington. Now in his career, he hasn't been very good in interleague games (5.64 ERA, 126.0 IP, 22 HR). Like I said in my first post about Myers, I'm not his biggest fan, but he's worth a look especially if the sale doesn't go through in time.
RWfMOY, why don't we tone it down a little and work on a positive post/conversation. Sound like a plan?
I think in order for us to win in the playoffs, our starters will have to have their A material. Some other teams, like Boston and Tampa, have guys that are good enough that they can work without their best stuff. If Colby is our best pitcher, and he doesn't have his best stuff (like tonight, against a crappy Houston team) I'm not sure our offense will make up for the runs given up.
Philly - please. Except for one lone commenter, I haven't ever seen anyone ask anyone else to "tone it down" and "work on a positive conversation" when speaking of Ron Washington. That includes you, and so maybe you should police your own conversation first before you act as if you have the moral high ground here. I'm talking about both your behavior on this blog and in the game chats.
Hmm... maybe you're right. Let's see what I can do.
By the way, couldn't the Rangers have looked into the future and seen that USA vs. Ghana would be happening? I certainly wish they could have. Gotta push the start time back!
Anyone for Carlos Zambrano? I'm guessing that the Cubs would let him go cheap, and I'd bet that Ron W could get the best out of him with his people skills, a la Milton Bradley.
Zambrano has a 5.66 ERA and is owed $18 million for the year. Not sure I would want to deal with that. I would rather bring up someone instead of trade for him.
"I dont HATE anyone, I do think Wash is a GREAT coach and the players friend, I have said this for two years. but I am talking about his ABILITIES, not the MAN"
Yeah, Billy - you've been saying this all season long. Meanwhile, all Ron Washington has been doing in response to this ludicrous assertion is win ball games - lots of them.
Ouch. Didn't know about the $18 million. Even with $6 million of it left (I assume $18 million was for the entire year) I couldn't see the Cubs eating more than half. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to leave the General Managing to JD...He's good at it, second only to the collective wisdom at DMN.....
Anthony - Yeah the $18 is for the whole year, but even for about half of that would be to give up a lot. Not saying it was a bad thought though.
I'm not sure what everyone is upset about. Washington, as our manager, has led us to the record that we have, which everyone should be pretty darn happy about. I think what most people get frustrated about, me included, is when he makes an interesting in game decision that many of us see as being the "wrong call." If we had a different manager, who knows how the season had gone. What if the mystery manager made the "right call" and it turned out wrong. Who knows? Yes, he is great with the players and almost always gets the best out of all of them. That can't be forgotten. But so far during this season, there has been reason to question some of his in game management.
"the notion that the Rangers are not equipped to compete in the post-season"
A notion that I think is pretty silly.
Heh - the Rangers called up Beltre for the start Tuesday. Maybe I am a genious. ;)