Ominous article on Sosa

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 17, 2007 9:09 PM CST in News

I'm trying not to overreact. Seriously.

But then I see this article from Richard Durrett, and it makes my eyelid start twitching:

angers manager Ron Washington and hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo caution that Sammy Sosa won't be awarded a roster spot simply based on a resume that includes 588 career home runs.

But the new manager was impressed enough by what he saw Monday in the indoor batting cages at Ameriquest Field to muse where to bat the seven-time All-Star.

Washington said Wednesday if Sosa can prove that he's close to recapturing his form of a few years ago after sitting out a full season, Sosa might bat as high as fifth. Washington said he would like to see the heart of his order include Michael Young batting third, Mark Teixeira fourth, Sosa protecting Teixeira in the fifth spot and Hank Blalock sixth.

Oh, and remember how "humble" Sosa supposedly was? Well, nevermind...

It appears there's no doubt in Sosa's mind he can get close to his old form.

"He was speaking with a cockiness," Washington said. "He has no drawbacks about what he can do. He hasn't lost his confidence, and that's what I want around here. I don't want him coming in timid."

And although Jaramillo says "he'll need a lot of at-bats" this spring, it supposedly won't effect Cruz, Botts et al:

Washington and Jaramillo aren't concerned that Sosa would take away valuable at-bats from young players such as Jason Botts, Victor Diaz and Nelson Cruz. The plan would be for Sosa and the others to take advantage of "B" games and minor league games to get plenty of plate appearances.

Well, good. I'm sure Jason Botts will have a great chance to show he can hit major league pitching this spring by playing in some "B" games and minor league games.

And to cap it all off, we have Washington also saying that Ian Kinsler will hit 9th against righthanded pitchers.

Kinsler had an 808 OPS against righthanders last season. That was 4th best on the team (5th best, if you count Carlos Lee), and one of the guys ahead of him was GMJ, who is gone.

I'm...displeased...right now.

I'm going to go into another room and shout "Serenity Now" for a while.

Tweet Comment 77 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What a shock

Adam going into meltdown mode over not getting his way over a meaningless, riskless personnel move.

Nancy Pelosi, bringing the corruption

by Sharky on Jan 17, 2007 9:08 PM CST reply actions

Sharky is

the voice of reason while Adam gets all cramped and bloated.

"I told him, 'You (Blalock) are a waste of talent,' " Jaramillo said. "He knows I think he can be the best hitter on our club.

by DJCahill on Jan 18, 2007 5:11 AM CST up reply actions

Ron Washington

I TRIED TO TELL YOU.

I'm glad though, that Sosa will be penciled in fifth. There's no way to find out if you dont play him. I'm sure Adam didn't want him to get a chance to perform or fail according to his abilities.

Nancy Pelosi, bringing the corruption

by Sharky on Jan 17, 2007 9:10 PM CST reply actions

Advice

Before you hit "post", think for a few minutes and think about things you may want to add, coherent or not. There's really no need to expose all of us to your train of thought.

Back on topic:

I think Washington is going to get on a LOT of people's nerves. He seems to be one of these managers who relies on his gut feelings quite a bit, and I don't think that's always going to go very well around here. I don't like what he said about Sosa, and I also didn't like the fact that he's already ruled out platooning Blalock (or says he has).

We may have to make a special effort to tolerate crap like this as long as he inspires the rest of the team (which is apparently the reason he was brought in).

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210121425/http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=tex

by Dustin on Jan 17, 2007 9:24 PM CST up reply actions

The 'other room'

Make sure there aren't any new computers in there...

by Longhorn on Jan 17, 2007 9:31 PM CST reply actions

Just relax....

and trust JD....

by BurntOrange on Jan 17, 2007 9:39 PM CST reply actions

Totally agree.

Still 75 more days to go before Opening Day. Basically a month and a half before ST start. All we've got is quotes and press conferences now. We don't have to go crazy over Sosa now.

If Sosa's good, then he's good. If he's not, then he's not and we'll hope that the management has the intelligence to see that. If that doesn't happen, then let's bitch about it all then. It's like Gagne - if he's good, he'll be doing his part for the team, which means he'll earn more through incentives. Sosa does well and does more than, 'hit straight ball very much' then he'll earn more and probably be helping out the team in the process.

And really...media circus, schmedia circus. Cameras and reporters covering the Rangers latest hype..not necessarily bad. Kenny Rogers isn't on the team anymore.

When all else fails, there's always delusion. - Conan O'Brien

by mtex on Jan 17, 2007 9:53 PM CST up reply actions

Based on what?

I keep hearing (or reading) people saying "trust JD" and my question is "Based on what?" He is a super nice guy, but I am not sure that he has torn it up here so far. To my recollection, the Rangers could use a starting pitcher and a DH. San Diego has a pair that fit that would fit that bill nicely in Young and Gonzalez.

I am not trying to kill the guy, but I think that the cries of "trust JD" are based on the fact that he is a nice guy who is very media accessible and is not John Hart. Let us wait and see if he earns trust before we decide to "relax and trust JD".

by stee70 on Jan 17, 2007 10:36 PM CST up reply actions

It's over, let it go..........

Billy Beane has made a bad trade or two. Kenny Williams just did, thankfully. (that oughtta get 'em going!). He got Padilla for nothing, Tejeda, too. Flipped Dominquez for (basically) Koronka & Rheinecker, and picked up potential sleeper Victor Diaz.

BTW, where would the Ranger's have been last year w/o Aki? (Granted it was still a BAD trade!)

by tklawless on Jan 17, 2007 10:55 PM CST up reply actions

Where would they have been without Otsuka?

I don't know, maybe in 4th place in the AL West instead of 3rd?

by stee70 on Jan 18, 2007 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

He's being sarcastic

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 17, 2007 11:09 PM CST up reply actions

Just relax..

and trust Ron Washington, what a beast...

I am not really worried about Sosa... Hell, he can be cocky all he wants, he won't impress anyone... He won't be playing for the Rangers in 2007...

He is done, over or under avg. in spring training at .240

Under.

by miles on Jan 17, 2007 9:55 PM CST reply actions

Washington

A beast wouldn't hit Ian Kinsler last in the order.

by BurntOrange on Jan 17, 2007 9:59 PM CST up reply actions

x

Do you really think Kinsler will be hitting last in the order in the regular season?

There are maybe two reasons he said that...

A.)He is trying to get Kinsler to prove himself again in spring training, and this should pump him up.

B.)Doesn't know Kinsler's play/potential yet. Yes, he has seen him while he was the A's 3rd base coach but he doesn't fully know yet.

Kinsler will be batting 6th I think..

by miles on Jan 17, 2007 10:27 PM CST up reply actions

Okay

Why would Kinsler need to prove himself again in spring training?

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 17, 2007 10:28 PM CST up reply actions

Prove himself...

As in what place he holds in the batting order.

by miles on Jan 17, 2007 10:45 PM CST up reply actions

That's silly

If there's a returning Ranger that needs to prove themselves this spring it's Blalock.

by t ball on Jan 17, 2007 10:48 PM CST up reply actions

x

I think almost everyone has to prove to Washington what they are about...

He wants fire and passion/"cockiness".

by miles on Jan 17, 2007 10:55 PM CST up reply actions

So...

Shouldn't everyone be hitting 9th?

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 17, 2007 11:10 PM CST up reply actions

x

He won't go out and say and say that about everyone.. I guess he will use differen't schemes... Hes leaving all options open to find the right match I think.

I like his ways of thinking, he doesn't want people just cruising in and thinking they have there spot no matter what. Hes creating a new enviroment of compitition.

He wants people to earn and work for where and what they get?

"The only thing to fear is fear itself"

by miles on Jan 17, 2007 11:32 PM CST up reply actions

It sounds like

Sosa is cruising in and he is a washed up roider.

by shallrelicme on Jan 18, 2007 7:57 AM CST up reply actions

No

That's false. Botts is the one who needs to prove himself.

Blalock is good.

Nancy Pelosi, bringing the corruption

by Sharky on Jan 18, 2007 12:21 AM CST up reply actions

Because

a .266/.325/.401 hitter is good. 84 OPS+ from 3B, wow, that's special.

"I told him, 'You (Blalock) are a waste of talent,' " Jaramillo said. "He knows I think he can be the best hitter on our club.

by DJCahill on Jan 18, 2007 8:00 AM CST up reply actions

chill out

If Kinsler does well after the first two weeks he will get bumped up.

Even though I think that Kinsler could be a great #2 hitter in a year or so(maybe this year), it won't be half bad having a high on-base % guy at the bottom of the order.

As for Sosa, there is NO way he makes the team, much less is batting 5 hole.

by kman1415 on Jan 17, 2007 10:31 PM CST up reply actions

Adam Kennedy had a pretty decent

couple of years batting 9th......lifetime .283, but I think Kinsler will hit for a little more power. He'll probably move up to 7th (behind Blalock) before the season starts. I, too, think he'll be a good #2 hitter eventually, but, MYoung profiles as a perfect #2, but will be hitting #3 out of necessity.

by tklawless on Jan 17, 2007 10:44 PM CST up reply actions

What's wrong

With using the "2nd leadoff" concept? The Angels used Adam Kennedy that way, MY was effective hitting 9th, etc. What I'd enjoy is having no black holes at all in the lineup as well as having the traditional RH-LH alternation available to Washington in more than a couple of different ways? Although interesting, nothing says your lineup should run in a descending OBP or descending OPS manner.

by Ed Coffin on Jan 18, 2007 12:20 AM CST up reply actions

What's wrong with it

is that it gives one of our better hitters the fewest plate appearances of anyone in the lineup.

by BurntOrange on Jan 18, 2007 12:28 AM CST up reply actions

Well sure

IF he's one of out better hitters, and if the team is retired within four batters per inning. It isn't terribly consequential.

by Ed Coffin on Jan 18, 2007 2:54 AM CST up reply actions

Yes, it is

Our 9th hitter had about 75 plate appearances less than our number six last year, and about 150 fewer than our number two hitter.

That's not inconsequential.

by BurntOrange on Jan 18, 2007 7:19 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed

you don't win by giving one of your better hitters 75-100 fewer plate appearances.

by t ball on Jan 18, 2007 9:57 AM CST up reply actions

I would think it's fine

if we had a stronger middle. Kinsler might be the second best hitter on the team, and he has power. I don't think you can afford to cost him at-bats, given who you're giving them to. If you like him at nine, just keep battin him first or second.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 12:30 AM CST up reply actions

Colossal waste of time and at bats

My gut tells me that none of this matters, that Sosa will have an ops of about .400 against Royals spares and be sent packing.

My worst nightmare is that he does just good enough that they think he can contribute -- and then predictably goes out and flops when the games count.

by t ball on Jan 17, 2007 10:43 PM CST reply actions

Hitting Kinsler 9th

I may be wrong here, I'm certainly no expert - but to me it seems like a VERY good idea to hit Kinsler 9th. Start it off with Lofton (.300 AVE, .360 OBP, 25+ SB) and Catalanotto (.300 AVE, .370 OBP), two above average OBP guys, one with great speed the other puts the ball in play, follow that up with the team's best hitter in Young (.315 AVE, .365 OBP, 100+ Runs & RBI) and the natural cleanup hitter in Tex (.288 AVE, .375 OBP, 100+ Runs & RBI), protect him with Hank (.265 AVE, .335 OBP, 85+ Runs & RBI) if he gets back on track and if not Wilkerson (.250 AVE, .345 OBP, 80 Runs & 65 RBI) if he's back to health, the other of those two hits 6th, Laird (projected .280 AVE, .330 OBP, 80 Runs & 50 RBI) in the 7th spot to clean up anything that's still left, Cruz (projected .230 AVE, .300 OBP, 60 Runs & 80 RBI)/Botts (projected .240 AVE, .330 OBP, 60 Runs & 45 RBI) in the 8 slot (least productive expectations in an AL batting order, right?) and then start it all over with another top-of-the-order type in Kinlser (.285 AVE, .350 OBP, 75 Runs & 65 RBI) - somebody that will get on base to run it back to the top of the lineup and can knock anything in that's still left. In my mind, you hit Catalanotto or Kinsler 2nd and the other 9th, unless Cruz shows the ability to get on base and use his speed well...I guess looking at these projections (personal by the way) I could hit Kinsler 7th and bump Cruz 9th if he's in, if it's Botts hit Laird 9th?

How do you guys see it?

I'd love it if we could get Ian 600 at bats, but I see much less of a chance with Cat in the lineup.

"Way to go, Donny!"

by Walter Sobchak on Jan 18, 2007 12:28 AM CST reply actions

As of right now

I think that Kinsler or Young should probably bat 5th against righties (the other batting higher in the order). If Wilkerson and/or Blalock comes on, maybe you could drop Kinsler down to six.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 12:33 AM CST up reply actions

Just so everyone knows

Kinsler hit better against righties - .292/.359/.449 - (in 300+ AB) than lefties last year. So it's not like a Blalock split or anything.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 12:35 AM CST reply actions

One thing I know

Sky's the limit with our new, 40HR 140 RBI 5 hitter.

Nancy Pelosi, bringing the corruption

by Sharky on Jan 18, 2007 12:46 AM CST reply actions

Maybe Wash

doesn't play his gut as much as everyone thinks:

Kinsler by batting position (Min. 70 PAs):

6 - 77 plate appearances, .610 ops
7 - 127, .875
8 - 123, .789
9 - 71, .998

BTW
Leadoff - 14 PAs, 1.577 OPS

by xert on Jan 18, 2007 1:48 AM CST reply actions

Yep

Glad you found and posted the numbers.

by Ed Coffin on Jan 18, 2007 2:56 AM CST up reply actions

So why

only bat him 9th against righties?

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 6:56 AM CST up reply actions

Danger...

Small sample size warning!

by mikedallas23 @ Lone Star Ball on Jan 18, 2007 10:10 AM CST up reply actions

The only real bad batting order issue

is Blalock batting 6th.

"I told him, 'You (Blalock) are a waste of talent,' " Jaramillo said. "He knows I think he can be the best hitter on our club.

by DJCahill on Jan 18, 2007 5:57 AM CST reply actions

He should be higher

Nancy Pelosi, bringing the corruption

by Sharky on Jan 18, 2007 6:01 AM CST up reply actions

Blalock

couldnt hit my 3 year old nephew if my 3 year old nephew threw it with his left hand.

"I told him, 'You (Blalock) are a waste of talent,' " Jaramillo said. "He knows I think he can be the best hitter on our club.

by DJCahill on Jan 18, 2007 7:46 AM CST up reply actions

The Rangers really need to

sign Juan Gonzalez and Ruben Sierra to NRIs.

For one thing, we could reassemble the outfield from the days when our system produced.

For another, we could get Ben to film video of Adam's head exploding.

"I told him, 'You (Blalock) are a waste of talent,' " Jaramillo said. "He knows I think he can be the best hitter on our club.

by DJCahill on Jan 18, 2007 6:41 AM CST reply actions

great post djcahill

laughing my ass off

by kaiser on Jan 18, 2007 10:21 AM CST up reply actions

Wow

I step away from the blogs for a second and you guys lose all control. I'm interested to see how a guy with the ego of Sosa reacts when trying to prove everyone wrong. I'm very interested to see how Botts and Cruz react to the Rangers bringing in a veteran hitter. I like Kinsler in both the 9th and 2nd spots because he would be one of the better 9th hitters in the league turning the order over to the top with regularity.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 9:16 AM CST reply actions

Turning it over to the top with regularity

I guess that's why NL teams bat pitchers 9th?

Good hitters need to be grouped together.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210121425/http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=tex

by Dustin on Jan 18, 2007 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

No

That's why the NL sucks.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 2:03 PM CST up reply actions

I can't relate to this

"I like Kinsler in both the 9th and 2nd spots because he would be one of the better 9th hitters in the league turning the order over to the top with regularity."

Specifically the 9th spot part, because you have the same hitters in your order, regardless of where they hit. So having one of the better 9th hitters means that your 5th or 6th or whatever is that much worse. How is the intangible of having an extra good hitter right in front of your 1-2-3 more important than that better hitter getting a significantly higher amount of PAs? That just goes against any analytical reasoning.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 2:09 PM CST up reply actions

The 5th or 6th spots

Will be filled by Blalock and perhaps Laird unless Wilk/Diaz or Botts takes over that spot. Kinsler is a good hitter that will eventually move up in the order, much like MY did. Whether he hits 2nd or 9th depends on whether Cat is playing. I'm just saying he is very well suited for both spots. If Kinsler isn't in the top three in the order then he'll be in the bottom three, and he could really excel in either part of the order. I like the idea of hitting him 9th and moving him up as his play dictates.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 2:20 PM CST up reply actions

Well

for example, here's how Laird and Kinsler hit righties last year:

Laird: 158 AB - .241/.291/.405
Kinsler: 305 AB - .292/.359/.449

Why in the world would you want to give someone with 112 point lower OPS significantly more PAs? That just doesn't make sense.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 2:25 PM CST up reply actions

I wouldn't

I'm not saying Laird should hit that high, no one knows how the lineup is going to go except that Lofton will lead off, MY and Tex will hit 3rd and 4th and Blalock will hit 5th or 6th. That leaves a lot of open spots that won't be decided until April 2nd. If Kinsler has a hot spring and belts 10+ homers then he'll hit 5th or 6th, but as of right now, he'll either hit 2nd or 9th according to Wash. He'll figure out what he has in March and put everyone in the right position to help the team win. I gotta say though, it's nice to be discussing the offense this way instead of the starting rotation for a change.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 2:32 PM CST up reply actions

Okay

I'm glad that you wouldn't. But for Washburn to presume that Kinsler is a worse option at 5th or 6th than Wilkerson, Blalock or Laird, without seeing how any of them come out, and since all he has to go on right now is their performance in the past, is a mistake. Maybe he's talking out his ass and will come around to do the right thing in the end. But this is seriously retarded if his thought process is what it appears to be on the surface.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 2:39 PM CST up reply actions

Oh, I agree with you

We've been dealing with what-ifs today. Kinsler centers the ball very well which tells me he should have a breakout season. Where he fits in the order will depend a lot on the other players though, not just him. He reminds me of MY in so many ways, which would be a big boost to the Rangers offense if he progresses like MY did.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 2:43 PM CST up reply actions

This topic

Got out of hand fast. I don't think Washington was considering Kinsler the weakest batting option at all. I think he likes the idea of a leadoff or #2 capable hitter batting in the nine hole, IF the 1-2 spots are at least equally manned. Grief ..........

The 8 spot will end up with the least capable bat, only I hope there isn't much to choose from between all seven spots other than MY and Teix.

by Ed Coffin on Jan 18, 2007 2:46 PM CST up reply actions

I'm not saying that

he thinks Kinsler is the weakest. I'm saying that putting your 4th best hitter in the 9th spot just so that you can "have an extra leadoff guy" is RETARDED. I don't care how you rationalize it, there is no factor that accounts for the difference in PAs of dropping a guy 3-4 spots. You're going to score fewer runs with your 4th or 5th best hitter hitting 9th, period.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

Can't argue with that, but with this lineup I'm not sure Kinsler is the 4th or 5th best hitter. He had a solid rookie season, but he has to take that next step to hit in the 5th or 6th spot. If we hadn't signed Cat then he'd be in the 2 spot full-time, but Cat will hit there against righthanders pushing Kinsler down into the bottom third of the order. Unless Ian's power numbers just skyrocket from a year ago, or his power numbers are better than the other options then I don't see Wash hitting him 5th or 6th. But you never know.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 3:01 PM CST up reply actions

Kinsler

He may be their third best hitter.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210121425/http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=tex

by Dustin on Jan 18, 2007 3:15 PM CST up reply actions

Pure Contact

He might be their 2nd best contact hitter behind MY, but the 5 and 6 holes need more power than he has shown so far in his career. Word is he's gotten bigger over the offseason so maybe his power numbers will go up. If they don't, then I can't see him hitting 5th or 6th.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 3:27 PM CST up reply actions

Kinsler

I wouldn't be shocked if he ended up with the second most homers on the team by the end of the year. When I watch him swing I can't help but to think there's a lot of power in there. He's also fairly selective.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210121425/http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=tex

by Dustin on Jan 18, 2007 3:31 PM CST up reply actions

Well

Blalock's SLG last year: .401
Wilkerson's: .422
Kinsler's: .454

Still not seeing what they appear to offer that he doesn't.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 3:34 PM CST up reply actions

Geez

I don't have these numbers at my disposal so you can kill me all day with them. I agree with Dustin that there is some power in his swing, I'd just like to see it more developed before putting him in those spots. As far as Kinsler vs. Blalock, the Rangers will not win the West if Blalock has another down year.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 3:45 PM CST up reply actions

I'm about as hopeful

...that Blalock and/or Wilkeron get it back this year as just about anyone. But I just don't see any reason to hit them in front of Kinsler until they show they deserve to. Instead, Washington is just assuming that they'll be in front of him, along with everyone else.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 3:50 PM CST up reply actions

Spring tryout for Hank?

Considering his last two seasons I can't see any reason why this wouldn't be a tryout type situation for Hank. It's hard to gauge what a player will hit from his spring performance, but a down spring should push him down in the order. If he tears it up this spring, then he'll hit 5th or 6th until he loses it.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Jan 18, 2007 3:58 PM CST up reply actions

Again

I'm not advocating batting Kinsler 9th, more suggesting what I think is in Washington's mind. In umpiring over a thousand low level games I've seen plenty of managers put a good hitter in the nine spot so there are three consecutive high obp guys ahead of whatever stroke was in their lineup.

I'm slow to figure out a batting order, but would clearly like to see consistency in who is where.
1 - Cat or Lofton
2 - Lofton or Cat
3 - Young
4 - Teix
5 - Blalock
6 - Kinsler
7 - Cruz (up higher if he takes off)
8 - Botts (primary DH)
9 - Laird

If Wilkerson is healthy and can produce, it changes the equation. Kinsler to the 2 hole, Wilk to 6 part of the time and spell either Botts or Cruz or both. But I'm not settled yet, need to think more about positive sequencing. And who is where on March 27.

by Ed Coffin on Jan 18, 2007 3:52 PM CST up reply actions

I like your order just fine

As far as managers hitting the high OBP guy ninth, the two things I'd say are a) Kinsler isn't solely a high OBP guy. He's a balanced hitter. And b) I'd guess that the dynamics of those orders are a little different from this one. Everyone south of Teixeira in this lineup (the Rangers' general lineup) has BIG question marks except for Kinsler.

As long as Blalock and/or Wilkerson and/or Laird and/or Botts hit like we wish they would, I've got no problem. I just don't think it's smart for the manager to assume that they all will.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 4:00 PM CST up reply actions

Also

I'm sure that he sees Kinsler as someone who he can put in motion on the base paths, and he wants those types in the 9/1/2 area ideally. Again though, forcing 25 SBs out of Kinsler shouldn't be prioritized ahead of getting the best hitters the most at bats.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 18, 2007 4:02 PM CST up reply actions

That's one of my worries

about Washington. I hope he doesn't, as you say, stress running someone like Kinsler so much he gets more SB at the expense of more productive forms of offense.

by t ball on Jan 18, 2007 8:10 PM CST up reply actions

logical order

I agree...it's a tough call, and one of the many reasons I'll never be a manager. I just have the idea that Lofton, Cat, Young, Tex are locked in at 1-4, and that if Washington & Rudy are able to work out Blalock's issues, he should hit 5th, and if Wilkerson's healthy, he should hit 6th...leaving me to believe Kinsler would be best utilized in that 9th spot. Now - say Hank and/or Wilky struggle, fine - put Kinsler 5th/6th - and maybe we should just go with Cruz as the 9th guy...but I don't like Laird or Botts there for some reason

"Way to go, Donny!"

by Walter Sobchak on Jan 19, 2007 10:42 AM CST up reply actions

Put me down

as one of those folks who have no problems if they have a platoon lineup based on the personnel and abilities versus lefties and righties.

I view the thought of putting an automatic out against lefties like Blalock in the middle of the order when lefties are pitching as pure insanity.

"I told him, 'You (Blalock) are a waste of talent,' " Jaramillo said. "He knows I think he can be the best hitter on our club.

by DJCahill on Jan 19, 2007 10:56 AM CST up reply actions

I don't worry about things until they happen.

Perfect Example:

It wasn't long ago that everyone was freaking out because they thought Buck was going to bench Kinsler for DeRosa when his thumb healed.

I however wasn't going to get upset about it unless it actually happened, and it didn't.

And that's my approach with this. Until Sosa is actually sucking in the lineup for a real Rangers game, I don't care. But if that does happen....

www.mavsmoneyball.com

by Wes Cox on Jan 18, 2007 10:06 AM CST reply actions

That makes way too much sense

you need to stop that crap.

Without the histrionics over a minor league contract and an NRI, what would we have to talk about?

I haven't given up on JD just yet, and I'd just as soon give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Rudy really has seen something with Sammy and he still might have something. Maybe this is just a courtesy by Rudy. Who knows.

I'll worry about it when Sosa is on the 25 man.

"I told him, 'You (Blalock) are a waste of talent,' " Jaramillo said. "He knows I think he can be the best hitter on our club.

by DJCahill on Jan 18, 2007 10:14 AM CST up reply actions

I'll worry

when he's on the 40 man roster.

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Jan 18, 2007 10:23 AM CST up reply actions

On the other hand

We have also seen Gerald Laird sit in favor of a lesser veteran player. We have seen Adrian Gonzalez sit in favor of a lesser veteran player and then traded. We have seen Travis Hafner not get a legitimate shot to play and then shipped out.

Forgive me if I don't think it's a distinct possibility that it happens again.

by LoneStarBallUser on Jan 18, 2007 10:24 AM CST up reply actions

Why

did I have to be a Rangers fan!?!

by SteveP on Jan 18, 2007 11:08 AM CST reply actions

Studies about batting order

Haven't there been studies done which point out that batting order has a much smaller effect on runs scored than conventional wisdom would say?

I don't have any hard data in front of me, but I thought I read that pretty recently on firejoemorgan, and those guys are pretty hard-core statheads.

What jumped out at me was that they were saying how stupid it was to bat Jose Reyes at the top of the order when his OBP was sub-320. A couple of days later they mentioned that someone had told them about a pretty in-depth study which showed that batting order ended up having very little impact on the number of runs scored.

Don't ask me for details, because I don't have them. I'm just wondering if anyone else had heard of that study.

by mparks on Jan 18, 2007 3:52 PM CST reply actions

makes sense

except the total plate appearances part. there's no way giving your worst hitter more plate appearances than your best hitter can be a good thing. even if the difference is marginal, its just stupid to do it.

but i do agree that if everybody in an order got the same number of PA's over a season, then the actual order really wouldn't change the # of runs scored.

by ab03 on Jan 19, 2007 10:04 AM CST up reply actions