HBT: Rangers 5 Q's by AJM

by bronco28 on Mar 14, 2007 6:34 AM CDT

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/five-questions-texas-rangers2/

check it out....

Nice job Adam. .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ................

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

kudos

nice read.

by t ball on Mar 14, 2007 7:10 AM CDT reply actions

and

all of the 5 questions series so far have also been good reads, I'm really enjoying the series.

by t ball on Mar 14, 2007 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Really good

I didn't read all of it, since it has a lot of stuff I have already read here, but good piece representing the Rangers' situation this year.
Thanks Adam

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 14, 2007 7:34 AM CDT reply actions

Young

I think the section on Young is particularly good, but I think the deal's worth defending for the very off-the-field reasons you lay out. I hope we'll look back on this signing and see it as a book-end to the Pudge incident (which was justified from a numbers perspective, but not so much from a fan/off-the field view).

Pudge's unceremonious departure (certainly not A-Rod's signing) is for me the kind of symbolic moment of collapse into the pit of Oriole-dom. There were plenty of other factors, of course, just as there are plenty of reasons beyond Young for more hope today than a few years ago, but maybe Young's signing will mark a symbolic turning point into better days for Ranger fans.

by rodinuk on Mar 14, 2007 7:40 AM CDT reply actions

Very

well done ajayem.

Thanks

by ncrangerman on Mar 14, 2007 8:09 AM CDT reply actions

Excellent read

"Post-hardass pop" needs an entry in Baseball Reference's wiki section.

by Lucas on Mar 14, 2007 9:44 AM CDT reply actions

Wow

You still love your adverbs, but that was a great, informative piece, Adam. Reads like the beating heart of a serious fan.

by hightowersmith on Mar 14, 2007 10:03 AM CDT reply actions

Not just good

Definitive, on where the Rangers are "in the moment". Great piece, and thanks.

"When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future, don't stick your elbow out the window, or it'll turn into a fossil."

by Ed Coffin on Mar 14, 2007 10:29 AM CDT reply actions

Quite good.

Solid hits on all of the hot spots this spring.

I guess the only thing I could add is that if Sosa flops through May, it seems likely a DH will be acquired with some of what appears to be an excess of bullpen arms rather than by letting Botts get a shot.

by rooster on Mar 14, 2007 11:06 AM CDT reply actions

really good read

my fav line:

"with Hank Blalock descending into Randa-monium"

by knockoutking24 on Mar 14, 2007 11:45 AM CDT reply actions

Very good

Probably one of the best previews of the Rangers I've read. Just the right amount of information for the casual Rangers fan or the serious MLB fan that doesn't follow the Rangers.

By the way, Rangers are actually being broadcast on MLB radio today.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mediacenter/index.jsp#20070314

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

by WyoRanger on Mar 14, 2007 11:56 AM CDT reply actions

My only beef is this.

I'm not as certain that the main reason Botts isn't given a spot is his hitting. I think if he were putting up Ryan Howard numbers in the minors, he could get away with being a DH-only option. But his hitting is lacking in the context of his inabiility to play the field. So, yes... they don't like his bat, but if he could cover an OF position as well as, say, Cat then they might like his bat enough to give him a chance.

by rooster on Mar 14, 2007 12:46 PM CDT reply actions

Where's the beef?

Yeah, that .980 ops Botts put up in OKC last year was just terrible. Who needs a 26-yr. old DH that only gets on base 40% of the time when we can have a 38-yr. old DH whose most recent season included a stellar .295 on-base avg.?

by t ball on Mar 14, 2007 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Not that I disagree

But something occurred to me. AJM has said that Sosa is putting up great numbers in ST because he's cheating on the fastball, and with the pitchers just trying to refine their stuff, it's not a valid sample.

But in AAA, aren't the pitchers there just working on their stuff? Working on fastball location, working on their second and third pitches, etc. Can't you say that Botts numbers might not be reflective in the same manner that Sosa's aren't?

That said, there's nothing left for Botts to prove in AAA. But he's nice insurance if/when Sosa fails to produce.

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

by WyoRanger on Mar 14, 2007 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Spring Training: ptichers

The way I understand it, most pitchers are on pretty individual programs in spring training. Some are getting ready for the season just working on everything in general, and some are working on third pitches, brand new pitches, different deliveries, or what have you. That's why I pay absolutely no attention to the numbers.

It just depends on who a guy happens to see. In spring training there aren't enough at-bats for everything to even out over time, so you really could have one player who just happened to see several guys who were only throwing fastballs with a new arm angle or something. Another may have seen an undue number of guys who were pitching for a job and giving it everything they had. In the meantime, their hitting coaches are screwing around with them, too.

The last week or so probably tells us more than the rest of it combined, stats wise.

by Dustin on Mar 14, 2007 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions