You know what I'm already sick of seeing?
Things like this:
Tim Cowlishaw: One game is only one game, but, yes, we have seen that game before.
I keep hearing fans, and even some of the media, say this same thing...that the 2006 Rangers couldn't produce with runners in scoring position, that the problem with the offense was not producing in key situation.
That is crap. Absolutely, verifiably false.
The Rangers were 9th in the A.L. in team OBP last year. That means they were in the bottom half of their league in getting runners on base.
Despite this, they were 4th in the A.L. in runs scored.
So...apparently, somehow, we have team that wasn't good at getting runners on base, and still scored a lot of runs, but the problem with the team's offense was that it didn't produce with runners on base.
Overall last season, the Rangers posted a .278/.338/.446 line, and were 6th in the A.L. in OPS.
However, with no one on base, the Rangers had a .278/.332/.439 line -- worse than they did overall, and still 6th in the A.L. in OPS.
With RISP, the Rangers had a .289/.365/.472 line, and were 4th in the A.L. in OPS.
With RISP and 2 outs, the Rangers had a .271/.379/.437 line, and were 3rd in the A.L. in OPS.
So why didn't the Rangers score more runs? Because they only had 1637 plate appearances with runners in scoring position...10th in the A.L., 56 below average, and a whopping 304 fewer than the A.L. leading New York Yankees had.
Clearly, the problem with the Ranger offense last year wasn't that they didn't produce with runners on base, as so many are trying to insist was the case...
The problem was that they didn't get enough runners on base in the first place.
This is a very simple concept, and very easy to figure out.
Why people keep trying to insist otherwise is beyond me.