Monday morning Rangers stuff
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 16, 2009 10:07 AM CST
106 comments
Off topic, but for what it is worth, I liked going for it on 4th and 2 with 2 minutes to go last night.
The A.L. Rookie of the Year Award will be announced at 1 p.m. today, and of course, Elvis Andrus is considered one of the frontrunners for the award.
There are several viable candidates, so this isn't one of these things where, if Elvis isn't the winner, it is because he got screwed over by an ignorant collection of voters.
Anthony Andro predicts a third place finish for Elvis, behind (in some order) Rick Porcello and Andrew Bailey.
22 ESPN writers set forth their picks for ROY, and Elvis tied with Porcello at 7 votes apiece.
Richard Durrett runs down the pros and cons of Elvis's case for ROY.
And in non-Elvis news, David Brown takes a look at the possibility of C.J. Wilson joining the starting rotation.
0 recs |
106 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
CJ wilson at starter
that article did a good job of convincing me. the days of rest thing is especially interesting. If nothing else, maybe we should take that into account before making him the “every day” 8th inning guy
by ab03 on Nov 16, 2009 10:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
4th and 2...
Can you imagine if it was Wade who had made that decision? He would have been fired before he made it to the locker room….
They should have punted the ball…you have to trust your defense to stop Indy from deep in their own territory…
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by GhostofSteveFoucault on Nov 16, 2009 10:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree if they needed a FG
But they needed a TD, and Manning has shown he can move the ball down the field quickly.
And you’ve got an offense with a lot of weapons, and a smart QB who has shown the ability to make good decisions. You make the first down, and the game is over.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 16, 2009 10:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
huh
I understand the thought that you make the 1st down and the game is over but seriously what would the reaction be if Wade had made the exact same decision?
I think too many people are brushing this aside because the great Belicheck did it. It was a stupid decision plain and simple. If Indy can drive 60-70 yards in 2 minutes with only 1 TO to win the game then they deserve to win the game. But to only make them go 30 yards because your ego got the best of you is dumb.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is
Wade sucks. And I have more faith in Brady making the decision as to where to go with the ball in that situation than in Romo.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 16, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the biggest problem
Whenever you go against the grain, everybody gets nervous. People know they are doing something that conventional wisdom tells them they shouldn’t be doing and they panic.
the minute you tell somebody to go for it on 4th down on the other side of your 30 yard line (4th and 2 no less with a team that has no true power RB), you are screwed.
by ab03 on Nov 16, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They should have tried "load left"...
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by GhostofSteveFoucault on Nov 16, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly what I was thinking this morning
God everybody ripped and still does rip Switzer for that call. But now Belicheck made the right call because its Belicheck? No it was a dumb call.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
to be fair
Barry did have two chances to run it. Bellichek only had one
After Fuentes blows a save and an Angels loss to the Indians:
"Angels still in first place" - UCI Halo
"Hey you know who would have gotten those 3 outs in the 9th?
Darren O’Day." - FirebatM3
LOL
by hinduplaya on Nov 16, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't really a decision
It was predetermined where he was going. Much like the pass to Witten to seal the Eagles game
by tyd3311 on Nov 16, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah there was no progression on that
Brady took the pre-snap read and went to Faulk, who was probably the 1st option anyway based on the route he ran. You knew it was going to be a quick pass right to the sticks.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They needed a TD...that's exactly why you punt the ball...
you force them to go 70-75 yards to score rather than 30…there’s a lot more room for Indy to make an error if they have to go 75 yards.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by GhostofSteveFoucault on Nov 16, 2009 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get that either
It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops.
by WyoRanger on Nov 16, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because if you don't convert on 4th...
and they’re only down a fg, then from that territory they already have the game tied and can win. Then you have to punt.
I liked the call. You’re trading anywhere from 30-50 yards field position for a 2 yard conversion to end it right there. I mean say all you want about how he doesn’t trust his D or whatever, it’s not the point. Brady should make that conversion more often then not. Game over. Luck was not on their side at the end there.
by slimshadty12 on Nov 16, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
horrible call
if they wanted a first down from on “x and 2” from their own 28, the make-or-break opportunity was on 3rd and 2. you have to make every effort on 3rd and 2 (incomplete pass), accept the result (no first down) and punt. he baqsically told his defense that he doesn’t trust them. manning (at that point) was 26-42 with 2 INTs. punt and play defense.
defeatist pussy lives here
by sam in so cal on Nov 16, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What it really came down to, though
Is the Patriots defense is just not very good, and nobody knows that better than Bill. That game showed us why the Patriots aren’t championship contenders this year. They can’t run the football. They can’t stop good offenses.
by tyd3311 on Nov 16, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So there not contenders based on the fact that...
they were blowing out quite possibly the best team in the NFL at their home? Uh ok…yeah not contenders. I don’t even care that they lost that game…doesn’t change the fact of what they did to Indy for 55 minutes.
by slimshadty12 on Nov 16, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, the same Indy with a ravaged secondary.
I don’t see how Indy qualifies as the best team without their best defensive player on the field.
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 16, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, I am of the feeling Indy is not the best team in the AFC
But, at best, the 3rd best team in the AFC behind Cincy and Pitt.
by tyd3311 on Nov 16, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha...how are you still feeling about that after week 11?
Yeah let’s pick apart the team that wins every freaking game but praise teams that can’t even put away 2-7 clubs. I’ll take Manning scrapping out every freaking game as every other team chokes it away as they can’t take care of business week in week out.
Just because Indy and New England are favorites every year doesn’t mean that they’re somehow overrated because of it.
by slimshadty12 on Nov 24, 2009 1:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW: Advanced NFL Stats...
…says going for it increases probability of winning by 9% using NFL baseline stats. And that the Colts having a better-than-average offense makes that decision even better.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html
"It's not a good strategy, but it's my strategy." -- Courtney Lucas
by Lucas on Nov 16, 2009 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a case where advanced stats suck
Going for it only increases your chance at winning if you make it. There is no way you are convincing me that making the Colts only go 30 yards instead of 70 yards increases your chance of winning
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
good lord
will you at least TRY to understand math?
You have to offset the decreased chance of winning by making them go an extra 40 yards by the INCREASED chance of winning by going for it on 4th and 2.
Why don’t you ever offset probabilities? What part of your brain doesn’t allow you to do that? Behavioral economists should study you.
by ab03 on Nov 16, 2009 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Those stats are sterile
The chance of making it on 4th and 2 on the road against a team with a shit load of momentum is not 60%. And it drops considerably when you target your 2nd string RB.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, I agree with you
but your previous analysis was just wrong. this:
There is no way you are convincing me that making the Colts only go 30 yards instead of 70 yards increases your chance of winning
completely misses the point
by ab03 on Nov 16, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No it hits the point head on
I know and knew about the stats that said it was the right call but those are meaningless in this case. This isn’t a random 4th and 2 in the 2nd quarter. This was a 4th and 2 with just over 2 minutes left on the road against a hated rival and you decide to target your 2nd string RB.
Imagine if the Cowboys on the road in Philly had gone for it and targeted Marty B or Sam Hurd instead of Witten, Austin, or Williams?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you make me angry
this must be what arguing with an arrogant 4 year old feels like
by ab03 on Nov 16, 2009 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is your argument the following?
There are two components that generally make going for it a good decision: (1) keeping the ball out of the opponent’s hands denies them a scoring opportunity and (2) holding onto the ball gives you a scoring opportunity. However, the second component is diminished or mooted by having the lead with little time left, i.e. you don’t need to score, so in terms of preventing a score you do not believe that the possibility of (1) outweighs the almost certainty of tacking 30 yards onto an opponent’s scoring drive.
If so is there any way to parse the stats to account for the relative value of the two components? I would think not but I’m new to the whole question of advanced stats.
by other_shoe on Nov 16, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My argument is that
While I fully understand that if you make the two yards the game is over. Give the amount of time left and the current spot of the field you are on to go for the 1st down is not the smart play. And when you go for it with a play targetting your 2nd string RB it makes it even worse a decision.
Had they gone to Welker or Moss on that play I could understand it a little more. Still would have been the wrong call IMO but at least you are going to your best players in that scenario.
Tacking an extra 30 or 40 yards onto the Colts potential drive under the time constraints present diminsihes their chance of winning. No matter how great Manning is or how gassed the Pats D is you have to force Manning to go the length of the field rather than only make him go a third of it.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If
Belicheck thought that was the best move, chances are it was. Not being successful doesn’t change that. His defense was gassed and very short handed after 2 more from his DL got hurt. It wasn’t like the Colts struggled to get the 30 yards to score. I don’t think 35 more yards would have mattered. Belicheck knows his team better than anyone else, Period.
Belicheck is a great coach. A person is considered a genius because he does things outside of the box. Sometimes when you take risks, you fail. If it had worked, everyone would be saying that is why he is a genius. Can’t have it both ways.
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 16, 2009 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I ask again
If Wade had made the exact same decision would you be calling him a genius because he did something outside the box?
No you would be on here calling for him to get fired just like all the rest of the people in this town.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
Belichek has skins on the wall.
Wade has never really accomplished anything as an NFL head coach.
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
by DJCahill on Nov 16, 2009 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So you have to have skins on the wall to do things outside the box?
Hadn’t Switzer won a SB when the Philly debacle happened?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
That was the year he went on to win the Super Bowl.
Troy Aikman still swears it was the right call to make by Switzer, citing a 30 mph wind that was blowing in their faces at the time.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well behind that offensive line its alot easier to rationalize
You have an amazing and large O-line and you are handing off to one of the best RBs to ever play the game.
Last night the Patriots threw it to their 3rd down back and from the looks of things that was the first and only option on the play
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 3:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand the mindset in trying to go
win the game but I think you have to punt right there.
I think Belichick deserves more criticism than Switzer got (he was killed nationally and locally) because he had longer to go and there should have been no issues getting off a good punt because they were playing in a dome.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the conclusion - it's probably a wash
The odds that the Colts would not score a touchdown are probably about the same as the Pats getting two yards.
It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops.
by WyoRanger on Nov 16, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't see any rational reason to go for it at that point in the game
The Colts needed a TD to win. If they only needed a FG then I can see wanting to keep the ball from Peyton but to show so blatantly how little confidence you have in your defense is crazy to me. if Wade had made that decision the shiutstorm that would ensue would be of epic proportion. You punt the ball and force Peyton to go all the way down the field with only one TO and score a TD. Period. End of story.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 10:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sullivan: Rangers to make trades, not FA signings
Not that this is news. However, one part stuck out:
Remember the Rangers were the only team last winter not to sign a free agent to a Major League contract.
What would be the vegas line on us signing a ML free agent this offseason?
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 10:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
if we don't sign a FA on a major league deal
which would mean a halfway decent FA, then we aren’t doing much for next year.
and for the same reason we can’t sign anybody, we can’t trade for anybody. A player on the trade market of any value would increase our payroll as much if not more than a FA. it’s the same difference.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 16, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they would rather increase the payroll through trades
NothinG.
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Nov 16, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see payroll increasing in 2010.
The more this off-season progresses, the more I’m convinced that Nelson Cruz is going to get dealt.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if they can't increase payroll
then why would they trade Cruz, whom they control at the league minimum next year?
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 16, 2009 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They'd trade Cruz because he's their
most marketable player and may never be more valuable.
They also have a plethora of OFs that they can plug in (although nobody is likely to replace what Cruz gave the team).
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that the's problem right?
nobody is likely to replace what Cruz gave the team
whatever you get in return most likely will cost more and not bring back enough to consider it worth it. i believe you’ve said this before, but to trade Cruz, we do have to be blown away.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 16, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Josey's reasoning is very flawed.
So just ignore him.
by FuturePants on Nov 16, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our challenge going into 2010
is that with the current ownership situation, we have one means of talent acquisition (trades).
The number one minor league system (ahem) has nobody coming up next year who can be counted on for meaningful contributions and we can’t sign any free agents.
Our most valuable trade chip that can be replaced in 2010 with a major league player is Nelson Cruz.
CDavis was horrific (which killed his value), Josh was injured and not very good and The Salt Shaker was also very bad.
You can’t trade MYoung with that contract and I don’t see anybody in the minors who can play 2B and give us a 30/30. That leaves Cruz unless you’re interested in trading some of our young pitching.
Personally, I don’t trade Cruz unless I’m blown away.
JD is in another boat. He’s kept saying that 2010 is the year but his team has very specific needs and the only way to get there may be by trading Cruz.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
JD is in another boat. He’s kept saying that 2010 is the year but his team has very specific needs and the only way to get there may be by trading Cruz.
Is JD responsible for the current ownership situation?
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
JD didn't do a very good job
from October 2005 until Nolan got here but it’s impossible to say how much that impacted the current situation.
Having 600,000 less fans show up at the park in 2008 than they did in 2005 probably didn’t help the current ownership situation.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me get this straight
Having 600,000 less fans show up at the park in 2008 than they did in 2005 probably didn’t help the current ownership situation.
With an average ticket price of $18 (not including concessions and parking), are you actually saying that JD cost us over ten million dollars last year?
Is that really your position?
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Rangers have a better team in 2007
I believe more fans would have showed up in 2008.
The team was so bad in 2007 and the fans were so turned off by the direction of the franchise that they quit caring and showing up at the ballpark.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like a direct answer please.
How much money has JD cost the team in terms of ticket revenue?
If you decide to respond to this post, please respond with a number and analysis supporting your number. Thank you.
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What does that have to do with the Rangers
having one means of talent acquisition this off-season?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It focuses your blame game.
We can all agree that Hicks is responsible this mess. However, you seem to believe JD is also responsible for the team’s current financial situation.
If you believe that JD is responsible, then please tell us how much money JD himself has cost the team. That’s the only objective way for you to show that JD is responsible for the team’s current financial situation.
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea exactly how much money
JD cost the team but if he would have been better at his job more fans would have probably come to the park in 2007 and especially 2008.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll ask you the question you asked me.
What does that have to do with the Rangers having one means of talent acquisition this off-season?
How much more money would the Rangers have to spend this offseason if not for JD? If you can’t answer this question, then you shouldn’t keep trying to interject JD’s name into these conversations. It’s intellectually dishonest.
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The original statement had to do
with given the current ownership situation, the Rangers (and JD) have one method of talent acquisition this off-season.
You’re the person who then asked if JD was responsible for the current ownership situation.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
You should reread this dialogue before you start pointing figures at me. Besides, if you didn’t think JD was responsible, you would have said so instead of talking about falling attendance numbers since 2005.
All that said, I’ll give you some credit for at least trying to engage in some sort of discussion. It is refreshing to see you stay and admit you don’t have any evidence instead of just running away.
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I read the dialogue.
JD was one the biggest reasons this team didn’t perform well and the team is still paying the consequences for his incompetency.
If JD would have been better at his job, the team would have been better and the fans wouldn’t have become as apathetic as they did in 2008.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And if all that is true, how much more money would the team have to spend this offseason?
What does that have to do with the Rangers having one means of talent acquisition this off-season?
by cstorm15 on Nov 16, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to say but what we do know is that we apparently
don’t have any money to spend this off-season.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I remain unconvinced Josey reads too well.
He definitely does not comprehend written English very well.
by FuturePants on Nov 16, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's awful at it
My 9th grade English students comprehend better than him.
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 16, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What exactly
is your stance on Cruz these days? What did he give us?
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 16, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
And the people we are probably targetting are guys in arbitration so their salaries aren’t as bloated as a FA would be in most cases
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if they can find the right deal, then fine
but how many trades are the rangers going to make because we have more than 1 hole?
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 16, 2009 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a baseball blog I dont want to read about the cowboys I am not the least bit interested. As a matter of fact I hope they lose the rest of their games.
by txmemaw17 on Nov 16, 2009 11:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for stopping by, champ.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
What do tigers dream of when they take a little tiger snooze? Do they dream of mauling zebras, or Halle Berry in her Catwoman suit?
by ghtd36 on Nov 16, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding CJ as a starter
I’m fine with him going for the rotation in ST, as long as he doesn’t get a spot. and, to say that CJ would be more valuable because he can affect more innings is possible, but at the same token I’d rather see Feliz in the rotation for that reason, as he has the highest upside of any arm on our team. Both of those pitchers would be valuable out of the pen or rotation. The difference is 1 of those guys is a possible ace, the other a middle to back of the rotation pitcher. We have enough of those guys.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 16, 2009 11:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't mind giving CJ a shot at
starting either but what he brought to the team in 2009 has to be replaced.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I agree he is a middle of rotation pitcher
Stuff-wise, you don’t think CJ has the potential to be a solid #2? I don’t believe Kenny Rogers had any BETTER stuff. In fact, I think the two are very similar. I am intrigued by CJ in the rotation. I also think taking CJ and Feliz OUT of pen takes away what were (IMO) the two most effective relievers last year.
I don’t pretend to know this answer, but do think (as JD has proven on more than 1 occasion) that you can build a pen with a grab-bag assortment of pieces. I don’t believe that for a rotation.
Jack Daddy
by Jack Daddy on Nov 16, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can build a bullpen off the scrap heap yes
But if you are trying to build the back end of your pen off that heap you are probably in trouble. Scrap heap guys generally can fill your middle relief/7th inning roles pretty well but to entrust them with 8th inning roles and tight game situations is probably asking a bit much for guys who were released by other teams.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rogers had much better secondary stuff than CJ
he could change pace quite well.
CJ typically throws hard all the time. I don’t think CJ projects as a TORP, but his stuff is good enough in short bursts to be great in the bullpen. Why try to fix something if it isn’t broken?
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 16, 2009 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rogers - Cj
The difference is command.
Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"
by tricer on Nov 16, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Saw good old Josh Hamilton at Del Frisco's Saturday night.
I didn’t talk to him or anything, he was seated with the wife, but I did really hope he was putting some roids in that steak or something. Whatever it takes for him to hit some damn bombs, then do it!
by FuturePants on Nov 16, 2009 11:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Gossip Queen strikes again!!!
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Village Idiot makes another stupid post!!
2009 Texas Rangers: Why The Hell Not Us?--ghtd36 on May 13, 2009
In the interest of quicker games Ron should just tell the ump he's pulling the Feliz card and the ump should rule the inning over.--Sherman McCoy on Sept. 4, 2009
by boomer1 on Nov 16, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that sure is all kinds of gossip.
by FuturePants on Nov 16, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
more gossip
Did he order the house white or a nice chianti?
by iblum on Nov 16, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just wish he'd take more walks
otherwise, he is a glorified Victor Diaz
by Telegraph on Nov 16, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW CJ is working very hard this offseason on conditioning
He is trying to take his physical training to a higher level to increase stamina by working out with some of the top track and field people in the world
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Nov 16, 2009 11:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
that should help pitching on back-to-back days then
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 16, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Add that
to the MLB Trade Rumors list of things guys did this offseason that are supposedly going to make them better.
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 16, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm starting to come around...
on the idea of giving BGL a shot at the rotation. What David Brown says about him being a reliever but not a loggy really makes a lot of sense. The fact that he faced nearly twice as many RH’s as LH’s and did well against both is a valid point. I just don’t want to see Feliz take his spot in the 8th inning (and have his chance in the rotation blocked by BGL), at least not for more than a month or two.
If it doesn’t work out then put him back in the ’pen. However, what would happen if it did work out? How great would that be for the Rangers rotation? This team needs to sign a quality LH reliever though. Luckily, there a re a few available.
I don’t know, I’m kinda going back and forth on the idea.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 16, 2009 2:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
So if CJ goes to the rotation
You, and everyone else, are fine with a Opening Day rotation of Millwood, Feldman, CJ, McCarthy, Hunter? With Holland and Feliz both in OKC?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope...
Holland would be in the rotation instead of McCarthy and Feliz would start the year in the ‘pen to limit his innings. McCarthy could be the long man and spot starter. At least that’s how I’d do it if BGL was impressive enough as a starter.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 16, 2009 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not how its gonna work though
McCarthy is pretty much guaranteed a spot in the rotation barring a horrible spring. Nippert is the long man/spot starter.
Right now Holland has the inside track on the 5th spot IMO ahead of Harrison and Hurley. But if you throw CJ in the rotation that pushes Hunter or McCarthy down to the 5th spot and Holland back to AAA.
And I have a feeling if Feliz starts out in the pen with CJ in the rotation its gonna be very hard to remove him from there once the season starts. I don’t see anyone else giving us what CJ or Feliz could as a 8th inning guy and by the time its time to pull Feliz from the pen to transition back to starter his value to the team for next season will be too high out of the pen to remove him.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is McCarthy...
pretty much guaranteed a spot in the rotation? I think if he’s healthy he has a good shot at a spot, but by no means is he guaranteed anything.
Nippert doesn’t dictate what happens to guys like Feliz, Holland, or even McCarthy imo. He can be a long man or even a 1 inning power arm in the 7th or 8th.
And look at how many starters the Rangers have used the last few years. Also, look at how the rotation started and how it ended because of performance and/or injuries. If Feliz and McCarthy start in the ‘pen they will still have a chance to show their worth as a a starter too. Although I do share your concern about Feliz starting in the ’pen and Wash falling in love with him there and trying to keep in in the ’pen. I don’t want to see that happen.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 16, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rotation
I know the Rangers have said that pretty much only two guys (Millwood and Feldman) are locks I am not naive enough and I hope they are not naive enough to go into spring training with everyone on a even playing field. I believe they have a pecking order so to speak and if someone falters then it gets altered or if someone is absolutely amazing it gets altered. But if you base 60% of your rotation on strictly spring training games I think you are in trouble. Thats how you end up with Kris Benson or Matt Kata on your team.
Right now I believe the final 3 spots in the rotation are in this order: Hunter, McCarthy, Holland, Harrison, and then guys like Hurley and Moscoso way down the list. CJ does have an option left and he isn’t at 5 years service yet so he could be optioned to AAA to add stamina if needed although I don’t think that would happen. So adding CJ to Millwood and Feldman leaves only two spots.
If it comes down to a coin toss between McCarthy and Holland I believe the Rangers would go with McCarthy which is why I think it would take not just Holland being a little better than BMac but he would have to be alot better in spring.
of course there are going to be injuries and such which means even if Holland starts in AAA he should be back up soon enough. But I don’t feel like the rangers are going to move BMac to the pen this year and are comfortable with Nippert as the long man/spot starter.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see any reason why McCarthy would have a head start on Holland or Harrison
by tyd3311 on Nov 16, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The way I see it
You have Millwood and Feldman as locks. Hunter as an almost lock. Holland would have to pitch his way out of a spot. And McCarthy and Harrison battling for the final spot.
by tyd3311 on Nov 16, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What makes Holland above McCarthy in your mind?
Is it strictly ceiling and potential?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For the same reasons
i felt Harrison and Feldman should have been almost locks going into the Spring last year
by tyd3311 on Nov 16, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well
McCarthy is 3 years older, started 4 fewer games, walked more batters per 9 innings, and struck out fewer batters per 9 innings.
McCarthy’s ERA and WHIP were better, but McCarthy had a BABIP 40 points lower (.274 v .315) this explains why his opponents BA was 33 points lower (.255 v .288)
delving deeper, we see that Holland’s G/FB ratio was a bit better, but still tilted towards fly balls, but allowed many more homers on fly balls than McCarthy. Their percentage of line drives allowed was virtually identical.
Holland’s home run rate of 1.7 per 9 seems anomalous, as his minor league average was 0.4 In other news, the fact that a 22 year old maintained a 2.8 – 1 K/BB rate despite his high ERA. His minor league rate was 3.8 – 1.
Pretty much every indicator screams that Holland is a stud in the making. That’s over and above the fact that he’s left handed, throws hard, and has great control.
by iblum on Nov 16, 2009 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And if the season is about contending
I am starting the season with McCarthy. If he struggles or gets injured or someone else does then Holland is the first callup. Remember he only had one AAA appearance so a little AAA time isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I love Hollands future and I think it will be very bright. I think Next year McCarthy is the better pitcher however so I would stick Holland in AAA until the first setback of someone else. Plus it helps limit his innings which I think will still be an issue next year.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 16, 2009 6:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Peter King might be the biggest dork in sports
I know this isn’t the forum, but it is the largest collection of ball-busters I know so I figured you would get a kick out of this -
Am I the only person that finds humor in this piece from Peter Kings MMQB today:
“10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Department of Redundancy Department: ESPN’s Jesse Palmer referred to the Western Athletic Conference as the "WAC Conference’’ Saturday night. Does he know he was saying the "Western Athletic Conference Conference?‘’ If you say the WAC, you’re saying Western Athletic Conference. But Palmer added an extra "conference’’ on the end. Same as announcers who call the Mid-American Conference the "MAC Conference.’’
He goes on a rant about redundancy and then is redundant in his explanation. He could have stopped after his sentence beginning “Does he know…”, but instead he kept going going with the extra example. [0k, the last sentence I wrote was meant to be my own form of humor in being redundant in pointing out the irony in his rant on redundancy— get it? Because I complaining about his pot calling the kettle black and then I proceeded to do the very same thing!]
Jack Daddy
by Jack Daddy on Nov 16, 2009 4:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
there's an entire site mocking peter king
it’s called kissingsuzykolber.com
they mock his mmqb column every week
by studcrackers on Nov 17, 2009 1:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
