A Question/Ranking Opportunity
by clark on Apr 14, 2009 9:22 AM CDT
29 comments
Okay, this may come off as piling on after this four game debacle we all just witnessed, but this actually stems from a conversation I had with some friends here in Houston at an Astros game when the Rangers sat at 2-0 on the year. As you may imagine and/or have witnessed yourself, a person can take a fair amount of shit for being a transplanted Rangers fan, but lately I have been quick to come back with the retort that our farm system ranks number one in baseball and that our organization is clearly trending upwards. Anyway, our conversation quickly turned to trying to identify the most futile, hapless franchise in baseball history over the course of each respective team’s lifespan. Ultimately, it was decided that it depends on if you want to allow a franchise to count prior cities and identities (as with the Rangers and the Senators), but for the sake of this conversation, we decided not to include past iterations because a fan base regenerates with each move (Nationals fans don’t care about the Expos’ struggles).
Without the Senators (and possibly even with their efforts), I was unable to give any good reason why the Rangers would not be the worst franchise in baseball. This may have been obvious to some, but it caught me off guard. It didn’t seem this clear 4 or 5 years ago, but with the relatively recent success of the Astros, Rockies and Rays, I think it has become pretty clear. In the AL, the Mariners were the closest with three division titles and no WS appearances, but that 107 win season gave them a slight nod. A team like the Expos would have been our best chance to avoid the basement, but if you look only at the work of the Nationals, then the sample size is too small. Even long suffering teams (at least in my 25 year life to date) like the Pirates and Orioles had enough success earlier to slide comfortably above the Rangers. It was a sad realization, but ultimately, a small source of pride. I think we may be the best fans in baseball, because we have the greatest labor of love.
Did I forget anything that may change this dubious status?
0 recs |
29 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Previous post
There was a previous post that linked to a simple binomial distribution analysis that showed that the Rangers’ failures over the last 3 decades was the worst in sports history (even worse than Cubbies lack of a WS in 100 years).
While simplistic in it’s assumptions, it does show how simply bad the Rangers have been and was a pretty interesting read.
by Trickman on Apr 14, 2009 12:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
thank God the Mavs are going to
win the title this year and make me feel better about my obsession with DFW teams.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
by willamos2 on Apr 14, 2009 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hard to get the neurons pumping on this one while the Rangers are sucking.
JD: Adamant about 78 wins in 2009. Go Rangers!
by rooster on Apr 14, 2009 1:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
From a straight up success point of view
I think you’d have to be correct – the Rangers are the least successful baseball organization. Even if you include the Expos, they at least won a playoff series and had possibly the best team in baseball in 1994.
The mitigating factor is that the Rangers have never been a boring franchise. They’ve always put an exciting product on the field. Its hard to quantify that value – but anyone who is forced to watch a team like the Padres can understand what it means to watch a boring team.
Between 1989 and the present, its easy to argue that the Rangers have had at least one potential HOFer on their roster each year (Ryan, Pudge, Palmeiro, ARod, Teixeira/Young iffy present-day players). Guys like Sierra and Gonzalez were exciting young players with limitless potential while here. For a long while, the Rangers had a very impressive streak of at least one player starting the AllStar game, I think 2006 and 2007 were the first years since 1991 where there wasn’t a Ranger starter.
by JBImaknee on Apr 14, 2009 1:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
interesting point
but I would actually take it the other way. Not only are we the worst franchise, but we also are perhaps the most closely associated with steroids.
Looking back, that collection of dynamic, potential HOF players was one thing I always took solice in back in the ’90s. Even though they never lead to post season success, we were able to watch so many guys who looked like potential or even sure thing HOFs. However, at this point, of that group that included JuanGon, Pudge, Palmeiro, and Canseco, how many end up in the HOF after having their reps soiled by steroids? Probably just Pudge. If anything, it further hurts our rep as an org to be so closely associated with one of the worst periods in baseball history.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
by clark on Apr 14, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they keep obvious steroid users out
I doubt Pudge is getting in.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
by DJCahill on Apr 14, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but
it will probably come down to how much a player was generally liked by the fans and media. Whereas Juan and Canseco were often villainized, people have always loved Pudge. Plus, his ability to at least play beyond the 2004 breaking point and remain somewhat productive, even though it was pretty obvious he thinned out and became a lesser player, will help him a lot.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
by clark on Apr 14, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
Pudge will get in. If not, its because they pretty much don’t allow anyone who starred between 1990 and 2005 in. Which is a possibility, but I don’t think it happens. People simply don’t associate gold gloves with steroids.
McGwire is really the only real test case out there so far, and he’s a special one since his resume isn’t that strong outside the home runs. Palmeiro will be the real trial, since his resume is stronger than McGwire’s.
by JBImaknee on Apr 14, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what exactly do you mean by resume?
he’s obviously more well rounded than mcgwire but i just cant fathom with a 30 point differential in OPS+ how plameiro can be the better candidate. If you had asked this question before the steroid suspicion really started to fall mcgwire would have been a lock with palmeiro a near-lock pending a few more years of solid performance. now, mcgwire looks like he wont make it or wont for a number of years. i think because palmeiro wasnt really really great at any one thing the steroids thing will hurt him more. But regardless, Im curious what you mean by him having a stronger resume?
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Apr 14, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
500+ HRs 3000+ Hits
is a pretty damn strong resume.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
by DJCahill on Apr 14, 2009 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
absolutely
thats not really the question though
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Apr 14, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've always thought
that when it came to HoF that counting numbers, especially “non-SABR” counting numbers like RBIs, Hs, HRs, etc count for a heckuva lot more than OPS+.
Its always been my opinion that SABR stats were fairly useless for guessing who would, and who would not, make the Hall.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
by DJCahill on Apr 14, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes sense
Its something that time may erode – in 20 years, when the BBWAA begins to fill up with more SABR-savvy members I bet it will be a different story.
I think it works both ways though. The same writers who would have focused only on Palmeiro’s counting stats and put him in would have seen McGwire’s utter dominance and absurd home run numbers as enough to rubber stamp his hall candidacy. they dont need OPS+ to know how dangerous and feared he was as a hitter. i think they are sensitive to the fact that he played in considerably fewer games than Palmeiro, and while longevity is a plus, it pales in comparison to dominance. That’s why Koufax is a hall of famer and Moyer wont be.
Maybe I misinterpreted JB, but it seemed to me not that he was saying Palmeiro was more likely to get in because of some quirk in the voters’ attitudes, but that he was actually more deserving of hall candidacy, which I just dont agree with. steroids really convolutes the whole thing though.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Apr 14, 2009 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clark, don't bury the lede.
That said, Milwaukee and San Diego were the only others that came to mind.
It’s pretty much the Rangers as worst, at least in terms of playoff experience.
"[Font} doesn't turn 19 until the end of May and his heater can already hit 99 on the gun. That's baseball porn." - Jason Parks
by hightowersmith on Apr 14, 2009 1:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
that's good advice
I have always struggled with that.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
by clark on Apr 14, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
in all seriousness though
someone called up 1560 the Game (John and Lance) the other day in Houston and started asking for more Rangers talk, and the next 15 minutes was filled with Ranger insults from each of them and callers. It was tough to listen to because “#1 farm system” always gets trumped by playoff sucktitude.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
by willamos2 on Apr 14, 2009 1:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Because playoffs mean something
farm systems often don’t. Remember how the Angels were going to dominate with Kotchman, et al and the Mariners were going to dominate with all their pitchers?
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
by DJCahill on Apr 14, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the pitching
just makes us such an easy target. teams like the Padres or the Orioles have struggled for a while now, but has any team struggled with such a specific aspect for as long as the Rangers have struggled with pitching. It is fast becoming like death and taxes, and it leads to the sort of dismissive writing that we often complain about before the season begins.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
by clark on Apr 14, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've thought we were the worst franchise
in baseball anyway.
The Rays going to the World Series last year pretty much clinched it for me. The Senators one a postseason series (granted, it was due to a strike) in ’81. Every other franchise has one a series. The Rangers have won exactly one post season game.
Additionally, in pure W-L % for a franchise, only Tampa Bay (.418), and San Diego (.462) are worse than the Rangers (.468) but both have played in the World Series, although neither has won it.
So, before last year, I would have given Tampa Bay the nod for the worst franchise, their world series appearance though has, in my mind, made the Rangers the worst franchise in baseball. Should the Rangers go to the World Series, Tampa Bay would probably switch back to the worst franchise.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
by DJCahill on Apr 14, 2009 1:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If the Rangers go to the WS...
I would consider the M’s the worst franchise in baseball.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Apr 14, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we should really consider them our rival
for this exact reason. we are literally fighting to fend off the title of worst franchise in baseball.
we should make a “silver boot”-like competition out of it each year.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
by clark on Apr 14, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They certainly are in the running,
and with no WS appearances, would definitely have a strong case.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
by DJCahill on Apr 14, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
all good points
but even after a hot year, the Rays have to be close to the bottom, if for no other reason than that horrible stadium and their fans who, even while the Rays were tearing up the AL, weren’t showing up for games…
Grieve: The Yanks have struggled so far. - Lewin: Yeah, cry me a bag of money.
ElectricOkra.com
by WhipSmart on Apr 14, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They had 37K
for their home opener. Lets see how their attendance holds up this year. You would expect their attendance to rise the year after a WS, since a lot of attendance is Season Tickets.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
by DJCahill on Apr 14, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's still 6K down from their all-time record
you would think they would sell-out the place for a home opener against the Yanks after their 2009 season…
but it’s just one game… I’m really interested to see how the rest of the year plays out for them..
Grieve: The Yanks have struggled so far. - Lewin: Yeah, cry me a bag of money.
ElectricOkra.com
by WhipSmart on Apr 14, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
*2008 season
didn’t mean to make a prediction there…
Grieve: The Yanks have struggled so far. - Lewin: Yeah, cry me a bag of money.
ElectricOkra.com
by WhipSmart on Apr 14, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'm confused about your Senators comment.
I mean. They just make us look even worse. If we’re the worst franchise, we’re definitely the worst with their “contributions.”
by philkid3 on Apr 14, 2009 1:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I guess i was thinking of the first Senators team that eventually moved to Minnesota…they did win a championship, I believe. The ten year run of the second Senators team didn’t offer much, so you’re right, if we include them, it’s even worse.
I didn’t put a ton of research into this post. It was mostly just a recap of a conversation had at a baseball game and with a few beers involved.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
by clark on Apr 14, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we certainly have a case
for one of the worst 5 franchises in sports. but in the near 21 years ive been alive we’ve never the worst team, we’ve just kinda there. a mediocre-below average team for the most part with a couple bright spots. should we be annoyed that we’re never the worst team in the league but near the middle of the pack?
oh and ive been thinking about this idea for awhile, who wants to co-write a modern day adaptation for the play ‘Damn Yankees’? it works perfect, all you have to do is update the storyline of the senators, say they moved to texas and had years upon years of suckitude and bam the story works the same as the original.
go here to view my blog: http://dirtfromd.blogspot.com
by studcrackers on Apr 14, 2009 3:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
