Stat of the Day
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 14, 2009 10:39 AM CDT
Email
PrintIf the Rangers go .500 the rest of the way, they would win 90 games on the season.
Here's a list of the Rangers' best season, in terms of wins, since coming to Arlington:
| Year | Record |
| 1999 | 95-67 |
| 1977 | 94-68 |
| 1996 | 90-72 |
| 2004 | 89-73 |
| 1998 | 88-74 |
| 1986 | 87-75 |
| 1978 | 87-75 |
| 1993 | 86-76 |
There's a really good chance that this team is going to end the season with the third-highest win total in team history.
I'm not sure if that says more about the 2009 Rangers, or about the history of baseball in Arlington.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Much more about...
…the years 1972-2008.
Or as they should be known: “The Years Most of Us Had Never Seen Neftali Feliz”
I have no objection to man walking on the moon.
Ranger history
Shall hereafter be defined in terms of “B.N.” (Before Neftali) and “A.N.” (After Neftali).
"I cannot believe how fucking off base I was about Tiny E before this season. The Kid is great and is going to become a star."
- Wails
by RCCook on Sep 14, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
1977 94-68
what happened in 1978? thats my big worry…
by mikeyoungfuturehof on Sep 14, 2009 11:00 AM CDT reply actions
I'm not sure but...
…I looked at the Rangers 1978 page on BR and the first thing that jumped out at me was that a total of only 13 pitchers appeared for Texas that year.
This year we have already sent 23 different men to the hill.
Last year the number was 30. In 2007 it was 25.
Times have changed.
I have no objection to man walking on the moon.
by Chad Crudup on Sep 14, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
yeah i looked it up too
TEX 87 75
man that had to be a rough time period as a baseball fan with 2 divisions?! losing out on a playoff berth with 94 wins, worse then or now?
by mikeyoungfuturehof on Sep 14, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions
1978 was among the most disappointing Ranger seasons ever.
They won 94 games the year previous with a bunch of good young players in their prime, That off-season they traded for Fergie (second swim thru Texas) Al Oliver & Jon Matlack and signed Richie Zisk & Doc Medich as free agents. Zisk hit a 2 run, 2 out, walk-off HR off Gossage on Opening Day (on national television) and we appeared to be world beaters.
Started off something like 3-11 got back to .500 but stayed there most of the year.
A month into the season they traded for Bobby Bonds (who I absolutely loved). Still don’t really know why they lost but Toby Harrah & Mike Hargrove both had bad years (traded the next season).
The 87-75 record was a facade because they were mostly a .500 team for the season but won 12 of their last 13 games to make it look better than it was.
That’s why everybody really needs to enjoy 2009.
"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 Sep 14, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
It says a little of both,
because, as sorry as the history is, no one expected this year’s club to rate so highly in that sordid tale.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
90 wins is a very good season
and nothing to be disappointed about at all.
I remember the nonsensical arguments pre-season and even into May and June that the AL West was so weak that the winner would probably have less than 90 wins. Obviously, one cannot expect the mainstream baseball press to recognize the AL West for having potential, but I’m looking forward to some sort of serious self-reflection from the folks claiming that computer models can project performance with any degree of accuracy. They completely blew the West – LAA (who’ll most likely have 95-100 wins), Texas (who’ll likely have 90+), Seattle (finish above .500), and the disaster of Oakland (who several models were saying could do the best).
Frankly, I too would have thought if the Rangers had played this well (probably will finish with 91 or 92 wins) that they’d be closer than they’ll end up being (4-5 out, most likely). But LAA is a good team, much to our intellectual chagrin, and we need to all learn not to write them off.
Go Rice Owls!
It's not like human predictors
beat computer models handily though. Trying to predict the unpredictable is a tough gig.
"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
I think human predictions are equally pointless
They are fun discussion starters, nothing more. My problem with the computer models is that many people take them as gospel, and when you try to criticize them rationally they get protective and whiny.
Really, predicting the MLB season is just foolish endeavor (there is a reason people prefer gambling on football than baseball). Baseball is a very noisy sport, and not much separates good teams from bad (which is why bad teams still win 40% of games). To think that any model can overcome this noise, especially the incredibly simple systems people try to use, is silliness. Of course, that is just my opinion. Don’t cross post this to BtB, I’ll get reamed over there.
Go Rice Owls!
x
many people take them as gospel,
I don’t believe that’s the case.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 14, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I've always thought
predictions in general were something fun to do, and they tell people that the game is fairly unpredictable.
I also think the way you grade prediction systems isn’t based on some absolute grading system, but do they beat the spread enough times to be profitable. Based on that, blowing the Rangers record or the Angels record this year is no big thing.
"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
it says a lot to assholes like ian kinsler about why there's low attendance
defeatist pussy lives here
by sam in so cal on Sep 14, 2009 11:05 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
he brought it up twice i brought it up twice
defeatist pussy lives here
by sam in so cal on Sep 14, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions
he's right
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Sep 14, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions
A great year
This has been a great year even if we don’t make the playoffs. My concern is that it becomes like 2005 – everyone excited by the 2004 season only to drift back down in the division the next year. Hopefully all the young talent will keep us in the mix, but I am worried about a couple of things.
Our financial situation. We need to fill some holes and there is no money. Is there some reason why Mark Cuban has not been mentioned seriously as a potential buyer – did MLB just tell him after the Cubs effort that he will never be an owner? We need a deep pocket owner with a real desire to win.
I’m afraid that the Angels will be active in the market and improve an already very good team. Also worry that the Mariners (who will be clearing some deadwood) will be active in the FA market and make better investments this time. They could pass us up now that they have a decent team and better leadership.
I think Boston will also spend, and improve. So, we will be behind the Angels, possibly the Mariners in the AL West and have either NY or Boston as hurdles to the wild card, not to mention the Rays.
We need some help for this talented young team and I don’t think we get any this year.
Foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds - Emerson
Yes
Because he said he does not what them.
The 2009 Texas Rangers offense: sigh...
by Kinslerhomer on Sep 14, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Cuban
Yep- he’s said numerous times that he has zero interest in buying the Rangers. And there’s no way Budzilla and the other crusty old guys that run MLB would let Cuban into their club.
"I cannot believe how fucking off base I was about Tiny E before this season. The Kid is great and is going to become a star."
- Wails
I do not share your worries
1. Our financial situation -
We don’t need to fill THAT many holes (maybe a DH). This team will get better as younger players get better.
2. Angels lose a LOT (Lackey, Figgins, Abreu, Guerrero). While I’m sure they’ll look to resign 1-2 of them, they won’t be able to keep all of those guys, and they may not even want too. I think the addition of Kazmir means Lackey leaves for sure.
3. I don’t think the plan should ever be to win the wild card. It should always be about the division, and I think the Rangers are set up to be in contention for the next 5-6 years while the Angels should be on the decline and the Mariners still have no offense.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
