Ranger players' values vs. Ranger players' contracts
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 8, 2009 10:21 AM CDT
Email
PrintBeyond the Box Score has a story up, replete with a detailed graph, looking at difference between what each Ranger player has done this season, compared to what they are being paid.
Not surprisingly, the biggest positive gaps are for guys like Elvis Andrus, Nelson Cruz, and Scott Feldman, but there are some surprises, both on the high end and the low end.
Interesting stuff...check it out...
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Justin Bopp
could afford to learn a little bit about the use of contrast in presentations.
Black print on a charcoal grey background?
"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
No kidding.
The pretty colors are irrelevant if we can’t read the names.
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
yea, not the easiest read
"The House That Ruth Built, 85 years old, goes out as The House That Hamilton Knocked Down"
And content versus context
Blalock is used as a thematic example. But there is no Blalock line on the chart.
I’d also quibble that valuation versus contract is simply a set of facts, and isn’t inclusive of a rationale to keep or be rid of a player (obvious economic factors notwithstanding). In specific cases it may be important to rate value versus contract, but what looms large is that contracts can trump performance in terms of player retention. I’d even think it’s possible to show up better on the chart by spending less for similar talent at the risk of falling behind in both the developmental and current year win-loss capacity.
Interesting, but definitely not illuminating.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Sep 8, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Woops the graph now shows Blalock and Padilla
And is lighter gray background. Not sure why it was cut off when I first viewed the linked article.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Sep 8, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions
BTB has documented lots of issues with uploading graphs to SBN.
They’ve said in the past that the upload function will automatically resize graphs and, in some cases, has cut off portions of graphs as well. I don’t think it was the author’s fault in this instance.
Trade Young and Cruz?
I think he is missing the point of building a baseball team. The point is not to have the highest Value Over Contract total, the point is to build a baseball team that can win and hopefully still be in position to keep winning next year, and the year after.
It is fine to suggest trading Young, but you only do that if:
- the return is of decent value, a questionable proposition in the current climate where younger players are valued very highly
- you have a plan to replace Young’s production at 3B with some equivalent combo of offense and defense,
- you convince the rest of the guys in the dugout and fans that the money you’re saving on his contract is going to be used on a player who will have an immediate impact at the major league level — and then act on that pledge
Cruz is a lot easier to trade, obviously. But Young is an icon of sorts around these parts and you don’t trade him solely because of Value Over Contract. That is indeed a very important part of a team’s chances of success, but individual players require individual decisions, not a formula.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
am i missing why we need to trade Cruz?
(Wife) "So what do you want to watch on the T.V.? UFC or porn?"
(Husband) "Hmm... well, porn, I guess."
Cruz
I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that his value now is as high as it has ever been and ever will be, and the Rangers could be better off with an outfield of Borbon, Hamilton, and a Murphy/Boggs or Murphy/Byrd (if they do bring him back) platoon, plus whatever Cruz brings in trade, than with a Borbon, Hamilton, and Cruz OF with Murphy as the 4th outfielder.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 8, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Cruz
One questions, however, is what do you trade him for. Assuming you aren’t going to try to upgrade over Hamilton or Borbon in the OF, or any of the infield positions, you are really left to deal him for a catcher, starting pitcher or relief pitcher. I don’t think you deal a .900 OPS OF for a catcher or relief pitcher, and do we really need to trading hitting for pitching at this point. I think the biggest upgrade you would get for him would be an upgrade over a Murphy/Boggs platoon in LF; i.e., you don’t trade him. Additionally, if you trade him and sign Byrd for LF, you spend about $4.5 million more (plus the cost of whoever you trade for), so you could just use that money to sign a relief pitcher instead.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 8, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
+1
I’d rather look at trading Murphy for a decent reliever.
Hank is the elephant in the room. When will he disappear?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 8, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions
yea, me too
he’s easily replaceable, Cruz’s overall production would be nearly impossible to replace
"The House That Ruth Built, 85 years old, goes out as The House That Hamilton Knocked Down"
other than young
cruz has been the most consistent bat on this team.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
And the talented and respected Ian Kinsler
Will be a 30 – 30 guy and get more positive press as a result. Just the way things are perceived.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Sep 8, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
I think we'd all rather trade Murphy...
but I don’t know if anyone gives us more than a high-ceiling low-A reliever prospect in return. Don’t we have tons of these guys already?
This is a tough scenario for me overall. I think the author’s point makes me think of Oakland: sell high on everyone. Obviously, it worked out very well for them for a while, but I think you also have to weigh negative fanbase (average fan, at least) reactions against the positives of a prospect.
Right now, I definitely think our outfield is set between Cruz, Hamilton, and Borbon. Ideally, I’d like to see Borbon shift Hammy to a corner spot. In past years, I would’ve said “let’s roll with a Boggs/Murphy platoon”, but Boggs hasn’t done much this year offensively, even at AAA. I wonder if he’s just going to be a middling-average, high OBP guy who doesn’t have much pop at all. I think we all know what David Murphy is, too.
I’m sure the platoon would increase their respective values significantly, but since I don’t think we have platoon splits for WAR values (or wOBA, although I guess we could calculate it easily enough), it’s tough to say.
I think our scenarios come down to this:
1. Trade Cruz, roll with Boggs/Murphy platoon, with the other platoon member playing the fouth OF role in an injury situation.
2. Re-sign Byrd as a fourth OF, and attempt to deal either Boggs or Murphy.
3. Let Byrd walk, and pick either Boggs or Murphy (probably Murphy at this point) for your fourth OF.
We could've traded Murphy for Edwin Jackson last year.
by TooLegitToQuit on Sep 8, 2009 2:07 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
No
Joyce is better then Murphy. They would not have done that deal.
The 2009 Texas Rangers offense: sigh...
That is kind of my worry about trading Cruz
The main “needs” for next year are DH, C, and relief pitching. Starting pitching is always useful as well.
At catcher, you’d have to think that the Rangers are going to try to go it with a combination of Tea, Salty, MaxRam and maybe someone like Pudge/other old guy.
So you really are stuck with Cruz for pitching. The only way I can see Cruz returning starting pitching is as an upgrade to an existing pitcher. i.e., Cruz+Feldman for Cain. And I don’t know if I want to do that type of deal. But given that the level of starting pitching on this team has reached a point where simply acquiring a league-average pitcher isn’t a huge upgrade, I don’t know if you can get a starter for Cruz alone. And Cruz for reliever seems sketchy too.
I guess my problem is this. Cruz is the type of player who only really has value to teams who want to compete in the next 2-3 years. And those teams aren’t going to trade the types of players the Rangers would want.
The only way I think I deal Cruz, barring a blow away SP offer, is for a very high ceiling AA bat. Aka the Wallace for Holliday deal, but for someone better than Wallace.
Go Rice Owls!
You can make that argument...
but you would be wrong. This team needs Nellie’s RH bat in the middle of that lineup. Also, let us not forget how good he has been defensively.
Cruz >>>>>> Murphy/Boggs platoon.
I’m not saying he’s “off limits”, but I would have to get one hell of a good player(s) in return to deal Nelson Cruz.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Sure
I agree, Cruz is much better than a Murphy/Boggs platoon.
But the question is what Cruz could fetch, plus the Murphy/Boggs platoon.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 8, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
What do you think Cruz could get?
within a small prospect either way to balance it out.
Give an example of a current starter and a prospect.
I think we all think he could return a lot, but really, I have no idea what “a lot” is.
Go Rice Owls!
(and the starter and prospect examples as different trades)
not the same deal, obviously…
Go Rice Owls!
The best name I've heard thrown out there
is Carl Crawford, but I don’t want a soon-to-be FA and I don’t want to trade 1-for-1 at the same position bc of our good our team chemistry is as-is.
The best we could hope, imo and as said above, is an elite starting pitcher for cruz +, but (a) I don’t think we’ll be able to pull this off, and (b) it doesn’t seem like the smartest idea to upgrade our pitching at the expense of our bats at this point
Of course...
but like I said, Cruz would have to bring back quite a valuable piece(s) to justify dealing him. As others have said the needs for this team are pitching, catching, and a high OBP type DH.
Unless Nellie is bringing you back a TORP I’m not dealing him. Even if he does decline some, he contract staus and performance, makes him very valuable for the next couple years. As much as this offense has struggled this year I think it would be a huge mistake to deal one of your best offensive weapons.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
x
don’t you at some point have to say “OK, I got my right fielder.” ? Are you just trading the player (anyone) who at their highest value because they are now at their highest value? just curious…
I soloed in the Mile High Club!
when arguably our biggest need
is on the offensive side, what would we get for Cruz that wouldn’t help us more than harm us?
Considering
this team’s anemic offense appears to be one of the bigger problems, I’m not sure trading Cruz would bring back more in return than just playing him.
I think Murphy has shown why he is a 4th/platoon OF, and Boggs may not even be a major leaguer. Byrd has played pretty well while here, but I imagine he is going to want a fortune in the FA market, and I don’t blame him.
"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
Cruz
I think keeping him is most likely the best answer as well.
The only think I can think of that might make sense is something for Josh Johnson. He’s in his arbitration years, so there’s always the chance the Marlins won’t pay him, and they could put a lot of value in a pre-arbitration OF like Cruz. Cruz, a catcher and a starting pitcher might be something that would at least get them to consider moving him.
That said, I think that’s a very unlikely scenario.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 8, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
The only reason the author cites
is Nellie’s age. The author thinks that at age 28 Nellie has peaked. But what the author didn’t account for was how cheap Cruz will still be in the next 3-4 years even as he declines.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Mitch Moreland -Tom Grieve Rangers Minor League Player of the Year
Martin Perez - Nolan Ryan Rangers Minor League Pitcher of the Year
If Vegas tooks bets on this sort of thing
I’d put the odds of a Cruz trade at 1-1 this coming offseason.
Go Rice Owls!
I'd be shocked
does the organization think he’s Ryan Ludwick II? I’d have to think that his minor league numbers and raw power support him being able to do this for awhile. I just can’t think of a trade that makes sense involving Cruz.
I'd even question the anticipated decline
Approaching 30, Cruz is both one of the strongest and fastest players on the team. Ref stories about his weightroom burden and Anrus’ comments about two of the big guys being faster. If you are willing to compare him to a track and field equivalent or similarity, use Alberto Juantorena. Juantorena was a Cuban Olympian who ran the long sprints and middle distances, a large framed fast guy who stayed world class up to age 33. Like Cruz, he had been a basketball player as a kid and only got into his premier sport after being spotted in his late teens.
I think I would trust the player years in the sport span a little more than the chronological age typicals.
Link about Juantorena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Juantorena
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Sep 8, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed- Salary is all relative to your own team...
When Arod was here, he was holding more then his own despite the contract, it’s just that the team couldn’t realistically bear the contract on a losing team. That doesn’t mean he was worth more or less as a player.
Young’s salary although quite large, will not hinder the team AS LONG as he stays productive like he has been this year. The only reason people were down on Young was because they thought he was in a sharp decline. I think a healthy season this year has people a little more calm on that front.
by slimshadty12 on Sep 8, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
"Healthy"
I guess that’s a bad word considering he’s out as of now, but I would consider him healthy compared to playing with 2 broken fingers all last season.
by slimshadty12 on Sep 8, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
It seemed a lot of hand wringing last year took place
because so many LSB’ers didn’t like the contract. A lot of y’all said, “here comes the decline,” as he played poorly in the field and at the plate. It seemed obvious to me since MY had two broken fingers that he should be on the DL. MY wouldn’t have it(insert warrior chant here). Playing hurt will make any player worse, and imo, its a sign of being stupid and selfish(generally speaking)or in other words, douchey.
Imo, MY is simply continuing his career. He should be having a career year this year as he is STILL in his prime. I agree on the contract(it is a bad contract), but it doesn’t mean the player sucks. UZR and the like don’t like him in the field. No doubt. It is hard to debate that, but when I see him play, I don’t see a bad defender. I went to a recent game against Minnesota. I came away impressed by the way he played 3b. Yes, I’ve only seen 10-15 games which does equal SSS but, I’m having diffuculty reconcilling the differing opinions of the players vs. the metrics. Why do so many players and coaches respect his play? It can’t be all he plays the “right way,” “he looks like a player,” or his charity work.
MY is solid and according to this article plays well above his contract. He definately has douche tendencies (like almost all pro athletes), but he ain’t no Chan Ho or Barry Zito.
Your 2009 Snow Monkey Ambassador
Still in his prime
32 is generally considered to be past a player’s prime years, not during them.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 8, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions
25-29
Generally thought to be a position player’s price years.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 8, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I can see that in Football due to all the contact.
Knee and shoulder as they are. I would even go as far as to agree about pitchers, but position players, I can’t see it. I know recovery gets worse by 29 (my own experience on that one), but, ceterus paribas, I can’t see an athletic decline measurable enough until at least 32.
Your 2009 Snow Monkey Ambassador
Well
The 25-29 range is based on the studies Bill James did. He showed that 27 is generally the peak year for positional players, and the top performance was from 25-29.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 8, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I think people get confused on this
because they see guys like Jim Thome or whatever, but don’t realize that those types are the rare exceptions, not the norms.
Check out Pat Burrell’s decline this year, at age 32, for instance.
Hank is the elephant in the room. When will he disappear?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 8, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions
I would think this would be his last or next to last year
where something “special may happen.” After that, yeah definate errosion.
Your 2009 Snow Monkey Ambassador
Just speculatively
I’d put general decline at age 35 maybe even age 36 (barring major injury). He isn’t the extreme mesomorphic body type that breaks down, nor the ageless whippet like Omar, somewhere in between. Things can happen though – the eyes can suddenly go from 30/15 to 20/40, injuries to knees or spine can partly disable a player, etc. He wouldn’t actually be an outlier if he holds up 4 more years.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Sep 8, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions
you're right of course
Ultimately, a player’s “value” to a team is worth more than just his performance on the field. There is developmental value (value that won’t be recognized until future years; as with guys like Holland, Davis and even Andrus). There is fan value – people fans will pay to watch (or as you say, won’t pay if they can’t watch), like Young. If the VOC for Young was -$2.5 million/year, he’d still be a bargain for this team probably.
A team needs to maximize Value, not VOC. Maximizing VOC assumes that by adding players, your denominator (the amount of money you can pay) doesn’t change as well.
Go Rice Owls!
True.
Although for some reason, I don’t see him being a great teacher of the game (Omar looks like someone who teaches). Yound appears to be a good teammate who is well respected, but not someone you would go to as a young player and get advice all the time. Just an observation from me.
I do agree keeping Young and his value is much more than just his contract. He sells tickets for all the old ladies who love him (kind of like Pudge) and his jersey sells really well. Most really successful teams seem to have that one guy who is the face of the team. Young should be our for at least the next 3-4 years.
Give me team chemistry and emotion over stats any day. Do you think 34,000 Ranger fans were screaming their asses off over Pudge and his .275 OBP?
Surprise at the low end?
Blalock, Padilla, and Davis? Those have been the 3 worst players on the team, and ordered there by the weight of their contracts. Pretty expected…
Go Rice Owls!
Boggs and Davis
Mainly because their salaries are so low to start with, you wouldn’t figure their negative would be that high.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 8, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Well,
It is just saying that by playing a replacement player, the Rangers would have been a lot better off. I don’t think it is surprising, given how bad Davis was (Boggs is somewhat surprising, because I didn’t feel like he was playing that much).
I don’t necessarily agree with this, and think it is indicative of a limitation (flaw?) of this perspective. This type of analysis is looking too narrow time-wise, if you maximize over one year, then you’re much better off playing replacement players over rookies with potential. Playing Davis and Boggs is like going to college, you lose money in the short term while betting in the long-term you’ll make money.
Go Rice Owls!
pre-arb
Do we know if the model controls for a player being pre-arbitration? If it does that will put downward preasure on their expected contract holding performance equal. So if their performance is pretty crappy (statistically) that would push their expected value lower.
by tdi1985 on Sep 8, 2009 11:46 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I think the formula is this
Player value = (WAR*$/win)
Player cost = Salary ($)
VOC = Player value – Player cost
So someone like Davis is only getting $300K subtracted from his total; whereas Hank is getting $6 million subtracted. Since they are about -$5 million each, it says Hank has probably been worth around replacement level (though paid a lot more), whereas Davis has been about $5 million worse than a replacement level.
Don’t see why they would normalize players for being pre-arb or pre-free agent.
Go Rice Owls!
Controlling for pre-arb/pre-FA
Well, I guess I was thinking of doing this slightly differently (using a hedonic pricing model), in which I would control for player status to help explain actual contracts, and to help estimate what player’s should be paid for their performance.
I guess there is a difference between player value and the contract value you should give a player for their performance. The latter would hinge on their status, because even if their value is $25/year, if they are pre-arb… a team is certainly not going to give them that amount. But the hedonic model would still allow you to show much their contract value would be if you took their performance and said they were not pre-arb.
Oh well, just a thought.
These numbers are skewed by players with ML contracts that play a substantial amount of time in the minors
Salty’s positioning on that list goes to show that at-bats and playing in the field can get you value even if you don’t make the most of the PT
Davis, though
has by far the cheapest contract among those three, so his value over contract is, to me, just awful. By contrast, Michael Young has a big contract and is still providing value above that amount at least for this year, I agree that it’s pretty unlikely he’ll continue to do so.
Looking at the bigger picture, it seems likely that over the entirety of his Rangers career, Young will provide much more value than he has been paid. He has thus far provided much, much more value than he cost, and even if he declines precipitously, he might provide more value over his entire career than the cost of his contract.
That’s not a good way for a team to plan for the future, or even the present, but projections of that type of value might be of use to teams when making future plans for a guy like Andrus. “Overpaying” an all-star level player doesn’t being to happen until they are already well into their free agency years in the long term picture.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
re long-term values
I think that is the only way you can use these numbers as anything more than just an amusing set of stats to discuss. If you look at a guy like Andrus and you say "through age 27, he’ll be worth X dollars (/- x), and we’ll probably have to pay him $Y (/- y) through arbitration, etc; so it is worth offering him $Z as an extension.
Go Rice Owls!
That's sort of what I'm getting at
I think this eval is an excellent tool for looking at this year only, but has more value in team decision making if you’re also combining it with evaluating plans for long term contracts, arbitration decisions, etc. I’m certain that most teams are using this type of tool when deciding on offering a potential free agent arbitration vs. taking the draft picks (knowing the average value those picks would bring).
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Especially with a productive year...
That’s the equivalent for us (although on a much smaller scale) of the Yanks trying to trade Jeter on a high after a great season. Just not happening.
by slimshadty12 on Sep 8, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
yea, i wish people would understand things like this when they start telling everyone they should
trade such and such guy… as much as it might seem to make sense in a perfect vacuum, it makes no sense in reality
"The House That Ruth Built, 85 years old, goes out as The House That Hamilton Knocked Down"
Young
I think most people realize Young can’t be traded, for three reasons:
1. He has negative value when considering the contract
2. He has a no-trade clause
3. The PR considerations
by Darrell McKown on Sep 8, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions
His no trade clause has a window
I believe. I think a few months in 2011 before he gets 5/10 rights.
Not advocating anything, just saying…
Go Rice Owls!
Young's no-trade clause
It’s full no-trade through the end of this year, then limited no-trade until he gets 10-5 rights at some point in 2011 (I believe he can list 8 that he’d accept a trade to). So while he technically could be traded without his consent, it’s a pretty tight window, FWIW.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 8, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
you can't trade face!
"I hope a bartender appears, with a shot and a beer everytime ya holler, cause yeah man, that's lucky"-Pat Green
Can't trade him from a pure financial perspective, either.
If we could, he probably wouldn’t be here right now.
Hank is 7 runs below a zombie replacement at first base. Do you realize how terrible that is? Zombie’s can’t think, they’re slow, and they’re often ejected from the game for eating opposing baserunners’ brains. - Ben quantifies Hank Blalock
by LSJ on Sep 8, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions
OT. WTF?
ed_price: #TIgers P Fernando Rodney suspended 3 games for throwing ball into press box after saving Sept. 4 game at Tampa Bay
The 2009 Texas Rangers offense: sigh...
I always thought...
it was “feel-good story” not “field-good story”.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
lol
I think that was a lame attempt at making a pun (?)
Must kill Moe. Weeeeeeeee
by Baseball North on Sep 8, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Young
My prediction is that his next 3 years will mirror the last three when he was at shortstop: declining offensive production, improving defense. I think he’ll remain an above average player for his position. In all, when his time and salary are taken into account, Young will have contributed excellent value for the Rangers.
"Was this really necsarry?" - cowpoke/hurler hurley
hell that would be ideal
I would not mind a Young that hits in the .270s or .280s with improved defense
And mankind is naught but a single nation - Qu'ran 2:213
Young's value
“In all, when his time and salary are taken into account, Young will have contributed excellent value for the Rangers.”
I don’t think there’s much doubt about that. However, I don’t think that will hold true for the 5-year period covered by his extension.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 8, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Putting the Rangers "DVD" Era Drafts in Perspective by Evan:
The 2009 Texas Rangers offense: sigh...
Seriously. Hank is tired of Carrying -this Thing- Micheal Young.
Give me team chemistry and emotion over stats any day. Do you think 34,000 Ranger fans were screaming their asses off over Pudge and his .275 OBP?
Damn it, how do you do the strike through? Ace Fail.
Give me team chemistry and emotion over stats any day. Do you think 34,000 Ranger fans were screaming their asses off over Pudge and his .275 OBP?
look for this button
http://cdn1.sbnation.com/javascripts/vendor/tiny_mce_3_0_7/plugins/sbnwidget/images/strike.v1308.png
Hank is the elephant in the room. When will he disappear?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 8, 2009 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Cruz is the prototypical cleanup, imo
And I think we need to keep him
I also think a lineup with:
MY, Kinsler, Cruz, Hamilton, Elvis, CD, Borbon, Salty/Tea for several years is bonerific.
And I think that is 6 could-be perennial all-stars (salty & borbon being the exceptions)
plus
Feliz
Harrison
Holland
Hunter
Feldman
McCarthy
Nippert
BTW, if Salty ever lives up to his hype… he could be an all-star. remember he is VERY young
A 350 obp with 12 HRs and solid defense is all star material for a catcher
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.
OT: Watching Rookie of the Year on AMC.
I can’t help but think of Derek Holland when I see Henry Rowengartner.
by TooLegitToQuit on Sep 8, 2009 2:09 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I can see it.
Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else - and it hasn't - it's that girls should stick to girls' sports, such as hot-oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such-and-such.
Rock Flag & Eagle Radio: Thursdays, 10 PM - 1 AM, on FM 88.7 The Choice, or online @ ktcu.net!
by Maximilian on Sep 8, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Kinsler's contract is insanely good.
Hank is 7 runs below a zombie replacement at first base. Do you realize how terrible that is? Zombie’s can’t think, they’re slow, and they’re often ejected from the game for eating opposing baserunners’ brains. - Ben quantifies Hank Blalock
Didn't he get it done early without his agent?
Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else - and it hasn't - it's that girls should stick to girls' sports, such as hot-oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such-and-such.
Rock Flag & Eagle Radio: Thursdays, 10 PM - 1 AM, on FM 88.7 The Choice, or online @ ktcu.net!
Josh doing the fist pump = me doing a facepalm.
Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else - and it hasn't - it's that girls should stick to girls' sports, such as hot-oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such-and-such.
Rock Flag & Eagle Radio: Thursdays, 10 PM - 1 AM, on FM 88.7 The Choice, or online @ ktcu.net!
One, thanks for the input -- Justin made some changes to the graph based on it.
Two, thanks for providing much better commentary (including criticism) than that Dallas online newspaper that also linked to the article. Whew, so glad this site is a part of SBN.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
