True. Odor might not ever get another hit, but I fully expect him to get hit.

quote:

---

True. Odor might not ever get another hit, but I fully expect him to get hit.

---

Why would he get hit by the Astros? If they have a problem w/ his slides from last season, they've had ample time to retaliate. Surely they wouldn't be hitting him because of the Bautista incident, regardless of how much the Astros fans rallied behind Bautista.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the slides(on the team). Even if they did the Astros don't retaliate. Hinch doesn't encourage it. If so the Astros surely would have retaliated against KC last year.

quote:

---

quote:

---

True. Odor might not ever get another hit, but I fully expect him to get hit.

---

Why would he get hit by the Astros? If they have a problem w/ his slides from last season, they've had ample time to retaliate. Surely they wouldn't be hitting him because of the Bautista incident, regardless of how much the Astros fans rallied behind Bautista.

---

I never said it would be the Astros that hit him. His antics will rub someone the wrong way and he will be wearing one. I thought it was funny seeing Bautista get punched. I think I hate him for his Color Me Bad beard.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

True. Odor might not ever get another hit, but I fully expect him to get hit.

---

Why would he get hit by the Astros? If they have a problem w/ his slides from last season, they've had ample time to retaliate. Surely they wouldn't be hitting him because of the Bautista incident, regardless of how much the Astros fans rallied behind Bautista.

---

I never said it would be the Astros that hit him. His antics will rub someone the wrong way and he will be wearing one. I thought it was funny seeing Bautista get punched. I think I hate him for his Color Me Bad beard.

---

And Odor will probably just trot on down to 1B

He never said, "by a pitch".

You are correct.

quote:

---

He never said, "by a pitch".

---

Generally when someone uses the term "wear one" they are implying he will wear a fastball.

quote:

---

Houston fans still calling the Rangers lucky these days?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Odor will be lucky to get out of this series without Altuve whipping his ass

---

If the punches are landed by Odor, Altuve, Odor, Odor, Odor will the Astros fans claim Odor was just lucky because of sequencing?

---

That's funny right there, don't care who ya arr

Rangers fans, honest question..

Do you expect Hamel to strand nearly 85% of his baserunners the rest of the season? Because that's what he has done so far. I wouldn't call it luck, as he's a great pitcher and pretty clutch, but that number is not sustainable. His FIP and xFIP are a point higher than his ERA which shows that there is POTENTIAL (not saying it's guaranteed) for pretty significant regression.

Your whole rotation is leading the league in outperforming their peripherals. It would be rare for all of them to sustain over the course of the whole season. Getting Darvish back helps, as he could assist in the normalizing of the numbers.

Would really depend on what his career numbers are with regards to stranding baserunners. Assuming his career #'s are below 85%, then yes, I'd expect that number to come down. He's also giving up an unusual number of HR and walks, so I'd expect it's just as likely that you'll see fewer opposing runners stranded, but also fewer baserunners from lowering his walk totals.

Heres an article kind of hitting on what a lot of us have been thinking.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-amazing-about-these-first-place-rangers/

1. Is it luck?
2. Are they performing incredibly well in enough places to overcome the differentials in expected outcomes vs true outcomes?
3. Does it even matter now that Darvish is back and guys they expected to perform well, but haven't, could still break out (making it virtually null that so many younger players might regress)?

I like the comment in the article about the Seattle games and hit sequencing. It's what Irishpete has been saying. Yall got literally five hits in a game, but all five came at once and were mixed in with an error to get you the exact 3 runs you needed to win.

Some people might perceive the word luck as an insult. I don't throw it out as an insult. I throw it out as a possible explanation to how your team has outperformed all of the measurable categories which suggest they should be a .500 club. It's a good thing, and it's not something that has to go away. A team can literally be lucky all season.

quote:

---

I like the comment in the article about the Seattle games and hit sequencing. It's what Irishpete has been saying. Yall got literally five hits in a game, but all five came at once and were mixed in with an error to get you the exact 3 runs you needed to win.

---

Using that game as evidence of "luck" ignores the fact that Seattle had 3 hits in the entire game. Rangers won a game in which they had more hits, had more baserunners, and the opposing team committed more errors.

quote:

---

Heres an article kind of hitting on what a lot of us have been thinking.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-amazing-about-these-first-place-rangers/

1. Is it luck?
2. Are they performing incredibly well in enough places to overcome the differentials in expected outcomes vs true outcomes?
3. Does it even matter now that Darvish is back and guys they expected to perform well, but haven't, could still break out (making it virtually null that so many younger players might regress)?

I like the comment in the article about the Seattle games and hit sequencing. It's what Irishpete has been saying. Yall got literally five hits in a game, but all five came at once and were mixed in with an error to get you the exact 3 runs you needed to win.

Some people might perceive the word luck as an insult. I don't throw it out as an insult. I throw it out as a possible explanation to how your team has outperformed all of the measurable categories which suggest they should be a .500 club. It's a good thing, and it's not something that has to go away. A team can literally be lucky all season.

---

Interesting article. I think the fact that the rangers have played defense at such a high level helps to explain why the pitchers are outperforming their peripherals. I think it's fair to say the catching production is unsustainable in its current form, but with chirinos returning it will not be in its current form. I also think that Maz is the real deal, but I guess one could argue that he's going to regress at some point.

Maz pops his head in this thread so it's got to be the umps fault at some point.

Astros, let me introduce you to Juricson Profar -- the next Ranger you are prolly gonna hate.

The astros thread is such comedy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Heres an article kind of hitting on what a lot of us have been thinking.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-amazing-about-these-first-place-rangers/

1. Is it luck?
2. Are they performing incredibly well in enough places to overcome the differentials in expected outcomes vs true outcomes?
3. Does it even matter now that Darvish is back and guys they expected to perform well, but haven't, could still break out (making it virtually null that so many younger players might regress)?

I like the comment in the article about the Seattle games and hit sequencing. It's what Irishpete has been saying. Yall got literally five hits in a game, but all five came at once and were mixed in with an error to get you the exact 3 runs you needed to win.

Some people might perceive the word luck as an insult. I don't throw it out as an insult. I throw it out as a possible explanation to how your team has outperformed all of the measurable categories which suggest they should be a .500 club. It's a good thing, and it's not something that has to go away. A team can literally be lucky all season.

---

Interesting article. I think the fact that the rangers have played defense at such a high level helps to explain why the pitchers are outperforming their peripherals. I think it's fair to say the catching production is unsustainable in its current form, but with chirinos returning it will not be in its current form. I also think that Maz is the real deal, but I guess one could argue that he's going to regress at some point.

---

I am absolutely the real deal.

quote:

---

Rangers fans, honest question..

Do you expect Hamel to strand nearly 85% of his baserunners the rest of the season? Because that's what he has done so far. I wouldn't call it luck, as he's a great pitcher and pretty clutch, but that number is not sustainable. His FIP and xFIP are a point higher than his ERA which shows that there is POTENTIAL (not saying it's guaranteed) for pretty significant regression.

---

There's no doubt a little cause for concern with Hamels, but much depends on if you think his HR and BB rate thus far is an anomaly or if he has regressed that significantly in that department in just one season -- in 11 years he averaged giving up less than 1 homerun per 9 innings pitched.

So far this year he is giving up 1.7...

In 11 years he walked 2.3 per 9... So far this season? 3.4...


Obviously a bit of both of those #'s comes from the shift from the NL to the AL, but that dip shouldn't be THAT wide.

You guys ****ing suck

So where does sequencing of the 1B being a dumbass come into play?

If Prince goes yard here, the Astros might as well just leave town tonight because they are done.

See, this is what is deceiving about statistics. This inning, the Astros are averaging 1 person covering first per batted ball in play.

Stats tell us they're playing perfectly. Scoreboard says otherwise.

I know that the Rangers are lucky that the Astros suck.

When fielder gets a hit you know it's not your night and you ****ing suck

Just what we needed to get fielder out of a slump, the astros

Still early and I'm not sure the Astros can **** up any more than they already have.

They said that Fielder needed a fat girl to be a slump buster did they mean the Astros?

quote:

---

Game time tonight, 7:05.
Astros meltdown, 7:35.

---

Nice play by an all star 2nd baseman!

quote:

---

Heres an article kind of hitting on what a lot of us have been thinking.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-amazing-about-these-first-place-rangers/

1. Is it luck?
2. Are they performing incredibly well in enough places to overcome the differentials in expected outcomes vs true outcomes?
3. Does it even matter now that Darvish is back and guys they expected to perform well, but haven't, could still break out (making it virtually null that so many younger players might regress)?

I like the comment in the article about the Seattle games and hit sequencing. It's what Irishpete has been saying. Yall got literally five hits in a game, but all five came at once and were mixed in with an error to get you the exact 3 runs you needed to win.

Some people might perceive the word luck as an insult. I don't throw it out as an insult. I throw it out as a possible explanation to how your team has outperformed all of the measurable categories which suggest they should be a .500 club. It's a good thing, and it's not something that has to go away. A team can literally be lucky all season.

---

If I didn't know better I'd say you are literally Dave Cameron.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Banny put Fielder back in the lineup for your scrub ass team and even he's getting RBI hits

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!