Well, if teams that fail to win championships are bad teams, the Rangers suck more than the Astros because the Rangers have lost 2 WS (only two in which they've competed) and the Astros only 1 WS (only one in which they've competed). This is fun! Maybe I should be a contributor to http://www.crawfishboxes.com/!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's just that you seem to have very odd criteria for "greatness". You keep talking about titles and even use a team that lost 4 straight Super Bowls in your defense, but there's not a football person in America that wouldn't at least say that those Bills teams were great.

---

To that end... http://www.nbcsports.com/football/nfl/best-qbs-never-win-super-bowl-0

Most of those guys, I'd argue were great. A few of them, not so much.

---

None are great. NO TITLES!!!

---

Trent Dilfer >>>>> Dan Marino using that logic.

quote:

---

Trent Dilfer >>>>> Dan Marino using that logic.

---

Well obviously! We can't forget Brad Johnson either.

quote:

---

If you only look at the Texas Rangers (45th season) vs Houston Astros (52nd season), then the Rangers are the better franchise since they've had fewer bad teams.

---

Pardon this game interruption... Fan Graphs likes us.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yu-darvishs-stellar-return-puts-texas-in-position-for-october/

The HMS Astro is taking on some heavy water. Loving it!

quote:

---

The HMS Astro is taking on some heavy water. Loving it!

---

Good news....fangraphs says everything is great and they are unsinkable.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The HMS Astro is taking on some heavy water. Loving it!

---

Good news....fangraphs says everything is great and they are unsinkable.

---

Update your spreadsheet bro. Yal like Fangraphs now because they wrote an article with simple vocabulary and not all those hard to understand numbers.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The HMS Astro is taking on some heavy water. Loving it!

---

Good news....fangraphs says everything is great and they are unsinkable.

---

Update your spreadsheet bro. Yal like Fangraphs now because they wrote an article with simple vocabulary and not all those hard to understand numbers.

---

Dont include me in "yall"....some of us grew up watching/understanding baseball before fangraphs....funny how the greats ever existed before they knew certain stats said they sucked.

.....could it be that most find it funny the fangraphs finally guessed right?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The HMS Astro is taking on some heavy water. Loving it!

---

Good news....fangraphs says everything is great and they are unsinkable.

---

Update your spreadsheet bro. Yal like Fangraphs now because they wrote an article with simple vocabulary and not all those hard to understand numbers.

---

Dont include me in "yall"....some of us grew up watching/understanding baseball before fangraphs....funny how the greats ever existed before they knew certain stats said they sucked.

.....could it be that most find it funny the fangraphs finally guessed right?

---

That's for me. I'm still trying to figure out where yellow cards, penalties, hand balls, and offsides fit into the game.

Yal's own front office would shake their head at your mocking of sabermetrics, just an FYI.

I think a big reason that Jon Daniels made the moves that he made is because of the fact that he knows the Rangers were not one of the best teams in the league without severely bolstering the lineup. He also knows that after 2017 a minor re-tooling is going to be more than likely needed. That's why Lucroy fits in so well with the window that the Rangers have.

Who is Yal? Some cohort of Bill James?

quote:

---

Yal's own front office would shake their head at your mocking of sabermetrics, just an FYI.

I think a big reason that Jon Daniels made the moves that he made is because of the fact that he knows the Rangers were not one of the best teams in the league without severely bolstering the lineup. He also knows that after 2017 a minor re-tooling is going to be more than likely needed. That's why Lucroy fits in so well with the window that the Rangers have.

---

Big difference between 'using metrics as a part of making decisions' with 'using metrics as the basis for a decision.' It is even a bigger reach when someone tries to use those metrics in an attempt to predict or explain an outcome.

The mocking you refer to is not directed at metrics, rather the posters trying to explain why the Astros are superior or the Rangers suck based on those metrics. Ignoring, of course, head to head records and standings. It reminds me of the guy standing next to a roulette table, seeing that the last 9 rolls were black, dropping $200 on red, and going full surrender cobra when it lands on black for a 10th time.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yal's own front office would shake their head at your mocking of sabermetrics, just an FYI.

I think a big reason that Jon Daniels made the moves that he made is because of the fact that he knows the Rangers were not one of the best teams in the league without severely bolstering the lineup. He also knows that after 2017 a minor re-tooling is going to be more than likely needed. That's why Lucroy fits in so well with the window that the Rangers have.

---

Big difference between 'using metrics as a part of making decisions' with 'using metrics as the basis for a decision.' It is even a bigger reach when someone tries to use those metrics in an attempt to predict or explain an outcome.

The mocking you refer to is not directed at metrics, rather the posters trying to explain why the Astros are superior or the Rangers suck based on those metrics. Ignoring, of course, head to head records and standings. It reminds me of the guy standing next to a roulette table, seeing that the last 9 rolls were black, dropping $200 on red, and going full surrender cobra when it lands on black for a 10th time.

---

I've said on more than once occasion that I'd gladly switch spots with the Rangers on Fangraphs Baseruns chart and all the other things that measure cluster luck and sequencing. I would actually argue that you guy's thinking that the Rangers have figured something out that breaks the mold is a hell of a lot more of a gambler's fallacy than our side of it. A few pages back one of your posters tried to prove that the Rangers record in 1-run games in repeatable because a team did it in 1976 and 1977. You're seriously going to bank on something happening that hasn't been repeated in 40 years? And we're the ones using gamblers fallacy?! Sweet, I really hope Jon Daniels does the same, but he won't because he knows the numbers are working hella against him and he'll try to make moves to sway those numbers back into his favor.

quote:

---

I've said on more than once occasion that I'd gladly switch spots with the Rangers on Fangraphs Baseruns chart and all the other things that measure cluster luck and sequencing. I would actually argue that you guy's thinking that the Rangers have figured something out that breaks the mold is a hell of a lot more of a gambler's fallacy than our side of it. A few pages back one of your posters tried to prove that the Rangers record in 1-run games in repeatable because a team did it in 1976 and 1977. You're seriously going to bank on something happening that hasn't been repeated in 40 years? And we're the ones using gamblers fallacy?! Sweet, I really hope Jon Daniels does the same, but he won't because he knows the numbers are working hella against him and he'll try to make moves to sway those numbers back into his favor.

---

Close to a straw man argument, at a minimum its a semantics issue.

The Rangers have absolutely figured something out that breaks the mold. They have put together a group of players whose value as a team is greater than their sum total. Are they statistically the best guys at their position? No. Are they in the top 10 in people's fantasy draft? Probably not. The mold the Rangers have broken is the fallacy that you will build a championship team if you simply follow the metrics.

As far as "banking on something that hasn't happened in 40 years", no, I am not banking on it happening. It can happen, and it very well may happen.

I obviously don't speak for all Rangers posters on this thread. I am betting a number of the exaggerated posts are done in an effort to not only stick the knife in deeper, but also twist the blade a bit.

i see a lot of talent and a healthy balance of veterans, youth, and prospects coming up. And a team that improved itself significantly at the deadline without touching Profar or Gallo. They've got a ton of ammo to build on.

quote:

---

A few pages back one of your posters tried to prove that the Rangers record in 1-run games in repeatable because a team did it in 1976 and 1977. You're seriously going to bank on something happening that hasn't been repeated in 40 years?

---

You're standing in front of a roulette wheel on the longest streak of consecutive blacks in 40 years, what are the odds that the next roll is red?

oh this is easy! I did this once...

Don't make the same mistake I did! Bet it all on 00!!

As a bankrupt wise man said once...

Always bet on black.

Don't do it, Pete. Stay strong!

quote:

---

Ah, the Gambler's Fallacy. The Astros fans have been calling that "statistical regression". The wheel has no memory.

---

Exactly. Even if you believe the stats show that the Rangers should be a worse team, after about the all-star-break or so it wasn't that relevant anymore because at that point if they started playing to the level those same stats showed, they'd still be the division winner.

If a team is 20-6 and the statistics show they are really a 0.500 team, then over the next 26 games (if you believe the statistics) they should go 10-10, providing a 30-16 record. Some of you seem to think that it means their overall record will head to 0.500 (meaning they went 6-20). It's foolish to on one hand believe that the positive side of things is a gross deviation, but also that it will be repeated with a gross deviation on the negative side of things.

It's a forecasting statistic -- those wins are already in the books.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah, the Gambler's Fallacy. The Astros fans have been calling that "statistical regression". The wheel has no memory.

---

Exactly. Even if you believe the stats show that the Rangers should be a worse team, after about the all-star-break or so it wasn't that relevant anymore because at that point if they started playing to the level those same stats showed, they'd still be the division winner.

If a team is 20-6 and the statistics show they are really a 0.500 team, then over the next 26 games (if you believe the statistics) they should go 10-10, providing a 30-16 record. Some of you seem to think that it means their overall record will head to 0.500 (meaning they went 6-20). It's foolish to on one hand believe that the positive side of things is a gross deviation, but also that it will be repeated with a gross deviation on the negative side of things.

It's a forecasting statistic -- those wins are already in the books.

---

This is all a small sample size. I've never said that regression will come this season much less in a month or a week. But I can nearly guarantee that the Rangers will not string together multiple seasons with a .750 winning percentage in 1-run games. Nor will be at +12 on Fangraphs Baseruns rating for multiple seasons. Hence, why I keep saying you better win it this year because this same team next year is very likely not going to have all those things going for them.

quote:

---

Ah, the Gambler's Fallacy. The Astros fans have been calling that "statistical regression". The wheel has no memory.

---

And you are all blindly falling into the hot hand fallacy.

The MLB is not a roulette wheel.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah, the Gambler's Fallacy. The Astros fans have been calling that "statistical regression". The wheel has no memory.

---

And you are all blindly falling into the hot hand fallacy.

The MLB is not a roulette wheel.

---

Show me where I said that the Rangers will keep winning 1-run games at a .700+ rate, or where I said that their run differential will change? I totally agree that MLB is not a roulette wheel, which is why the Rangers can be a better team despite what Fangraphs says. And I think they will continue to lead the division this season, but not because of luck, but because they have a better team.

[edited to remove my last sentence, which was stupid and mean]

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is all a small sample size. I've never said that regression will come this season much less in a month or a week. But I can nearly guarantee that the Rangers will not string together multiple seasons with a .750 winning percentage in 1-run games. Nor will be at +12 on Fangraphs Baseruns rating for multiple seasons. Hence, why I keep saying you better win it this year because this same team next year is very likely not going to have all those things going for them.

---

Yeah, but we'll still get to plays the Astros every year, which alone will be good for 16-19 wins!

---

Can't argue that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah, the Gambler's Fallacy. The Astros fans have been calling that "statistical regression". The wheel has no memory.

---

Exactly. Even if you believe the stats show that the Rangers should be a worse team, after about the all-star-break or so it wasn't that relevant anymore because at that point if they started playing to the level those same stats showed, they'd still be the division winner.

If a team is 20-6 and the statistics show they are really a 0.500 team, then over the next 26 games (if you believe the statistics) they should go 10-10, providing a 30-16 record. Some of you seem to think that it means their overall record will head to 0.500 (meaning they went 6-20). It's foolish to on one hand believe that the positive side of things is a gross deviation, but also that it will be repeated with a gross deviation on the negative side of things.

It's a forecasting statistic -- those wins are already in the books.

---

This is all a small sample size. I've never said that regression will come this season much less in a month or a week. But I can nearly guarantee that the Rangers will not string together multiple seasons with a .750 winning percentage in 1-run games. Nor will be at +12 on Fangraphs Baseruns rating for multiple seasons. Hence, why I keep saying you better win it this year because this same team next year is very likely not going to have all those things going for them.

---

Except that is assuming no players will deviate from their norms next season.

I don't disagree that the 0.750 win % in 1-run games unlikely to repeat itself... But to say "you better win it this year" somehow implies the Rangers will be destined to have the same # of 1-run (and non-1run) games next year as this year. Lucroy was an ASB acquisition. He will be here next year. Darvish missed a big chunk of the season. Lewis and Holland have been on the shelf for months. Our previous all-star 1st baseman literally broke and gave us zero production. Choo will have spent the bulk of the season on the DL.

I think that is the difference between how Astros fans (as well as their GM) look at their own team and how Rangers fans and front office do. Contrary to what you might think, things haven't gone perfectly for Texas this year. Yeah they've been "lucky" in 1-run games, but they've also lost Fielder, Choo, Holland, Lewis and Darvish to the DL for long periods of time. The difference is instead of viewing it like Lunhow does "well if this didn't happen or that didn't happen we would have been competitive", Texas made adjustments and went out and got pieces to counter those negatives. When something went bad for Houston, that was it... Division hopes were basically done.

For all the talk of the Astros' future, Texas is going to roll out Hamels and Darvish next year, Lucroy behind the plate, young *proven* producers in Odor and Mazara and a chance to finally possibly go out and get some real production from a 1st baseman. If Texas isn't favored to win the division next year, it certainly won't be by a large margin.

So does that make Houston's time to shine 2018?

Welp, Gregerson will be a free agent and Keuchel and Altuve will be a year away from free agency. That's the thing about tanking to get young -- by the time all the pieces come together you have a very tiny window to win with that talent before they hit free agency.

Tank 2011-2014. Wildcard in 2015. (Potentially) no playoffs in 2016. (Potentially) wildcard or no playoffs in 2017. Ready to win in 2018? As a fan I sure wouldn't be thrilled with that.