quote:

---

The Rangers have had plenty of pitchers that have been starting games since early April that have sucked, too.

This isn't all about injuries. Perez quite often has stunk, Holland has almost always stunk, etc.


And the offense is anemic. Ian Desmond might be the most inconsistent player in MLB.

---

Rangers have had 6 guys make 11 or more starts.

Hamels (26) - 2.67 ERA
Perez (26) - 4.27 ERA
Griffin (17) - 4.68 ERA
Lewis (15) - 3.21 ERA
Holland (15) 4.92 ERA
Yu (11) - 2.91 ERA

Holland had a rough May/June before going on the DL w/ a shoulder issue, but had a 2.48 ERA in April and looked great in his first start back the other night. He's inconsistent, but has talent. Hopeful that Lucroy has a positive impact on him. But, of those 6 primary starters, that's a cumulative ERA of 3.70-ish. It's not the Cubs, but it's not bad. Perez has been great at home, but horrible on the road.

The replacement starters:

Martinez (5) - 7.16 ERA
Ramos (4) - 6.04 ERA
Harrell (4) - 5.60 ERA
Gonzalez (3) - 8.71 ERA
Lohse (2) - 12.54 ERA

The injury replacements have a cumulative ERA of approximately 7.06. So, the replacement starters were giving up approximately 3.4 additional runs per game than the regular starters. Over 18 starts, that's an additional 61 runs.

So yeah, the injuries and subsequent replacement starters did have a tremendous negative impact on run differential. You do have a point about the offense being anemic at times, which is why they went out and added Lucroy and Beltran.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Keep it class, Ramgers.

He pick up some tips from Matt Bush?

---

From what I understand, it sounds like this is his 3rd or 4th incident in his professional career. The guy clearly has a problem, just as Bush did. Let me guess, you were one that ridiculed Hamilton for his drug problems?

Ironic that you lead off with "keep it class".

---

Thought this was a trash talking thread, nancy.

---

Well, I guess when you have no on-field results to talk trash about, then you have to resort to this. As someone that's struggled with substance addiction, I don't find the "humor" in talking trash about the demons others are battling.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just because the stats are a bit of an anomaly doesn't mean the team isn't actually good.

That's the problem win sabremetrics people...they soooo want to convince everyone that they're right, that they aren't willing to admit stats don't tell the whole story.

---

The Rangers are a good team, and that's what the Astros fans need to realize. I think plenty of stat-saavy fans that aren't in Houston, like myself, know the Rangers are a good team.

I think the point, the trash talking aside, is there are those good teams that are consistent, and there are those teams that aren't real deep or are hot/cold.

The Rangers are more like the latter, it seems. They've had some real holes and inconsistencies in every phase of the game. (And not just because of injuries).

---

The Rangers are a good team. Just not as good as their record indicates. That's what I'm saying. They are not the Cubs.

quote:

---

Retired Ag, are you upset we kicked Josh Walker off the football team?

---

No. And I won't be upset when Jeffress is punished by the league or organization. I'm also not going to make jokes about it. I just thought it was ironic that he started out w/ "keep it classy", then proceeds w/ the post he did.

quote:

---

Well, I guess when you have no on-field results to talk trash about, then you have to resort to this. As someone that's struggled with substance addiction, I don't find the "humor" in talking trash about the demons others are battling.

---

If the ridicule will get him to use part of that big league paycheck on an uber, lyft, taxi, or a payphone to call a friend, then the ridicule was a positive.

really doesn't matter if the Rangers make the playoffs or not - it's the Giants scheduled year to win it all.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think I've ever posted on this thread or a Rangers thread.... But after skimming 3 pages deep, it's comical how much rangers fans sound like sips.... Spot on...

---

May I ask why? I'm assuming it's the citing of the head-to-head records, but there's a key difference. When sips cite the H2H, they ignore the fact that since scholarship limits were put in place, the record is basically even. Most of the domination in the series occurred before most of us here were born. The Rangers, on the other hand, have dominated recently. Over the past 10 years, the Rangers own a 75-31 record vs the Astros. Considering that this is a "trash talking" thread, I'd say that's relevant to the thread. Even if you just want to look at last year and this year when the Astros were a good club, the Rangers own a 24-8 record vs the Astros.

So, I'm not sure where the sip charge is coming from.

---

I looked through yalls thread as well. Not going to get in to every detail, but the "big brother" comment I saw was one.

There's no doubt the rangers have been better than the Astros in recent years. I wouldn't cite the past 10 years though, counting the years where the Astros had a complete overhaul is bit much. Rangers have had a better roster that's for sure, and with it double the payroll the last two years and payrolls 3x, 4x and even 5x plus... The organizations are run differently. Rangers fans have to see the plethora of young talent on the Astros. I'm not sure any organization wouldn't want to build around a core of Altuve, Springer, Correa and Bregman compared to what they have. Lunhow getting Tucker, Bregman, and Daz in the 2015 might be one of the best first round hauls in recent history. They were all top 5 talents in the draft, IIRC, but let's see how they pan out.

I'd put my money on the Astros having a better overall record in the next 10 years if we can figure out a couple pieces.

Enjoy the rest of your season.

The reason for that core is due to being the first non-expansion team to lose at least 106 games for 3 years in a row. I wouldn't ever make that trade. I really like Bregman. I would not accept 51-111 to get him. There are no guarantees of success with the youth, and the window closes faster than you think.

At this point, I'd say Lunhow has done a poor job of capitalizing on the early portion of the window. We'll see about the rest.

quote:

---

The Rangers are a good team. Just not as good as their record indicates. That's what I'm saying. They are not the Cubs.

---

Only if you fall into the trap of defining how good a team is by run differential.

There's a reason Wins and Losses determine who makes the playoffs and who eventually wins the World Series.

Thankfully Texas isn't trying to win the Sabermetric Run Differential Championship. They are trying to win the one where all that matters is if you win more games than the other team.

Could you make a case that based on the #'s that the Cubs are a more potent team that, if hitting on all cylinders, would dispatch the Rangers with ease? Absolutely.

But ya see the thing with citing the fact that the Rangers have played above what their run differential #'s say they should is to accept that doing so is possible... and seeing how we're about to hit September... it's possible over a large amount of games... which means you have to accept that there really is no guarantee that it won't continue in the small sample size of the playoffs.


Some run differential food for thought:

These weekend series will tell us something, but the "lucky" Texas Rangers currently sit with a +6 run differential against the other division leaders (Boston/Toronto, Cleveland).

The "run differential monsters" Chicago Cubs currently sit with a +9 run differential against other division leaders (Los Angeles, Washington).

We'll see what happens the rest of this weekend, but as far as proving they are capable of dispatching the quality of team they will see in the playoffs, the two teams aren't far apart.

quote:

---

There's no doubt the rangers have been better than the Astros in recent years. I wouldn't cite the past 10 years though, counting the years where the Astros had a complete overhaul is bit much.

---

Wait, so we shouldn't count the years were the Astros sucked when comparing the two franchises? That seems rather convenient.

But ok... We'll look back the last 20 years and we'll let you drop the 4 years you were an embarrassment to the league and we'll drop the 4 years we were an embarrassment to the league.

1996-2015 (with the worst 4 years dropped):

Texas averaged 85.62 wins
Houston averaged 84.93 wins


Yikes... Even with a convenient cherry-pick the Rangers have been better than the Astros for two decades.

quote:

---

The reason for that core is due to being the first non-expansion team to lose at least 106 games for 3 years in a row. I wouldn't ever make that trade. I really like Bregman. I would not accept 51-111 to get him. There are no guarantees of success with the youth, and the window closes faster than you think.

At this point, I'd say Lunhow has done a poor job of capitalizing on the early portion of the window. We'll see about the rest.

---

You think the Astros lost 111 games to get one player? Are you on drugs? This isn't the NBA.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There's no doubt the rangers have been better than the Astros in recent years. I wouldn't cite the past 10 years though, counting the years where the Astros had a complete overhaul is bit much.

---

Wait, so we shouldn't count the years were the Astros sucked when comparing the two franchises? That seems rather convenient.

But ok... We'll look back the last 20 years and we'll let you drop the 4 years you were an embarrassment to the league and we'll drop the 4 years we were an embarrassment to the league.

1996-2015 (with the worst 4 years dropped):

Texas averaged 85.62 wins
Houston averaged 84.93 wins


Yikes... Even with a convenient cherry-pick the Rangers have been better than the Astros for two decades.

---

It's because we are bandwagon fans, we only watch the Rangers to pass the time til college footba ... oh wait.

Gomez 0-2. Looks like the excitement has worn off.

We'll pay for those strikeouts

Altuve was an international free agent and Springer was the #11 pick.

They're not, like many of their exciting younger players in the minors, in Houston simply because hey bombed a few seasons.


It doesn't matter if someone would trade those seasons for who they were able to draft. They made a bet they could weather it and the fans would get excited about their young talent and that's mostly what has happened.

Whether the fans will remember this period fondly or not has nothing to do with whether they lost 106 games or if they wallowed in mediocrity like the Rangers did suring Daniels' first four or so season.

It'll be dependent on what happens now, and moving forward and whether they win or they don't.

If they win, it'll be alright. If they don't, fans will treat this as a waste of time. How many games they won or those years ultimately isn't going to be what they're judged on.

In other words, if it wasn't convenient for talking ****, Rangers fans wouldn't be sitting around saying "oh thank goodness we only barely had a losing record before the World Series teams!"

Not sure what you're trying to get at.

No one claimed they've reached the pinnacle of baseball. I'm certainly not trying to give their front office an award. I just say that it's still too early to pass full judgment on what's happened.

You're trying to turn in your verdict before final statements have been given.

And I think most people realize it's still early in their supposed "window."

I think everyone agrees it is getting to be about that time that results need to improve. Yes, indeed.

If they tank and the players they acquired during that period never win the club games, then we'll deserved ridicule will be given. But it's too early to know.

Have the fans rushed back? Below average last year. Below average again this year.

You've apparently accidentally wandered into a trash talking thread without realizing it. No wonder you're not following.

quote:

---

Have the fans rushed back? Below average last year. Below average again this year.

---

Rangers were below average 4 years into Daniels' stay and FWIW, only 5th in the AL the year of the first World Series.

No, they're not selling out every night. But there is excitement in that town and I don't think they've done permanent damage to their fan base. At least that's not my impression having been in Houston for some considerable amounts of time this summer.

quote:

---

You've apparently accidentally wandered into a trash talking thread without realizing it. No wonder you're not following.

---

I'm well aware. But when you're talking to the guy who thinks he's 25 IQ points above the rest and lives for misguided "gotcha" moments...you point out he's not got anything.

Let's see if mhayden appreciates that he's just in a trash talking thread.

Speakong of gotcha's, what's this 5th in the AL stuff? 8th in MLB sounded too favorable for your point? After a decade of crappy baseball, it seems pretty good to me.

Their attendance for an 86 win team last year was right where the Rangers' attendance was with their 87 win team right before the World Series.

They started last year drawing less than 20,000 quite often. The fans came back quick and they may increase attendance modestly this year, we'll see how it goes the rest of the way.

They'll be OK.

quote:

---

Speakong of gotcha's, what's this 5th in the AL stuff? 8th in MLB sounded too favorable for your point? After a decade of crappy baseball, it seems pretty good to me.

---

It's what Baseball Reference uses on your season page?

Calm down, Debbie.

It appears the Rangers attendance last year was 16th, which is where the below average Astros are sitting this year.

The Rangers with the best record in the AL are 10th in MLB and 5th in the AL this year.

As an Arlington voter, should I be concerned about the Rangers fan base and paying for a new stadium?

I see the real Gomez showed up last night (0-4, 2Ks). That will be the line score for a lot of games.

quote:

---

I see the real Gomez showed up last night (0-4, 2Ks). That will be the line score for a lot of games.

---

Yeah, but his strikeouts even look better now that he's a Ranger!

I wasn't so much disagreeing with you, just pointing out that getting to the position that Houston is in (where they could be about to have a string of great years) really isn't that difficult for a franchise to get to so the front office certainly shouldn't be lauded for it and the fanbase shouldn't be puffing their chests about it.

I'm sure there are teams that could screw it up, but most any franchise in baseball could keep the powder dry for 4 years, average 100+ losses, and come out on the other side with the potential to make a run of good years.

Most franchises choose not to do that because A) it's basically a slap in the face to the fanbase to not field a decent product for 4 years and B) there's no guarantee of success on the other end of things. Washington didn't use the same tanking method as Houston but it worked the same -- a string of really bad seasons landed them Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper and Anthony Rendon (and to a lesser extent Denard Span via trade).

And they've certainly looked good coming out of that, but it hasn't amounted to even getting out of the divisional series.

quote:

---

I wasn't so much disagreeing with you, just pointing out that getting to the position that Houston is in (where they could be about to have a string of great years) really isn't that difficult for a franchise to get to so the front office certainly shouldn't be lauded for it and the fanbase shouldn't be puffing their chests about it.

I'm sure there are teams that could screw it up, but most any franchise in baseball could keep the powder dry for 4 years, average 100+ losses, and come out on the other side with the potential to make a run of good years.

Most franchises choose not to do that because A) it's basically a slap in the face to the fanbase to not field a decent product for 4 years and B) there's no guarantee of success on the other end of things. Washington didn't use the same tanking method as Houston but it worked the same -- a string of really bad seasons landed them Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper and Anthony Rendon (and to a lesser extent Denard Span via trade).

And they've certainly looked good coming out of that, but it hasn't amounted to even getting out of the divisional series.

---

It was a breath of fresh air for a front office to have a plan and execute it, even if it meant doing something unpopular. Drayton's turd polishing routine was much worse than what this front office did.