And lol at those mad actual baseball discussion took place in their thread.

So my one post where I basically just agreed with the post before mine reaally seems to have struck nerve. Txaggie11 keeps going back to it again and again.

quote:

---

Really, guys drafted anywhere by Jon Daniels are pretty much guaranteed to be a flop.

The most successful draft choice, going by WAR, by far, of Daniels' has been Chris Davis.

Who the Rangers have had to trade, along with one Jon Daniels' top 5 or 6 most successful players, Tommy Hunter, for a rental relief pitcher, because they couldn't get Davis to stop posting negative WARs.

Actually have to give Daniels kudos for continuing to find such a market for his draft choices given how bad his draft choices have produced.

---

Well, the guy currently leading the National League in ERA was drafted by Jon Daniels. He's also drafted guys like Tanner Roark, Derek Holland, and Mitch Moreland that have had solid MLB careers. Sorry to keep bringing up pesky little facts that get in the way of your rants.

Hey, guys. How is Gomez doing since his HR that didn't really factor into the outcome of the game?

Good news is he should help cool the ballpark with all of those swings and misses.

quote:

---

To add to the Bregman talk... Remember, this front office had to make the extremely unpopular decision to basically runoff Brady Aiken from the signing table due to his paper mache UCL. THAT's the only reason they have Bregman. They were absolutely eviscerated and raked through the coals in the media and many of their own ignorant fans were "alienated" by that also when it was absolutely the right decision.

---

And the front office now has a reputation among other players that has been mentioned more than a few times. You got Bregman -- was it worth Hamels thinking "nope, I want no part of that"?

In regards to the run differential talk -- of AL teams that would make the playoffs if they started today, Texas has a -4 run differential.

Not great, but certainly not over-matched by anyone.

If Detroit sneaks in and steals one of the wildcards, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams will shoot into the positive.

And to bring it back to the thread topic... if it's Houston that climbs back in the wildcard race, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams may very well end up higher than the Cubs vs their NL counterparts.

Run differential over a whole season means very little in postseason.

quote:

---

Hey, guys. How is Gomez doing since his HR that didn't really factor into the outcome of the game?

Good news is he should help cool the ballpark with all of those swings and misses.

---

Well he's on track for a champagne shower sometime in late September. What sports bar do you think the Astros will be watching the playoffs at?

quote:

---

quote:

---

To add to the Bregman talk... Remember, this front office had to make the extremely unpopular decision to basically runoff Brady Aiken from the signing table due to his paper mache UCL. THAT's the only reason they have Bregman. They were absolutely eviscerated and raked through the coals in the media and many of their own ignorant fans were "alienated" by that also when it was absolutely the right decision.

---

And the front office now has a reputation among other players that has been mentioned more than a few times. You got Bregman -- was it worth Hamels thinking "nope, I want no part of that"?

---

So the Astros should have signed Aiken just to save their reputation with a few players who are scared of sabermetrics? Sounds like a great way to do business.

quote:

---

In regards to the run differential talk -- of AL teams that would make the playoffs if they started today, Texas has a -4 run differential.

Not great, but certainly not over-matched by anyone.

If Detroit sneaks in and steals one of the wildcards, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams will shoot into the positive.

And to bring it back to the thread topic... if it's Houston that climbs back in the wildcard race, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams may very well end up higher than the Cubs vs their NL counterparts.

Run differential over a whole season means very little in postseason.

---

Ignore the large sample size for lots of cherry picked small ones.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Really, guys drafted anywhere by Jon Daniels are pretty much guaranteed to be a flop.

The most successful draft choice, going by WAR, by far, of Daniels' has been Chris Davis.

Who the Rangers have had to trade, along with one Jon Daniels' top 5 or 6 most successful players, Tommy Hunter, for a rental relief pitcher, because they couldn't get Davis to stop posting negative WARs.

Actually have to give Daniels kudos for continuing to find such a market for his draft choices given how bad his draft choices have produced.

---

Well, the guy currently leading the National League in ERA was drafted by Jon Daniels. He's also drafted guys like Tanner Roark, Derek Holland, and Mitch Moreland that have had solid MLB careers. Sorry to keep bringing up pesky little facts that get in the way of your rants.

---

Sure, Holland has been "solid." Still, his carer WAR over 8 seasons is 10.2 and lower than Chris Davis. Maybe if he could stay healthier.

Moreland? "Solid" is pushing it. 6.1 career WAR, so well below Chris Davis and pretty not solid. Below average player.

Tanner Roark might have a pretty good little career. Quite pleased he's on my Nats this season. And quite pleased all it took was Christian ****ing Guzman to get him.

I'm sure Cubs fans are quite pleased all it took was Ryan Dempster to nab Kyle Hendricks.


But if you're touting Mitch Moreland, you're in trouble.

Which basically proves why all the run differential talk is pointless.

Postseason is a small sample size, your run differential against 20+ other teams over the course of the season isn't going to matter.

In the last 10 years the run differential leader in the regular season has won the World Series just twice. 6 times knocked out before even making the Championship Series.

It means jack squat in the playoffs.

2015 - Toronto (lost ALCS 4-2)
2014 - Oakland A's (lost WC game)
2013 - Red Sox (won WS 4-2)
2012 - Nationals (lost NLDS 3-2)
2011 - Yankees (lost ALDS 3-2)
2010 - Yankees (lost ALCS 4-2)
2009 - Dodgers (lost NLDS 4-1)
2008 - Cubs (lost ALDS 3-0)
2007 - Red Sox (won WS 4-0)
2006 - Yankees (lost ALDS 3-1)

quote:

---

quote:

---

In regards to the run differential talk -- of AL teams that would make the playoffs if they started today, Texas has a -4 run differential.

Not great, but certainly not over-matched by anyone.

If Detroit sneaks in and steals one of the wildcards, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams will shoot into the positive.

And to bring it back to the thread topic... if it's Houston that climbs back in the wildcard race, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams may very well end up higher than the Cubs vs their NL counterparts.

Run differential over a whole season means very little in postseason.

---

Ignore the large sample size for lots of cherry picked small ones.

---

So it's "cherry picking" to simply focus on the teams that you'll be facing in the postseason.

OK.

quote:

---

Which basically proves why all the run differential talk is pointless.

Postseason is a small sample size, your run differential against 20+ other teams over the course of the season isn't going to matter.

In the last 10 years the run differential leader in the regular season has won the World Series just twice. 6 times knocked out before even making the Championship Series.

It means jack squat in the playoffs.

2015 - Toronto (lost ALCS 4-2)
2014 - Oakland A's (lost WC game)
2013 - Red Sox (won WS 4-2)
2012 - Nationals (lost NLDS 3-2)
2011 - Yankees (lost ALDS 3-2)
2010 - Yankees (lost ALCS 4-2)
2009 - Dodgers (lost NLDS 4-1)
2008 - Cubs (lost ALDS 3-0)
2007 - Red Sox (won WS 4-0)
2006 - Yankees (lost ALDS 3-1)

---

I've said on numerous occasions that the tournament is a crap shoot. We totally agree that run differential means nothing in the post season.

The fact that yal are leading a division with that run differential is the anomaly.

I think the run differential stuff just goes to how inconsistent the Rangers are.

Its minus-15 against the AL East leading Blue Jays, in 7 games. Its plus-15 against the AL Central leading Indians, in 6 games.

I talked about that on the Rangers thread, that I think it has less to do with whether these teams are good or not, but when in the season the Rangers played them.

In their good stretch, yeah, the Rangers beat a lot of good teams. They also beat up the not-so-good teams.

In their bad stretch, the Rangers lost to a lot of bad teams, and also lost 3 or 4 straight series to playoff teams and lost like 5 of those games by 5 or more runs. Something like that.

Definitely a Jekyll and Hyde type team. I'd be just as worried playing a 5-game ALDS series against Cleveland as I would against Minnesota.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

In regards to the run differential talk -- of AL teams that would make the playoffs if they started today, Texas has a -4 run differential.

Not great, but certainly not over-matched by anyone.

If Detroit sneaks in and steals one of the wildcards, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams will shoot into the positive.

And to bring it back to the thread topic... if it's Houston that climbs back in the wildcard race, Texas' run differential vs AL playoff teams may very well end up higher than the Cubs vs their NL counterparts.

Run differential over a whole season means very little in postseason.

---

Ignore the large sample size for lots of cherry picked small ones.

---

So it's "cherry picking" to simply focus on the teams that you'll be facing in the postseason.

OK.

---

In baseball, yes... actually it is.

It's a SSS.

To parlay off of this... Here's the last 10 World Series winners and their run differentials:

2015: Kansas City, +83
2014: San Fran, +51
2013: Boston, +197
2012: San Fran, +69
2011: St. Louis, +70
2010: San Fran, +114
2009: New York Yankees, +162
2008: Philadelphia, +119
2007: Boston, +210
2006: St. Louis, +19


So, one team in the last decade has won the World Series with a crappy run differential. That was still the 5th highest differential in the National League. It was a weird year of extreme parity in which only 1 team in the NL won over 90 games.

The average run differential of the world series winner is +109.

quote:

---

Well, he's playing for a first place team and you're paying for it. The things that y'all cling to right now..... I guess when you have absolutely nothing else, I can understand it

---

You wouldn't pay to have your division rival playing a guy batting .083?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Really, guys drafted anywhere by Jon Daniels are pretty much guaranteed to be a flop.

---

---

---

This is the statement that my post was in reference to. I don't really care how they stack up next to Chris Davis. Mitch Moreland has been the primary first basemen on a contending team for six seasons now. He's hit 20 home runs three times. His batting average and defense are adequate. I don't know how you define the word "solid", but I think most people would take his production from a draft pick. I chose four examples of players that have been in the major leagues long enough to not be considered a "flop". There are 26 players that JD has drafted that have spent time on a major league roster in 2016. The league is littered with former Rangers draft picks and prospects. Many of these players aren't in the organization any more because the Rangers started to contend at the same time his draft picks came of age and were dealt for major league pieces.

And that same year the Devil Rays drafted Stephen Vogt, the Mets drafted Lucas Duda, and of course, Giancarlo Stanton, Freddie Freeman, and Anthony Rizzo were drafted. Most clubs have drafted a Mitch Moreland, or better. The latter 3 guys have arguably had better careers than Chris Davis, who has arguably been Jon Daniels' most successful draft pick up to this point; none of them were a first round pick.

The point is Jon Daniels' hasn't been a particularly successful drafter. He hasn't, and I think everyone knows that.

I'm not trying to start a referendum on Jon Daniels. Its just a response to pointing out that the Astros have players who were drafted 10, 11, 41, etc. that have played well for the big league club. You can't knock that, as its not a slam dunk you'll draft anyone with those picks or better picks or anyone at all in the draft that would be as productive as those guys have been. See: Jon Daniels.

I can knock on other GMs for poor drafting, but seeing as its a Rangers-Astros thread, Jon Daniels is the obvious choice.

As far as Moreland, I think most people would say hey, you got some production from a draft pick, but at the same time realize his best is average and the Rangers were usually contending despite Moreland, not because of Moreland.

He's been the best they could get, and he's managed to stick around and get paid. Good for him.

quote:

---

But if you're touting Mitch Moreland, you're in trouble.

---

So in trouble we lucked our way to first place for 2 months.

quote:

---

I can knock on other GMs for poor drafting, but seeing as its a Rangers-Astros thread, Jon Daniels is the obvious choice.

---

Based on what? Luhnow drafting two promising guys that were selected within the top two picks of the draft? Bregman looks to be a fine prospect, but he has yet to prove anything. The Tim Beckham's and Dustin Ackley's of the world are a lot more common that the Evan Longoria's. Are you also forgetting that Luhnow is one for three with very first pick in the draft?

And I'm not even an Astros fan. Much more a Rangers fan. I starred your post. Hope that helps.

quote:

---

Based on what? Luhnow drafting two promising guys that were selected within the top two picks of the draft? Bregman looks to be a fine prospect, but he has yet to prove anything. The Tim Beckham's and Dustin Ackley's of the world are a lot more common that the Evan Longoria's. Are you also forgetting that Luhnow is one for three with very first pick in the draft?

---

I think Jon Daniels has not been a great drafter based on years of Jon Daniels drafting relatively few guys who made positive impacts at the MLB level. That has nothing to do with Lunhow. His drafting of Roark and Hendricks is a breath of fresh air, you're right.

Its a shame, in retrospect, he traded them for peanuts. Hendricks would have solved a lot of the pitching grief the Rangers have had.

Now, yes, what brought that up was the claim that the Astros have a lot of good players simply because they tanked. And, to my point, yep, you're right---drafting isn't a given. I cited Jon Daniels' less than sparkling track record to support that idea that drafting isn't a given.

And yep, Aiken turned out to have a dud of an elbow. And its not looking good with Appel. Of course Aiken resulted in Bregman so the book isn't closed there. This was discussed earlier, if you want to go back and read it.

I've been quite critical of Lunhow at times. But I can't knock the Astros' rebuild because the 10th, 11th, and 41st picks are on their roster and produced at one time or another. Those aren't particularly low picks, nor are they slam dunk picks, either.

The book is still very much open on Lunhow, too. Hardly time to call him the king of drafting.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And I'm not even an Astros fan. Much more a Rangers fan. I starred your post. Hope that helps.

---

Have we found our lifelong Rangers fan mod?

---

The Rangers anti-wave campaigners have been around here for years.


Nationals>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rangers>>>>>Astros.

BTW, why the **** does that Sipp guy get to keep pitching for the Astros?

quote:

---

BTW, why the **** does that Sipp guy get to keep pitching for the Astros?

---

Because it reminds those Longhorn like Astros fans of sippin tea....or sippin something anyway.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think Jon Daniels has not been a great drafter based on years of Jon Daniels drafting relatively few guys who made positive impacts at the MLB level.
.

---

---

You keep making these kinds of statements. I have presented you with data that refutes this. I think the disconnect is that you don't realize how rarely major league draft picks "succeed". To put it in perspective, Theo Epstein has only drafted 12 players that were on major league rosters in 2016 in the same time frame that Daniels has been GM.

quote:

---

As far as Moreland, I think most people would say hey, you got some production from a draft pick, but at the same time realize his best is average and the Rangers were usually contending despite Moreland, not because of Moreland.

He's been the best they could get, and he's managed to stick around and get paid. Good for him.

---

He was top 25 in OPS last year and he's over .800 this year. I guess your definition of average and mine differ.