Toronto with 1 run in 2 ALCS games

I don't think there's much mystery surrounding our first round exit. Our #1 and #2 **** the bed, and we're not a team that can overcome that in a 5 game series against a good team.

It sucks, but at the very least it shows there wasn't some great deficiency in how this team was constructed... We just had two guys (three if you count Colby) that just didn't show up and put our team in a hole each game.

Game 1: 5-0 after 3 innings
Game 2: 2-0 after 2 innings (and then after we cut it to 2-1, the very next frame Darvish gave up 3 homeruns in 5 batters)
Game 3: 5-2 after 3 innings (Colby actually didn't record an out in the 3rd)



We didn't even need ace pitching... If our guys had gone out there and given us 6IP/3ER, we take one of those three games -- maybe 2.

Can't knock Colby because we knew he was a wildcard... But in a 5 game series if your first 2 starters **** the bed, 9 times outta 10 you aren't going to advance.

couldn't agree more. I had a bad feeling this is exactly what was going to happen.

Cole was awful in his 3-4 starts leading up to the playoffs and when our guys were awful this year, it was by giving up HRs. TOR is not a team where your misses are meatballs for dingers.

Darvish is darvish. He's a good #2 and probably a #3 for some ball clubs. He gets a bit too cute at times and can't pitch out of a paper bag for some innings. What sucks is, we see this but he'll still get paid $20M because of his flashes of greatness.

2nd half of the season Yu was 8th in pitcher WAR.

Yeah, not really "flashes" of greatness -- he's a proven top of the rotation starter. Only concern on what a team pays him will be his durability.

Half a season in the top 10 makes him a perennial ace?

I love Yu and was at his first start but I think we've been woooed by him. He got 1 shot this year where it mattered, and he **** the bed.

free_mhayden said:

---

Yeah, not really "flashes" of greatness -- he's a proven top of the rotation starter. Only concern on what a team pays him will be his durability.

---

The durability question is nothing to sneeze at. He's been in the U.S. for 5 seasons now and had one season where he made it all the way through pitching like a top of the rotation starter.

Had to get shut down at the end of 2014; then developed problems in 2015 spring training; then when he came back in 2016 had to turn around go back to the DL for neck/shoulder strains.

He can be top-of-the-end rotation but the way the serious contenders in this league structure their rotations, you want another guy up there (say, maybe, Cole Hamels) because you want Darvish as 1-B, not a stand-alone 1. Not until he shows better long-term durability.

I'm sure someone will throw beacoup bucks at him and I'll have no pity when he gets hurt and they tank because they don't have another guy that can lead a rotation.

No doubt his durability is a major concern, but he'll still get paid like a top-of-the-rotation starter.

Is Hamels' durability in question due to the way he ended the season?

I can handle losing the series. I can probably even get over being swept. But when Cleveland comes out and shuts down the team that won the games in the first 2-3 innings, I have to believe this team (Rangers) wasn't very good.

The Rangers were 33-12 against 3 teams. 49-48 against the rest of the AL. All games, of course, count, but they weren't playing Houston, KC, or Seattle in the post season and only 1 potential NL team.

Hamels has made at least 30 starts every year since his 2nd season, when he made 28. And he's been pretty good in almost all of those seasons.

He is capable of having a bad streak of games; he's not Kershaw. But I wouldn't really question his "durability."

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Is Hamels' durability in question due to the way he ended the season?

I can handle losing the series. I can probably even get over being swept. But when Cleveland comes out and shuts down the team that won the games in the first 2-3 innings, I have to believe this team (Rangers) wasn't very good.

The Rangers were 33-12 against 3 teams. 49-48 against the rest of the AL. All games, of course, count, but they weren't playing Houston, KC, or Seattle in the post season and only 1 potential NL team.

---

He's thrown 2200 innings in 11 seasons... I think eventually the guy is going to start having some durability questions, yeah.

As mentioned before I don't think the series was an example of the Rangers not being very good. For any team you can slice up their record and point to 3-4 teams that, if removed, made them a 0.500ish team... Indians are 2 wins away from the World Series. Take away their record against KC, Detroit and LAAA (3 teams that also missed the playoffs) and they too are a 0.500 team.

I think people are just over-complicating things. Our #1 and #2 starters pitched very bad games in a 5 game series. If they are just average, we're likely at least playing 5 games. Offense wasn't bad. Bullpen looked good. It's just the two guys you count on, didn't get it done.

Quote:

---

I can handle losing the series. I can probably even get over being swept. But when Cleveland comes out and shuts down the team that won the games in the first 2-3 innings, I have to believe this team (Rangers) wasn't very good.

The Rangers were 33-12 against 3 teams. 49-48 against the rest of the AL. All games, of course, count, but they weren't playing Houston, KC, or Seattle in the post season and only 1 potential NL team.

---

The Rangers were inconsistent. They could play great ball and did for much of the year. They could play bad ball, too. How you define a streaky team is in the eye of the beholder.

Personally, I agree its hard to call a streaky team a great team. Consistency matters when you determine your champion with a playoff.



What was lost in all that hubbub about having such a great record against great teams was that when they were beating good teams, they also beat the bad teams. When they were losing to the bad teams, they also lost to the good teams.

They had long streaks when they won lots of games, but they were not really going series to series playing well against a good team...and poorly against a bad team...and then well again versus a good team.

It was a more macro level of streaky play. Turns out at the end of the year they weren't streaking in the right direction.

And it also just depends on your draw... If Orioles get one more hit and knock out the Jays in the WC -- is Texas still playing?

Quote:

---

As mentioned before I don't think the series was an example of the Rangers not being very good. For any team you can slice up their record and point to 3-4 teams that, if removed, made them a 0.500ish team.

---

EDITED to fix the numbers.

That's oversimplifying it a little bit. To an extent, win % vs. individual opponents tends to clump around a team's overall win %.

With the Rangers, that didn't happen as much as say, with the Red Sox. Just taking a cursory look, mind you.

Rangers had an individual win % within +/- 50 points of their overall win % only 3 times

The Red Sox had an individual win % within only +/- 5 points of their overall win %. 5 times .

574% overall WP and played 5 opponents to a win % between .579 and .571.


The Red Sox had a record below .571% against 6 opponents. Rangers had a record below .571 against 9 opponents.

Compare the Rangers to the class of the regular season, Chicago Cubs.

Chicago had a sub .500 record against 2 teams.



Texas had a sub .500 record against 5 teams.

In 2 months when I have the time, I can chart the distributions and show that the Rangers were inconsistent.

Yeah, the top of the rotation crapped the bed at the wrong time. I don't read more into it than that. Hamels does not have wicked stuff. If his location is off much at all, he gets hit hard. It just went wonky late in the year, but he'll find it again.

Yu is a fascinating case. He's very creative and has so many pitches, which can be both a blessing and a curse. There are times when I think he falls in love with the K. There are other times when I think he's tinkering and/or his mind is just wandering. Sometimes that is the curse aspect of amazing talent - not just for baseball, but all sorts of talents in life. What makes you great can also bite you at times.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yeah, the top of the rotation crapped the bed at the wrong time. I don't read more into it than that. Hamels does not have wicked stuff. If his location is off much at all, he gets hit hard. It just went wonky late in the year, but he'll find it again.

Yu is a fascinating case. He's very creative and has so many pitches, which can be both a blessing and a curse. There are times when I think he falls in love with the K. There are other times when I think he's tinkering and/or his mind is just wandering. Sometimes that is the curse aspect of amazing talent - not just for baseball, but all sorts of talents in life. What makes you great can also bite you at times.

---

The Darvish case is most fascinating. Much of what Yu has been criticized for is that he tries to get too creative and wants to strike everybody out -- leading to high pitch counts and a lot of walks.

I've just now sat down and looked, but Yu Darvish made 11 starts this season where he walked 1 batter or less. His ERA in those starts was 2.20.

2 starts with 3ER
4 starts with 2ER
3 starts with 1ER
2 starts with 0ER

In previous years his numbers with 1 or 0 walks was not quite as great, but still pretty damn good. In fact the last regular season game where he walked 1 or less and gave up more than 3 ER was July of 2014. Before that - May of 2013.

It just rarely ever happens. If Yu isn't struggling to hit the strike zone, teams do not put up runs against him.

Until last week vs Toronto: 1 walk, 5 earned runs.


It's like in that 5th inning he just completely lost focus.

AggieFanatic09 said:

---

Half a season in the top 10 makes him a perennial ace?

I love Yu and was at his first start but I think we've been woooed by him. He got 1 shot this year where it mattered, and he **** the bed.

---

It makes him better than a 2 or a 3. Don't be the guy who overreacts to a one game sample.

So, watching the Cubs-Dodgers game earlier and I feel like I see a little bit of Odor in Baez. Baez is definitely better, but I remember them talking about how he was able to cut down his strikeouts and change his approach at the plate and now he's a pretty electric player. Hopefully odor can make the same kind of changes. They both seem to play with a similar swagger and fire.

Odor is going to need to improve defensively big time to match Baez

I drove bus said:

---

Odor is going to need to improve defensively big time to match Baez

---

Right, I agree. Baez is a stud at second. I think Odor has a lot of ability defensively, but he isn't consistent and sometimes falters in technique. Not saying he could get to Baez's level, but Odor does have some talent. It's just not consistent. I hope he takes the end of the Blue Jays series and has the kind of offseason that Elvis did last year.

Pitching wins the postseason

Odor shows some flashes of brilliance at 2B, but also has way too many focus lapses. Last year, our defense cost us the season. This year I don't think you can say that. Odor and Andrus were (for the most part) rock solid up the middle all year. That error by Odor in game 3 didn't cost us the series, but I don't think anybody is claiming as such.

I like odor and think he'll continue to get better. He's our future at 2B. I'll take .270 with 30HR from your 2B every single year, just cut down on the errors.

Quote:

---

Take away their record against KC, Detroit and LAAA (3 teams that also missed the playoffs) and they too are a 0.500 team.

I think people are just over-complicating things. Our #1 and #2 starters pitched very bad games in a 5 game series.

---

I will concede the point about taking teams out of the equation, but it wasn't solely on the starting pitching. It still would have been tough to win those 2 games with 4 runs total by the Rangers, only 1 of which was in the first seven innings. Yu and Cole could have both pitched below their ERA and we would likely have lost.

For whatever reason, call it peaking too early, streaking, whatever, they weren't ready to play the division series.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

Take away their record against KC, Detroit and LAAA (3 teams that also missed the playoffs) and they too are a 0.500 team.

I think people are just over-complicating things. Our #1 and #2 starters pitched very bad games in a 5 game series.

---

I will concede the point about taking teams out of the equation, but it wasn't solely on the starting pitching. It still would have been tough to win those 2 games with 4 runs total by the Rangers, only 1 of which was in the first seven innings. Yu and Cole could have both pitched below their ERA and we would likely have lost.

For whatever reason, call it peaking too early, streaking, whatever, they weren't ready to play the division series.

---

We scored 1 run, 3 runs and 6 runs.

That would be a loss, a toss-up, and a win with a league average pitching staff.

3 runs isn't really a toss-up normall in a league where an average team scored 4.52 runs/game.

The Rangers quite amazingly won 59% of games when they scored 3 runs. Pretty incredible and out of the ordinary. I won't call into sequencing but there ya go.

Toronto had the lowest runs-allowed in the AL and only won 44% of games when they scored 3 runs. (And on the flip side won 69% of games they gave up 3 runs.)

2nd was Cleveland. 45% and 80%.


Median runs-against was KC, won only 39% of games they scored 3 runs.

Baez still has some consistency issues at the plate. But he's uber athletic and that shows in the field.

Still has a lot of work to do. Still not hitting like you'd want to see from a former #4 overall prospect.

So Rangers won 59% of their games when scoring 3 or more runs, but their chances of winning in the ALDS by scoring 3 runs was significantly less than a toss-up?

I do look forward to the 2017 Rangers Thread -- I think this year there were 3 posters that you made it a point to try and disagree with every post they made, maybe next season you can make it 5!

Lucas Harrel and Shawn Tolleson outrighted.

Ryno01 said:

---

Lucas Harrel and Shawn Tolleson outrighted.

---

Dang, I expected Tolleson to be back. Wasn't sure about Harrel since he didn't do so good. But Tolleson had several successful seasons before blowing up this year. Still has his velocity, and (I thought) supposedly some of his issues this season were between the ears due to his dad having medical issues. Somebody will scoop him up.... and profit.

Here is the writeup on this from LoneStarBall. Been a while since I have been to that site.

The Texas Rangers have announced that pitchers Shawn Tolleson and Lucas Harrell have cleared waivers and been outrighted to A Round Rock. Both players have the right to reject an outright assignment, and my assumption would be be that they will do so and elect free agency.
Tolleson is the more surprising decision -- he did solid work for the Rangers out of the bullpen in both 2014 and 2015, and entered the 2016 season as the team's closer. However, he had an awful 2016 season, and ended the year on the 60 day disabled list due to a back injury. While Tolleson is arbitration-eligible, and would like command close to $4 million in the process, I thought his history of success was enough that the Rangers would bring him back in 2017. Apparently not.
Harrell, meanwhile, was acquired from the Braves this summer, along with Dario Alvarez, in exchange for Travis Demeritte. Harrell was mediocre for a few starts, then got hurt and spent the rest if the season on the disabled list. Like Tolleson, he was arbitration-eligible, but I thought Texas might decide to keep him around as cheap rotation depth. Again, apparently not.

Yeah I would have been okay to give Tolleson another shot. At least for this upcoming season. Maybe he can put his issues behind him and perform well. It was a very unfortunate year for him. Feel bad for him with the issues with his dad, and he seemed to be a good guy. Maybe some other team will pick him up and he can be a decent bullpen piece.

As noted... Harrell isn't a surprise.

I'm not sure Tolleson is a surprise either. Just because they outrighted, doesn't mean he will not be back.

I have no idea the interest by the Rangers.

However, I've said this for months. Rule V. The Rangers have several guys they need to protect or lose.

Contract (8): Fielder (he counts), Hamels, Choo, Beltre, Andrus, Darvish, Perez, Barnette
Options (2): Holland, Lucroy
Arbs (6): Tolleson, Chirinos, Diekman, Scheppers, Griffin, Harrell, Dyson, Jeffress
Serfs (7): Odor, Kela, DeShields, Alberto, Rua, Mazara, Profar
On Roster (7): Faulkner, Dario Alvarez, Matt Bush, Claudio, Gallo, Chi Chi, Hoying,
Others (4): Nick Martinez, Leclerc, Yo Mendez, Nicholas
Already cut: Hamilton
Make sure I haven't double counted, but that is 34 after cutting Tolleson and Harrell.

I think if we are considering adding Ian Desmond, Carlos Gomez, Moreland or Colby, all of which will be FAs.

So, who are we in need of protecting? Just some of the players I've mentioned:
Sadzeck (24- RHP - AA, 6'7"): .23 GS, 4.16, 140.2 IP, 133 K
Jairo Beras (21-RHB - A+): .262, 22 HRs, bunches of Ks.
Ronald Guzman (21-LHB-1B - AAA): @AA: 102 G, .288, 15 HR
Victor Payano (23-LHP-AAA, 6'5"): @ AA: 19 GS, 4.05 ERA, 100.0 IP, 96 K

Sadzeck and Payano are in the minors for 2017, with a likely 2018 look. However, I could see teams being interested in taking one of them.

Beras and Guzman are young and need work, but there are teams that could stash them on the roster.

We need to add an OF\CF, a 1B..... and a SP, at a minimum. We need a Closer, as well. That's 4 players.

Odubel Herrera (Philly) was our latest Rule V loss (2014). He went .321, 2 HR, 12 SB (SS at age 22) in AA Frisco. In 2016, he went .286, 15 HR, 25 SB playing CF for Philly. We got Deshields that Rule V, and I think the belief was he was behind Andrus, Profar, Odor and Alberto and likely another year away and noone would take him.

I could see them telling Tolleson that they want him back, but this is procedural and while he is a FA, they would like for him to stay in talks with the Rangers.

Having said THAT... you have...
Lefty (6): Dario Alvarez, Claudio, Diekman, Faulkner, YoMen, Kela
Righty (5): Bush, Barnette, Scheppers, Dyson, Jeffress

Tolleson is an uncertainty and they really need more certainty.