As a Nationals fan, I remember quite clearly it was a week after the Rangers told Maddux they wouldn't have him back that the Nationals came to an agreement with Maddux.

The point is the Rangers took themselves out of the race.

jtstanley4621 said:

---

Doug Brocail feels like the Dave Christensen hire of Rangers baseball. Christensen was worse, but they're both kind of the same gruff coach who isn't getting the results necessary.

---

Still makes me physically ill. God that guy was horrible

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Generally speaking, I think when you're striking out a lot, run expectancy is going to go down and bunting starts to make more sense. Productive vs unproductive outs.

Rangers propensity to hit home runs/XBH complicates it, though.

It always depends on the actual unique hitter at the plate. I wouldn't bunt Gallo too often but I'd be OK with Napoli laying down a solid sac bunt down the first base line.

---

Texas would release or "mystery DL" Mike Napoli before they ever started strategizing him laying down sac bunts.

Sac bunts don't make much a lot of sense anyways, but when you're trying to do it with guys that aren't good bunters in order to get runners in scoring position for singles hitters... It's just really bad baseball.

That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't already have an agreement in principal with Washington. It seems pretty likely that he shopped around his services, came back to the Rangers and said this is what other people are offering and Texas said we can't match that. He then finalizes a deal with Washington and it becomes public.

AccidentProne said:

---

jtstanley4621 said:

---

Doug Brocail feels like the Dave Christensen hire of Rangers baseball. Christensen was worse, but they're both kind of the same gruff coach who isn't getting the results necessary.

---

Still makes me physically ill. God that guy was horrible

---

And I believe his family tweeted out stuff in response to negativity about him!

Come to think of it....



And



They even look alike

TXAggie2011 said:

---

As a Nationals fan, I remember quite clearly it was a week after the Rangers told Maddux they wouldn't have him back that the Nationals came to an agreement with Maddux.

The point is the Rangers took themselves out of the race.

---

I guess if you believe that the public hears everything when it comes to contract negotiations.

Texas was wildly successful with Maddux.

Maddux had an agreement with Texas that he could test the job market.

Washington made Maddux the highest paid pitching coach in baseball.

Texas brought in a guy that Houston had fired and was getting no real interest from other big league clubs.



I'd say it's a lot more likely that Texas refused to get in a bidding war or that Maddux wanted out than it is that Texas decided they could do better with Doug freaking Brocail.

Maybe, I can't speculate when they had talks and all of that with any coach, but it's not the point. Rangers took themselves out.

There are places where I just don't think a team committed to winning should pinch pennies - manager and pitching coach would be 1 and 1A. There's so much influence over the other $200 friggin million dollars you are spending. Pay that man his money.

Unless JD and Maddux are both lying, it did sound like when they didn't immediately agree to terms, the Rangers decided to go another direction. Maybe his flirting with other jobs finally got to them and they decided to be more proactive about finding a successor, but either way, that Brocail decision looks like Napoli facing MLB pitching this year. Whiiiiiiifffff.

Teach Mike Napoli to bunt, then.

I'm just drawing a name---insert any .150 hitter with lots of strikeouts and it starts to make more strategic sense for that player to bunt in the general sense.

If he doesn't know how, then sure, that's a problem.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

There are places where I just don't think a team committed to winning should pinch pennies - manager and pitching coach would be 1 and 1A. There's so much influence over the other $200 friggin million dollars you are spending. Pay that man his money.

Unless JD and Maddux are both lying, it did sound like when they didn't immediately agree to terms, the Rangers decided to go another direction. Maybe his flirting with other jobs finally got to them and they decided to be more proactive about finding a successor, but either way, that Brocail decision looks like Napoli facing MLB pitching this year. Whiiiiiiifffff.

---

Unless we actually know what Washington paid Maddux and what they promised him, it's tough to get mad at Texas for not paying more.

And from everything I've read, Texas and Maddux had an understanding that he was allowed to test the market... so I don't think him shopping himself would have caused them to cut bait -- especially unless they had a slam dunk guy waiting in the wings... and that wasn't Brocail.

He was here for 7 years... and the Rangers FO certainly saw the same things we did...

Either Maddux left because he didn't want to coach with Bannister or because Washington absolutely money-whipped him (and possibly offered the inside track to be Baker's successor).

It's just foolish to think Texas not wanting him back or thinking they had someone better is the reason he's not here.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Teach Mike Napoli to bunt, then.

I'm just drawing a name---insert any .150 hitter with lots of strikeouts and it starts to make more strategic sense for that player to bunt in the general sense.

If he doesn't know how, then sure, that's a problem.

---

I get your point in the general sense of small sample sizes an singular games.

But it makes more strategic sense over the course of a season to allow your sluggers to try and hit their way out of a slump and become sluggers again than to teach them the art of bunting in order to move runners over for your non-sluggers.

Bunting is giving up an out... and I get that right now giving up an out productively makes more sense than doing so unproductively with a strikeout... But if you've got a spot in the lineup that you are willing to give up an out for looking forward, then you replace him in the lineup.

Teaching your sluggers to bunt is conceding the season. Raising your potential win expectancy a few percentage points in a few games is going to turn a 70 win club into a 72 win club, all the while pissing off your sluggers and your casual fan.

Maddux's contract with Washington was for 2 years at something less than $2 million a year. (Baker makes $2 million).

Theories about promising him Baker's job are complicated by Baker not being hired until November and after the Rangers had said Maddox won't be back.

I don't really care why the Rangers didn't have Maddux back, I just reported what JD said, all I care is that it seems the Rangers decided to take their name out of the hat.

You're missing the forest for the trees in your mission to prove you're a better boy scout than I.

Certainly wouldn't have Napoli bunt every time and have him appear to be a NL pitcher, but for any of the guys on a team really having prolonged struggles to put the ball in play, I'd consider some bunts (yes, fair, if they know how to bunt) in certain situations because it just might give me a better chance to score.

And if you'll go back to the start of this, I was responding to a comment about run expectancy.

Yes. If I could replace struggling hitters with better hitters, that's optimal.

And that's the point of the run expectancy comment I made....don't start bunting more when the issue is the hitting approach of the entire team.

Fix the approach.

corleoneAg99 said:

---

And that's the point of the run expectancy comment I made....don't start bunting more when the issue is the hitting approach of the entire team.

Fix the approach.

---

Do both.

Doesn't seemed to be all that money-whipped.

If he doesn't get along with Banny, I think that may say more about Banny if Brocail is his type of guy while Maddux wasn't.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

corleoneAg99 said:

---

And that's the point of the run expectancy comment I made....don't start bunting more when the issue is the hitting approach of the entire team.

Fix the approach.

---

Do both.

---

If you fix your approach then you don't need to do anything else. And I'm in the camp that bunting in general is not good.

Sounds like we just disagree.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Maddux's contract with Washington was for 2 years at something less than $2 million a year. (Baker makes $2 million).

Theories about promising him Baker's job are complicated by Baker not being hired until November and after the Rangers had said Maddox won't be back.

I don't really care why the Rangers didn't have Maddux back, I just reported what JD said, all I care is that it seems the Rangers decided to take their name out of the hat.

---

And since none of us know what really happened behind close doors it's all just theorizing.

But based on how JD has handled player and front office defections in the past, I'd say it's naive to think that the Rangers "thought they could do better" at pitching coach... Especially when they ultimately went out and signed Doug Brocail.

corleoneAg99 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

corleoneAg99 said:

---

And that's the point of the run expectancy comment I made....don't start bunting more when the issue is the hitting approach of the entire team.

Fix the approach.

---

Do both.

---

If you fix your approach then you don't need to do anything else. And I'm in the camp that bunting in general is not good.

Sounds like we just disagree.

---

If you do fix the approach then you don't need to bunt as much but until then...

TXAggie2011 said:

---

You're missing the forest for the trees in your mission to prove you're a better boy scout than I.

Certainly wouldn't have Napoli bunt every time and have him appear to be a NL pitcher, but for any of the guys on a team really having prolonged struggles to put the ball in play, I'd consider some bunts (yes, fair, if they know how to bunt) in certain situations because it just might give me a better chance to score.

And if you'll go back to the start of this, I was responding to a comment about run expectancy.

Yes. If I could replace struggling hitters with better hitters, that's optimal.

---

I think we all agree that bunting in certain situations with our poor hitters might give us a better chance to score.

But that's kind of exactly your "forest for the trees" comment.. Sure you help our chances to score in small-sample size situations, but over the course of the season it's a recipe for failure.

If the sluggers don't slug, then Texas is going nowhere. Mike Napoli or the like laying down a sac bunt isn't going to cause them to snap out of their funk -- it's likely just going to result in an out because they aren't very good at it.

Quote:

---

But based on how JD has handled player and front office defections in the past, I'd say it's naive to think that the Rangers "thought they could do better" at pitching coach... Especially when they ultimately went out and signed Doug Brocail.

---

That's great. But you're repeating that why? No one has been arguing with you about that.

If the sluggers don't slug, the team will be in trouble. Never suggested I wouldn't agree with that.

But if your players are murdering your win-loss record with unproductive outs, I'm adjusting the short term plan while I work on the long term.

If you disagree with that, then let's talk about that.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

But based on how JD has handled player and front office defections in the past, I'd say it's naive to think that the Rangers "thought they could do better" at pitching coach... Especially when they ultimately went out and signed Doug Brocail.

---

That's great. But you're repeating that why? No one has been arguing with you about that.

---

You posted that based on what JD said they decided they could do better with someone else at pitching coach.

I responded that based on what we know, it was unlikely that was truly the case and was likely more JD doing his "everything's fine, all going as planned" speak.

You then dove into dates and comments that they Rangers walked away from the table, not vice versa.


Either you are arguing that Texas truly thought they could do better than Mike Maddux (Doug Brocail), or you agree with what I initially posted.

I know that's a tough spot for you to be in -- to either say you believe something that you know no sane person could believe to be true, or to not argue that someone is wrong.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If the sluggers don't slug, the team will be in trouble. Never suggested I wouldn't agree with that.

But if your players are murdering your win-loss record with unproductive outs, I'm adjusting the short term plan while I work on the long term.

If you disagree with that, then let's talk about that.

---

Then yes, I disagree with that.

Do you sac-bunt when the situation calls for it? Yes. But that applies whether your hitters are hitting at a 0.280 clip or a 0.200 clip.

Do you sac-bunt to help get your bad-bunting, lead-footed sluggers back into the groove of hitting? No.

If we think it's as simple as "hey if I bunt the ball then suddenly I'll start hitting better" then might as well have them start wearing different color socks too.

Was it posted that Austin Bibens-Dirkx was called up, Dario Alvarez sent down?

I guess my original comment was a little misleading. I don't think your sluggers should bunt in those situations because that's not their game. I would never expect to see Gallo lay down a bunt. I do think, however, that they need to have the awareness to realize the situation and know that maybe a base hit is going to better serve the team rather trying to hit a home run and instead striking out or popping one up in the infield. My comment was geared more towards guys like DDS, Elvis, Choo, even Gomez.

If I team is going into an extreme shift against you (Odor, Maz, Gallo, etc.) maybe you should try letting the ball get into the zone more or taking the pitch where it's thrown and hit the ball the other way. If the D is going to give you the entire left side of the field, why wouldn't you take advantage of that? Don't get me wrong, if the pitcher is going to give you a pitch you that you can knock out of the park, then by all means do it. But don't miss. Obviously, that's easier said than done. If anyone could do that, we'd all be professionals.


Edit re. situational hitting: Guys like Odor, Maz, Gallo are all still young and developing their game. Maz is obviously better at it, but that kind of stuff will come in due time with Gallo and Odor.

Quote:

---

Do you sac-bunt when the situation calls for it? Yes. But that applies whether your hitters are hitting at a 0.280 clip or a 0.200 clip.

---

Am I misunderstanding you here? A decision to bunt or not absolutely has to consider how well a particular hitter is hitting. The math absolutely depends on how likely they are to get a hit, a walk, a home run, or whatever.

Quote:

---

Do you sac-bunt to help get your bad-bunting, lead-footed sluggers back into the groove of hitting? No.

---

Of course I'm not bunting a guy for the purpose of them getting back into the groove of swinging the bat.

I would disagree with you insofar as I don't think having a guy bunt is preventing in any meaningful way him from getting back into a good groove. Plenty of swings to be had even with some bunts mixed in.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you sac-bunt when the situation calls for it? Yes. But that applies whether your hitters are hitting at a 0.280 clip or a 0.200 clip.

---

Am I misunderstanding you here? A decision to bunt or not absolutely has to consider how well a particular hitter is hitting. The math absolutely depends on how likely they are to get a hit, a walk, a home run, or whatever.

---

Statistically sac-bunts by non-pitchers lower your run-expectancy. So if we're going based on statistical probability, "bunting runners over" is never a good idea no matter the hitter.

But if you are a team/coach/fan that believes the bunt is the right decision (typically late in a close game where one run is at it's most valuable and you're just itching to have a guy at 2nd base with 1 out rather than at 1st base with 0 outs), then doing so with a 0.200 hitter or a 0.280 hitter isn't going to be the deciding factor... You've already established you are tossing the statistics out and going with your gut.

Quote:

---

Either you are arguing that Texas truly thought they could do better than Mike Maddux (Doug Brocail), or you agree with what I initially posted.

---

I'm not arguing anything other than it seems the Rangers walked away. Whether it was money, the age of the manager, JD thinking they could do well finding another guy, I don't know. Want to eliminate hr latter? Sure, whatever. Doesn't change the conclusion.

Dates are very relevant to considering the possibility of theories because, for instance, it would be more difficult for Maddux on October 29 or earlier to consider Baker's age if Baker wasn't the Nationals manager until November 3rd.

We have a different understanding of bunts and run expectancy, then. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/should-sluggers-ever-bunt/ is a fun article provoked by Teixiera talking about bunting around the shift a few years ago. Hits on some key concepts about applying run expectations to unique players and ends with the following conclusion.

Quote:

---

However, while one might chuckle at the idea of Teixeira being a "$180 million bunter," our little foray into recent data shows that whether or not having a slugger lay down a bunt now and then is good from a game-theoretical perspective, it can actually help teams score runs.

---

Yeah, to hell with run expectancy over decades and decades of data... This article sounds far more accurate:

Quote:

---

Does this mean that the sluggers are better bunters? Should they be bunting more often? To the first question I would say that I do not know, but I seriously doubt it. As for whether they should be bunting more often, that would require a more work. This is where the previously-mentioned "background assumptions" come into play. Sample size aside,

---

Not to hell with anything, it's just a fun article to bring some considerations to light.

You also have to remember he's asking that quoted question of guys like Mark Tiexiera that were hitting more like .250 or better, 35 home runs, and walking 70 times with 110 strikeouts. Not the kind of (lack of) productivity currently coming from the current Rangers' players we're theorizing about.

LeClerc to the DL