Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I hope the Tigers get good Ian Kinsler and not sour-grapes-and-popups-Ian Kinsler.
The argument happened when Kinsler touched Beltre's head.
Has a team ever gone 0-162 before?
•Trading Michael Young before last season really hurt the club, in Kinsler’s view. “He held everything together,” Kinsler told ESPN.
5. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 04, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4666052)
Maybe one of our resident Rangers fans can enlighten me, but what exactly did Nolan Ryan other than being Nolan Ryan to make the organization better?
Didn't Ryan make some sort of noise about getting Rangers starters to go deeper into games? Did that happen? And if it did, did it make any difference in the staff's effectiveness?
What Ryan brought first and foremost to the Rangers upon his February, 2008 hiring was an air of integrity and credibility at a time when the club was foundering on the field and struggling to hold its fan base. By sitting in the front row of every home game, Ryan immediately brought credibility back.
He also helped reinforce the club’s developing pitching-first mentality, which emphasized stronger, fitter more durable pitchers. It dovetailed nicely with the philosophy of Daniels’ staff at the time. In 2007, the Rangers posted a 4.75 ERA. It has been under 4.00 every year starting with 2010 and fell to 3.62 this season.
If differences did develop, they were on the hiring side. Ryan insisted on hiring Tim Purpura as director of player development following the 2011 season over Daniels protests. Following 2012, Daniels wanted to reassign bench coach Jackie Moore, who had been hired on Ryan’s recommendation after 2008. Ryan balked.
In the last month, Purpura has been reassigned to the business side of the operation and Moore was not retained.
But, if we are to submit that it was Nolan who singlehandedly brought Maddux in, then fine. We can step off into the deep end for a second. However, if we do that, then we also have to give Ryan credit for bringing in two of “his” guys — former Astros (and buddies) Roy Oswalt and Lance Berkman — who essentially provided nothing to the franchise over the last two seasons. That wasn’t Jon Daniels. That was Nolan Ryan making a vague attempt at showing his prowess as a “baseball guy”. At $15 million, Oswalt and Berkman combined to produce +0.7 wins for the Rangers.
I’m trying to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt here. I really am.
...cause if they lose all 162, it's going to #### up replacement levels for years to come. Some douche bag kid sitting in his mother's basement 50 years from now is going to wonder how the #### did Don Kelly get 327 RAW in 2014.
So Kinsler considers himself a team leader on the Rangers, but not Michael Young? Conflicting remarks here.
That said, Texas' return to relevance coincides much better with Nolan Ryan than it does with Jon Daniels. Those Oswalt and Berkman signings are not big deals, they were moves on the edge of the roster that didn't pan out, which happens all of the time. I generally have faith in Jon Daniels, but he was at the helm for some awful moves in the last decade (Soriano for Wilkerson, AGon and Chris Young for Adam Eaton, John Danks for McCarthy and then proceed to not keep McCarthy around as he finally got healthy/good) as well as the massive overpay of Michael Young. And Ryan was not around for a lot of those.
I don't know, Ryan was around for the Teixeira deal, the Beltre signing,
But just because it is hard to measure doesn't mean we should assume he doesn't deserve any credit. He was one of the key people at the table during the best run in Rangers history.
Rk Split G Year BF BA OBP SLG OPS tOPS+ sOPS+
1 TEX Ball In Play 163 2013 4134 .299 .296 .372 .668 91 98
2 TEX Ball In Play 162 2012 4120 .297 .294 .383 .677 89 99
3 TEX Ball In Play 162 2011 4163 .283 .280 .355 .635 82 89
4 TEX Ball In Play 162 2010 4256 .286 .283 .360 .643 81 90
5 TEX Ball In Play 162 2009 4384 .292 .289 .372 .662 77 93
6 TEX Ball In Play 162 2008 4668 .321 .317 .414 .731 79 113
Rk Split Year HR BB IBB SO HBP BF SO/BB BA OBP SLG tOPS+ sOPS+
1 TEX Not in Play 2013 157 498 35 1309 48 2012 2.63 .107 .349 .428 122 92
2 TEX Not in Play 2012 174 446 15 1286 41 1947 2.88 .119 .339 .477 127 93
3 TEX Not in Play 2011 170 461 21 1179 46 1858 2.56 .126 .365 .504 148 104
4 TEX Not in Play 2010 162 551 24 1181 63 1957 2.14 .121 .397 .483 148 104
5 TEX Not in Play 2009 171 531 14 1016 70 1788 1.91 .144 .432 .576 169 116
6 TEX Not in Play 2008 176 625 44 963 72 1838 1.54 .155 .475 .618 167 136
I just don't know why the folks around Arlington are more convinced that Nolan deserves the credit while Daniels doesn't.
Probably because of the reasons detailed in #16 and #21, especially the timing.
“He got in good with the owners and straight pushed [Nolan] Ryan out.
Makes for a great story. But it also doesn't mean its true.
I think based on most of the stuff I have read, Nolan's role with the Rangers is similar to Magic's with the Dodgers. Other folks are running the show (and Magic's role is far more obvious).
Edit: But man, if the Dodgers win with Magic as a figurehead (or whatever his role is), he will probably be the most beloved athlete in LA (he kind of already is, but if you win with the Lakers and seem to help the Dodgers win, you're a god). Magic is already a god in LA (and one of my all-time favorites) but if the Dodgers win, his hero worship might be off the charts. LA has been a Lakers town for a long time, but the when the Dodgers are good... wow. There is just something special about LA when the Dodgers are winning that the Lakers can't even capture.
They both filled the "celebrity front man" role, but, by all accounts, Ryan had much more day-to-day responsibility with the Rangers than Magic does with the Dodgers. Magic apparently isn't seen for weeks at a time around the Dodgers.
Seriously, what did he do during this time that anyone can quantify?
Ryan would sit next to the dugout and watch every game, for sure. This is hardly a responsibility, but it gives a sense that the team president is there taking an immediate interest; and it was good PR, too.
I was exaggerating with comparing it to Magic's role, but no one can seem to quantify what he actually did with the Rangers. Seriously, what did he do during this time that anyone can quantify?
And Joe, if Magic is on a float when the Dodgers when the series again, no one is going to give a damn how dumb it will or would be to give him credit for them winning. It's irrational fan thinking. I know that Stan Kasten and Logan White (and Neddie for that matter) are the baseball folks behind the curtain, but man..
Magic is Magic.. it would be stupid to give him credit of course.. but the public perception is that Magic won 5 titles as a player, 5 more as a Lakers owner, and whatever number the Dodgers might or might not win. As much as folks love Nolan in Texas, his resume can never match Earvin's, ever.
What has Daniels done that anyone can quantify? For all we know, he plays video games all day while his lieutenants run the team's baseball ops.
but the public perception is that Magic won 5 titles as a player, 5 more as a Lakers owner
Aside from being in charge of drafting, signing, or trading for most of the current roster? I dunno. But I think you are for more interested in giving credit to a figurehead than the guy who has actually made his moves and has been publicly accountable for them as opposed to a figure head that we have no idea about what or what not he did.
And when at anytime did I say that Magic deserved credit for the Dodgers resurgence?
I just said absence any evidence, Magic is just as responsible for the Dodgers resurgence as Nolan Ryan was. Until people start pointing out a change in player development or a significant change in player acquisition (draft, free agency, etc) compared to what Daniels was doing before, it would probably be better to stop commenting on it.
I just said absence any evidence, Magic is just as responsible for the Dodgers resurgence as Nolan Ryan was. Until people start pointing out a change in player development or a significant change in player acquisition (draft, free agency, etc)
compared to what Daniels was doing before,
it would probably be better to stop commenting on it.
I agree with zack. They'd get 27 outs eventually, but not before they give up 27 runs.
I would guess that all but the top-tier college teams would likely go 0-162 playing a major league schedule.
But it sure seems like good HS players aren't all that much different from low-level minor leaguers.
We'll just use the rope-a-dope. Eventually, they'll get tired from jogging around the bases. And that's when we pounce!
we also have to give Ryan credit for bringing in two of “his” guys — former Astros (and buddies) Roy Oswalt and Lance Berkman — who essentially provided nothing to the franchise over the last two seasons. That wasn’t Jon Daniels. That was Nolan Ryan making a vague attempt at showing his prowess as a “baseball guy”. At $15 million, Oswalt and Berkman combined to produce +0.7 wins for the Rangers.
Rk Tm Year G W L W-L% RS RA pythW-L%1 NYM 1962 161 40 120 .250 617 948 .3132 DET 2003 162 43 119 .265 591 928 .3053 PIT 1952 155 42 112 .273 515 793 .3124 PHI 1945 154 46 108 .299 548 865 .3035 PHI 1961 155 47 107 .305 584 796 .3626 NYM 1965 164 50 112 .309 495 752 .3187 ARI 2004 162 51 111 .315 615 899 .3338 HOU 2013 162 51 111 .315 610 848 .3549 NYM 1963 162 51 111 .315 501 774 .31110 PHA 1946 155 49 105 .318 529 680 .387
Edit: and yes, football is different. The "hey, would Alabama beat the Jaguars?" rage was the stupidest thing ever. If Alabama played the Jaguars 162 times, they MIGHT win once.
When other sports play exhibiton games top level vs next level down, you see the lower level teams win. Baseball, Hockey and basketball.
#46 The Cleveland Spiders actually had a tiny bit of major league talent and managed to play .130 ball.
So a school like Alabama that produces 1st round offensive linemen and 1st round running backs is going to be able to do some things,
For me this always breaks down at the QB spot. There are something like, what, 3 college quarterbacks in an average year that are good enough to start in the NFL? Maybe 5 at most, in a really good year?
And sometimes those 1st round running backs are Trent Richardson, and not able to do any things in the NFL.
Even if the QB sucked, you could just run up the middle all day long as the 340 pound steroid riddled offensive line pushes the college line of 270 pound steroid riddled men around.
The gap between top college football and bottom NFL is smaller than any other sport.
By contrast – say, in basketball and baseball – the accumulation of international talent in the North American major leagues has become more and more intense, and the scouting and funneling of the very best players to the majors more effective. Ninety, 100, 120 years ago, you can imagine the weakest major-league baseball clubs scuffling against high minor-league clubs, for sure. 45 years ago, I can quite well imagine UCLA with Alcindor, Rowe, and Wicks taking a playoff series from some ABA tail-ender. I don't think similar things could happen nowadays. Of course the dynamics have changed (with changing rules on underclassman eligibility to play pro ball, eg) but that's what we're talking about, changed dynamics.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.8642 seconds, 59 querie(s) executed