2014 Offseason

[romeo212000]

So 'maintaining another year of control of Hoying' is worth keeping DeShields on the active roster this year?

You're asking the wrong guy, Winding. It's not my decision to make.

 

[Windingmywatch]

So 'maintaining another year of control of Hoying' is worth keeping DeShields on the active roster this year?

Of course in neither EG's or T.R.'s piece are they going to say putting someone else on the roster is in order to control Hoying for another year ... Hoying's name wasn't even mentioned. If protecting Hoying is the objective ... then Schierholz would be the better addition.

T.R. wrote: ""I don't see Delino as a Rule 5 guy," manager Jeff Banister said. "This is a guy with a skill set that helps you win ballgames. " With all due respect to the new manager ... that statement makes no sense. What he is saying that if he was seen as a Rule 5 guy then he would lack the skill set to win games.

Well ... he is a Rule 5 guy who never played above AA and was moved to the outfield because he couldn't hack it in the infield.

HOU must have a heck of 40man roster if they don't want to spend a spot on DeShields ... and TEX must be darn weak to not just make a spot for him on its 40man but to give him a guaranteed 25man spot as well. HOU who knows him better didn't want to do either.

I think i am arguing for the sake of arguing ... I'm bored and this is the only thing to debate. I don't really care about DeShields but he needs to be wearing #97 ... not "7". I thought that number was supposed to be retired.

 

[WastinSomeTime]

Of course in neither EG's or T.R.'s piece are they going to say putting someone else on the roster is in order to control Hoying for another year ... Hoying's name wasn't even mentioned. If protecting Hoying is the objective ... then Schierholz would be the better addition.

T.R. wrote: ""I don't see Delino as a Rule 5 guy," manager Jeff Banister said. "This is a guy with a skill set that helps you win ballgames. " With all due respect to the new manager ... that statement makes no sense. What he is saying that if he was seen as a Rule 5 guy then he would lack the skill set to win games.

Well ... he is a Rule 5 guy who never played above AA and was moved to the outfield because he couldn't hack it in the infield.

HOU must have a heck of 40man roster if they don't want to spend a spot on DeShields ... and TEX must be darn weak to not just make a spot for him on its 40man but to give him a guaranteed 25man spot as well. HOU who knows him better didn't want to do either.

I think i am arguing for the sake of arguing ... I'm bored and this is the only thing to debate. I don't really care about DeShields but he needs to be wearing #97 ... not "7". I thought that number was supposed to be retired.

Have to agree with you Winding. Send DeShields packing and let someone who can really help us win have his spot. The guy is a mediocre defender and a Mendoza line type hitter. Give me a guy with a bat and glove than a guy whose speed will only be useful if someone gets on for him to PR and then that player is lost for the rest of the game if it does not pan out.

 

[donaldson79]

So 'maintaining another year of control of Hoying' is worth keeping DeShields on the active roster this year?

We're experimenting in the early season. I suspect anyway. If this guy falls flat - most seem to think he will - then he'll be gone in gone in about 60 days or so. No big deal IMO.

 

[donaldson79]

No one in the FO is going to admit this, nor should they. But the truth of the matter IMO is, 2015 is mostly about 2016 and beyond.

 

[romeo212000]

No one in the FO is going to admit this, nor should they. But the truth of the matter IMO is, 2015 is mostly about 2016 and beyond.

When Darvish went down, pretty much cinched it. If they can make a run at a WC spot that would be a bonus.

 

[donaldson79]

When Darvish went down, pretty much cinched it. If they can make a run at a WC spot that would be a bonus.

I will remain optimistic until forced to think otherwise. And if we do make a run at the WC, then Bannister has got to be in contention for MOY.

But I looked up our projected starting 5 and if they all equal their career best record, that's 57 wins. Certainly believe Martinez will exceed his 5 from last season, but seriously doubt Colby can make 14. 16 from Holland is a doable #, as is 12 for Gal; actually he could easily trump this. 10 from Detwiler? Just don't know.

Sorry about your Sooners. I missed the entire 2nd half, but thought they were in the drivers seat, both mentally & physically, going into the 2nd half.

 

[romeo212000]

I will remain optimistic until forced to think otherwise. And if we do make a run at the WC, then Bannister has got to be in contention for MOY.

But I looked up our projected starting 5 and if they all equal their career best record, that's 57 wins. Certainly believe Martinez will exceed his 5 from last season, but seriously doubt Colby can make 14. 16 from Holland is a doable #, as is 12 for Gal; actually he could easily trump this. 10 from Detwiler? Just don't know.

Sorry about your Sooners. I missed the entire 2nd half, but thought they were in the drivers seat, both mentally & physically, going into the 2nd half.

I ignore pitching wins and losses entirely.

Yeah, they were in the drivers seat, but they did exactly what I expected them to do.

 

[donaldson79]

[QUOTE="romeo212000, post: 6405277, member: 1675"]I ignore pitching wins and losses entirely.

Yeah, they were in the drivers seat, but they did exactly what I expected them to do.[/QUOTE]

And this confuses me. I know you use/depend on the "advanced metrics" more than I do. So I do understand this.

But my confusion is this, if we know our team has to win X amount of games, then pitcher X (s) has to be accountable for those wins; loses too right? So how can an individual pitchers record be of no importance, when it has to factor into the teams won-loss record somewhere along the line?

 

[Windingmywatch]

[QUOTE="romeo212000, post: 6405277, member: 1675"]I ignore pitching wins and losses entirely.

Yeah, they were in the drivers seat, but they did exactly what I expected them to do.

And this confuses me. I know you use/depend on the "advanced metrics" more than I do. So I do understand this.

But my confusion is this, if we know our team has to win X amount of games, then pitcher X (s) has to be accountable for those wins; loses too right? So how can an individual pitchers record be of no importance, when it has to factor into the teams won-loss record somewhere along the line?[/QUOTE]

I think you can say ... position players WIN games with their offense while pitchers LOSE games or hold the opposition from scoring thereby contributing to the win ... but pitchers can't win games.

Example: A pitcher can throw a perfect game for 12.1 innings and still LOSE the game 1-0 in the 13th to the guy who gave up 12 hits over 13.0.

Pitching peripherals give us a better idea of the quality of the pitcher's performance for one game or his trend. Otherwise rather than WIN - LOSS ... more relevant would be GAMES WHERE PITCHER KEPT OPPOSITION FROM SCORING MORE RUNS THAN PITCHER's TEAMMATES SCORED -- GAVE UP MORE RUNS THAN TEAMMATES SCORED.

 

[DT LUNA]

And this confuses me. I know you use/depend on the "advanced metrics" more than I do. So I do understand this.

But my confusion is this, if we know our team has to win X amount of games, then pitcher X (s) has to be accountable for those wins; loses too right? So how can an individual pitchers record be of no importance, when it has to factor into the teams won-loss record somewhere along the line?

I think you can say ... position players WIN games with their offense while pitchers LOSE games or hold the opposition from scoring thereby contributing to the win ... but pitchers can't win games.

Example: A pitcher can throw a perfect game for 12.1 innings and still LOSE the game 1-0 in the 13th to the guy who gave up 12 hits over 13.0.

Pitching peripherals give us a better idea of the quality of the pitcher's performance for one game or his trend. Otherwise rather than WIN - LOSS ... more relevant would be GAMES WHERE PITCHER KEPT OPPOSITION FROM SCORING MORE RUNS THAN PITCHER's TEAMMATES SCORED -- GAVE UP MORE RUNS THAN TEAMMATES SCORED.[/QUOTE]
Last time I took notice it was indeed a team sport. Good post Winding.

 

[donaldson79]

I think you can say ... position players WIN games with their offense while pitchers LOSE games or hold the opposition from scoring thereby contributing to the win ... but pitchers can't win games.

Example: A pitcher can throw a perfect game for 12.1 innings and still LOSE the game 1-0 in the 13th to the guy who gave up 12 hits over 13.0.

Pitching peripherals give us a better idea of the quality of the pitcher's performance for one game or his trend. Otherwise rather than WIN - LOSS ... more relevant would be GAMES WHERE PITCHER KEPT OPPOSITION FROM SCORING MORE RUNS THAN PITCHER's TEAMMATES SCORED -- GAVE UP MORE RUNS THAN TEAMMATES SCORED.

Last time I took notice it was indeed a team sport. Good post Winding.[/QUOTE]

I do get this. I was being even more simplistic in that if a pitcher - year in and out - is perennially 8-11, yet his team is 12 games over .500, this can't be good.

I agree with the point of your examples.

But let me ask ya this: remember when Steve Carlton went something like 25-11, and the Phillies only won like 56 games? That's not luck, nor is it not pertinent to a pitchers won-loss record. Is it?

 

[WastinSomeTime]

Much like King Felix when he was only 13-12 but with a 2.27 ERA and won the Cy Young award.

 

[RevSader]

Last time I took notice it was indeed a team sport. Good post Winding.

I do get this. I was being even more simplistic in that if a pitcher - year in and out - is perennially 8-11, yet his team is 12 games over .500, this can't be good.

I agree with the point of your examples.

But let me ask ya this: remember when Steve Carlton went something like 25-11, and the Phillies only won like 56 games? That's not luck, nor is it not pertinent to a pitchers won-loss record. Is it?[/QUOTE]

Would have to look at the game logs to see what kind of run support he got. You don't win 25 games by accident, but sometimes you can have improbable stretches of superb run support. I know it happened the year Tommy Hunter won 13 games in 22 starts. So couple some luck and incredible talent and you can pull off the unlikely.

 

[donaldson79]

Much like King Felix when he was only 13-12 but with a 2.27 ERA and won the Cy Young award.

Yes, and if memory serves, so did Carlton.

Here's my bottom line on this discussion: (A) A pitchers record - wins vs losses - cannot be meaningless, while (B) in the grand scheme of things, a teams record of wins vs losses, is the only stat which really matters at all.

These two things are NOT mutually exclusive from one another, IMO. Nor can they be.

Am I just pissing up my own rope here?

 

[True Rangers Fan]

We're experimenting in the early season. I suspect anyway. If this guy falls flat

Yes, and if memory serves, so did Carlton.

Here's my bottom line on this discussion: (A) A pitchers record - wins vs losses - cannot be meaningless, while (B) in the grand scheme of things, a teams record of wins vs losses, is the only stat which really matters at all.

These two things are NOT mutually exclusive from one another, IMO. Nor can they be.

Am I just pissing up my own rope here?

I'm with you, if I'm understanding your point. A pitcher's record (and ERA for that matter), is definitely not a meaningless stat. It just can't be directly used to accurately gauge a pitcher's overall performance.

 

[RevSader]

Yes, and if memory serves, so did Carlton.

Here's my bottom line on this discussion: (A) A pitchers record - wins vs losses - cannot be meaningless, while (B) in the grand scheme of things, a teams record of wins vs losses, is the only stat which really matters at all.

These two things are NOT mutually exclusive from one another, IMO. Nor can they be.

Am I just pissing up my own rope here?

I think it's mostly meaningless when evaluating their overall worth and talent as individual players. Reminds me of the story line from 2013 about Darvish "not being able to pitch with a lead."

 

[Duane1952]

The Rangers trade for Cardinals pitcher Sam Freeman, for a player to be named later.

 

[saddles]

To me if a pitcher's W-L record doesn't match up with his ERA then I ignore the W-L record. I do understand though that sometimes a pitcher needs to pitch differently with a big lead and therefore when he is on a team that is great offensively his ERA might go up as well. When you have a 6 run lead you are probably a lot more willing to pitch to contact than you are with a lesser lead.

 

[WastinSomeTime]

The Rangers trade for Cardinals pitcher Sam Freeman, for a player to be named later.

Much needed LH reliever. Saw that he grew up in Lewisville and went to Hebron High School and then to NCTC in Gaineville. Local kid.