Official 2014 Texas Rangers Spring Training Thread

[Windingmywatch]

Texas Rangers' pitchers, catchers ready to report to Spring Training | texasrangers.com: News

It's time.

(Ford ... sticky this please.)

 

[Nightcrawler]

Offseason ends tomorrow

 

[romeo212000]

Thank God.

 

[Windingmywatch]

Offseason ends tomorrow

Off season is over ... T.R.'s article: "Pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training on Sunday, and most of them are already here. Some have been here for more than a week."

2014 Spring Training Reporting Dates - Spring Training Online

Texas Rangers
Feb. 16 -- pitchers and catchers report
Feb. 17 -- first workout
Feb. 19 -- position players report
Feb. 20 -- first full workout

Even Doug Mathis is there.

 

[Windingmywatch]

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/4537609-post4544.html

 

[TDs3nOut]

Who do you all think will emerge as the closer to begin the season? I read a piece this morning that suggests Feliz and Soria are the favorites. I'd been thinking that Sheppers, who that piece called a "mediocre veteran", is perhaps most likely.

 

[Bmurph]

Seems every offseason lasts longer, glad it's over! Go Rangers!

 

[romeo212000]

Who do you all think will emerge as the closer to begin the season? I read a piece this morning that suggests Feliz and Soria are the favorites. I'd been thinking that Sheppers, who that piece called a "mediocre veteran", is perhaps most likely.

It's Feliz's job to lose, but if he falters Soria and Scheppers will be there waiting to step. Frankly, I wish we would do away with the "closer" position, but that's another discussion.

 

[TDs3nOut]

It's Feliz's job to lose, but if he falters Soria and Scheppers will be there waiting to step. Frankly, I wish we would do away with the "closer" position, but that's another discussion.

How best to use a bullpen is an interesting subject, but it seems to me that all MLB teams currently use their pens in pretty much the same way, don't they?

Here is an article on the subject that I find interesting: Evolution of the closer: How we got here - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

This table, found in that article, illustrates to me just how entrenched the current model of a closer is:

"Relief pitcher seasons with at least 15 saves and 15 decisions:

1970-79: 65
1980-89: 52
1990-99: 11
2000-06: 8
2007-11: 1 (Kevin Gregg with the 2008 Marlins) "

In any event, Nathan was a very reliable closer for us the past couple seasons, so figuring out our best replacement for him is something that interests me this spring.

 

[Duane1952]

It's been a long off season. Hoping Colby gets back and mitch has a good year.

 

[RevSader]

It's Feliz's job to lose, but if he falters Soria and Scheppers will be there waiting to step. Frankly, I wish we would do away with the "closer" position, but that's another discussion.

Imagine a world where the best pitcher available pitched the highest leverage situations....

 

[Xx srs bsns xX]

Who do you all think will emerge as the closer to begin the season? I read a piece this morning that suggests Feliz and Soria are the favorites. I'd been thinking that Sheppers, who that piece called a "mediocre veteran", is perhaps most likely.

Its Feliz's job to lose. That said, last I heard... Scheppers was going to be stretched out and looked at as a SP. (Same as Ross).

That was before the Hanson signing though... Not sure if that changes things or not.

 

[lainey12]

"Once more unto the breech dear friends..."



Go Rangers!

 

[Windingmywatch]

It's Feliz's job to lose, but if he falters Soria and Scheppers will be there waiting to step. Frankly, I wish we would do away with the "closer" position, but that's another discussion.

If memory serves me we have had that discussion at least once in the past beginning of ST in the past three years. Probably more. And I agree with your premise.

Not to 'pick a scab' but with three guys who all in their own rights have or could be closers ... a nice rotation covering the final three innings to include Cotts as well ... would make in game options based on best choice for tonight's situation more tactical. Unfortunately -- being tactical across the last 3 innings is not one of TEX strong points.

Maybe we'd be better off not launching that discussion again though. Never gets us anywhere except arguing over the value of the closer and why holding onto a 3-run lead in the 9th ought to be of more value than holding onto a 3-run lead in the 6th or 7th.

 

[romeo212000]

[/B]

If memory serves me we have had that discussion at least once in the past beginning of ST in the past three years. Probably more. And I agree with your premise.

Not to 'pick a scab' but with three guys who all in their own rights have or could be closers ... a nice rotation covering the final three innings to include Cotts as well ... would make in game options based on best choice for tonight's situation more tactical. Unfortunately -- being tactical across the last 3 innings is not one of TEX strong points.

Maybe we'd be better off not launching that discussion again though. Never gets us anywhere except arguing over the value of the closer and why holding onto a 3-run lead in the 9th ought to be of more value than holding onto a 3-run lead in the 6th or 7th.

Especially when the sixth or seventh innings have the 3-5 hitters and the ninth has 7-9.

 

[TheRangerDude]

Especially when the sixth or seventh innings have the 3-5 hitters and the ninth has 7-9.

Please excuse me for chiming in but how do you predict that you are going to face the 7-9 hitters in the ninth if you are facing the 3-5 hitter in the 7th? How would you predict what hitters you would face at any point in the game until it is actually decided.

 

[Xx srs bsns xX]

How would you predict what hitters you would face at any point in the game until it is actually decided.

Well... in the first inning...they will always face 1-3. At least.

 

[romeo212000]

Please excuse me for chiming in but how do you predict that you are going to face the 7-9 hitters in the ninth if you are facing the 3-5 hitter in the 7th? How would you predict what hitters you would face at any point in the game until it is actually decided.

That's kind of my point. How many times have you seen a team keep their closer (read as best reliever) on the shelf in the seventh inning in an extremely high leverage situation, only to face the bottom of the order in the ninth, or not even get the opportunity to pitch because the lead was given up in the seventh or eighth? What sense does that make? The best pitcher available should pitch the highest leverage situation in any game. For example.

Top off the seventh, one out with runners on first and second. You are tied. Your starter just got pulled and you've got Mariano Rivera, Jason Frasor, and Robbie Ross that has just pitched the last two games in a row. Whoever you bring in is going to face the number three hitter. Who do you bring in?

The answer should be obvious. You bring in Rivera. It's an extremely high leverage situation and you're going against the other teams best hitters. Worry about the ninth when you get to the ninth. If you don't put this fire out, you may not have to worry about the ninth. Frasor has been pretty solid, but you need as close to a sure thing as possible.

Unfortunately, because of the mystical closer title, nearly every manager in the mlb would pitch Frasor because it's not the ninth inning, and you only pitch your closer with a lead in the ninth inning. It makes zero sense, and it can easily cost you the game.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Please excuse me for chiming in but how do you predict that you are going to face the 7-9 hitters in the ninth if you are facing the 3-5 hitter in the 7th? How would you predict what hitters you would face at any point in the game until it is actually decided.

I know that your question is not addressed to me, but I think that the poster to whom you addressed that question raises a very good point, namely, that there really is room for MLB teams to use their pens much more effectively than they all do in fact use them. I highly recommend to anyone interested in that claim to read the blog piece that I posted on the previous, which ends with the following remarks:

"Part of what happened, besides managers reacting to the believed strict usage La Russa applied with Eckersley, is bullpens expanded to seven and eight relievers and managers had to figure out roles to actually keep all of them busy. It just became easier to essentially give specific innings to pitchers. You're the seventh-inning guy. You're the eighth-inning guy. You're the closer. It's easier, but not smarter. It ends up being about managing your team so one guy can rack up saves.

James wrote his essay in a book that came out in 1997. He expected things to change. "The plates will move again," he wrote. "The search for a static equilibrium in relief strategy will go on to its next phase, whatever that might be."

It's 15 years later. We're still waiting."

 

[TDs3nOut]

That's kind of my point. How many times have you seen a team keep their closer (read as best reliever) on the shelf in the seventh inning in an extremely high leverage situation, only to face the bottom of the order in the ninth, or not even get the opportunity to pitch because the lead was given up in the seventh or eighth? What sense does that make? The best pitcher available should pitch the highest leverage situation in any game. For example.

Top off the seventh, one out with runners on first and second. You are tied. Your starter just got pulled and you've got Mariano Rivera, Jason Frasor, and Robbie Ross that has just pitched the last two games in a row. Whoever you bring in is going to face the number three hitter. Who do you bring in?

The answer should be obvious. You bring in Rivera. It's an extremely high leverage situation and you're going against the other teams best hitters. Worry about the ninth when you get to the ninth. If you don't put this fire out, you may not have to worry about the ninth. Frasor has been pretty solid, but you need as close to a sure thing as possible.

Unfortunately, because of the mystical closer title, nearly every manager in the mlb would pitch Frasor because it's not the ninth inning, and you only pitch your closer with a lead in the ninth inning. It makes zero sense, and it can easily cost you the game.

I definitely agree with your general point that a team should want its best pitcher on the mound in the most crucial situations. As discussed in the Schoenfield piece that I posted, however, accomplishing that on a consistent basis over time might be a bit more complex than your highlighted sentence above suggests (e.g., see the discussion early in that piece about how the "firemen" of the '70s tended to regress after too many appearances).