Rangers return home after... (checks notes) one day on the road: A's at the Grill for a couple

[Kelleyman]

Teams that like to shift are probably going to push the boundary and those who don't will probably shrink it just so visiting teams who do are handicapped...

Anybody care to guess who that might be???

MLB shifts are increasing before rule changes ban them - Sports Illustrated

Or, at least with the gentle thwack of a ball into the glove of a perfectly positioned fielder.

www.si.com

MLB Team Fielder Positioning

Baseball Savant

baseballsavant.mlb.com

You also have to wonder if teams will start placing more emphasis on having 2B/SS that can cover more ground defensively and less on hitting at those positions???

One article I read is without the shift more players will try for more line drives vs lifting everything

 

[Uncle Siggy]

One article I read is without the shift more players will try for more line drives vs lifting everything

That wouldn't surprise me in the least I hope they do. Used to be quite a few guys hit .300 every year lately we're lucky to see 15 or 20 total, right now there is 12. And to me it would make the game more interesting to watch, more action and more strategy...

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways...

 

[scotsman1948]

That wouldn't surprise me in the least I hope they do. Used to be quite a few guys hit .300 every year lately we're lucky to see 15 or 20 total, right now there is 12. And to me it would make the game more interesting to watch, more action and more strategy...

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways...

Bullseye. all we hear is everyone complaining about the lack of hitting today. how many players are hitting below .225? how many are hitting below the Mendoza line?

 

[saddles]

My goal for this team is to build a World Series caliber team. I would really like to put together a team that has a realistic chance of winning a WS for 4 to 6 years. I really don't think that is realistic prior to about 2025.

Therefore, my ideas about what should be done to this roster is based on that. It is not based on contending for a wild card spot next year. If we get to be a wildcard before we get good enough to realistically go to a WS, then that is fine, but that, in and of itself, doesn't interest me at all.

I am also not concerned about our W-L record along the way. I am not concerned with wins every time we play. That is why I am willing to play a struggling young player as opposed to a veteran. I think if this is done the right way that wins will naturally increase along the way, but to me, that is a side benefit.

We will never buy our way to a championship, but we are going to have to be willing to spend in the level of the top 7 to 10 in payroll eventually. Since we cannot buy our way, and since payroll does have a limit, I think we have to try and develop as many very good to great players as we can from our system. Once you get close to finishing up developing enough guys you can finish the team up with free agents and trades. Some of that you can do a year or two ahead of time as long as those players high production years fits within several years of our window. A year from now, we will have a lot better idea about which positions will need fortifying with outside acquisitions, in order to build a WS caliber team.

I think we messed up last offseason in spending heavily at positions where we had a lot of system depth already. It wasn't a fatal mistake, but it will require tough conversations with Seager and Semien in the not too distant future. I actually don't think this coming offseason is too early to sit Seager down and tell him his defensive play warrants him changing positions next year. If he asks for a trade that might not be a bad development. If we do free up his money we could go after a great hitting OF or a top notch ace within the next 15 months. We don't have to trade him, but I can certainly see an upside to doing so. Again, I don't want to intentionally provoke him.

One other thing about having a goal of building a WS caliber team is that I think at times we will have to be willing to trade away a good player to make room for a very good or great player. The tough thing is that requires what could be seen as a step backwards initially. You would have to trust your staff to be able to tell you which players have the best chance to be the better players. For example, you may have a guy in place who seems like another David Murphy and who is doing fine, but you may have a prospect that your people say has a good chance to be another Rusty Greer. If there is only one roster spot, you would be wise to move on from the Murphy level player to make room for the potential Greer-type player. Fans will not understand that when the move is made and it could backfire, but it is hard to build the best team you can without taking a few chances along the way.

I understand that a lot of fans, and probably some of you guys view things differently, and I certainly understand why some have a different viewpoint. It would be helpful to keep the likelihood of different ones of us having different goals, in mind, when we differ about what the Rangers should do. When two people have a different destination in mind, it is just natural for them to want to take different routes. When the other guy wants to go a different route that is just natural.

 

[saddles]