Jump to content

Rays-Rangers ALWC series


Just Regular

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

The Rangers offense concerns me. Their entire lineup is built with power and contact and they can change the game in an instant with 1 stroke of the bat. 

Garcia had the 2nd most home runs in the entire American League. 

I realize he had a HR today, but Garcia was awful in the 2nd half. Rangers fans down here were ready to get rid of him. 

But you’re right, scary offense when they are on. So is ours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Jose Berrios and Yusei Kikuchi had very fine seasons, but today's events are a tough note to end on.

Zooming out, more waves from the Alek Manoah pool splash.

Its possible we'll do some of the same mad science with Means-Kremer-Gibson down in Texas if Bradish-Grayson go 1/2, and are both available for 5 if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

Its possible we'll do some of the same mad science with Means-Kremer-Gibson down in Texas if Bradish-Grayson go 1/2, and are both available for 5 if necessary.

I don't know what the analytics say, but a surface level glance suggests that Means starting in Camden Yards for game 2 might the better play. For several reasons:

1. Grayson had 1 start in Texas and 1 start in Oriole Park vs the Rangers. He was good in Texas, but struggled/failed to contain Home Runs in Camden Yards.

2. John Means is Left Handed, a fly ball pitcher, and he has a better chance of taking advantage of the left field wall in Baltimore.

But like I said, this is only at a glance.

I'm sure the Sigbot team will be able to determine the best strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

I'd rather even a player like Odor gets a check over the owner just pocketing another 20M.

I do respect that some folks are in favor of the owners increasing their profits, even if I don't understand it.

I care about the game of baseball,  and not about which side pockets an extra $20M.  Fair or not,  we know what the players make while the actual profit or income of the owners is unknown or uncertain.  Plus,  for the most part, the players are who the fans know and see,  not really the owners.   I have never heard anyone say they quit following baseball because some nameless suit owner made an extra $20M, but I have heard frustrations and anger over a guy hitting under .200 while cashing a giant paycheck.  I do know folks who got so turned off at the huge money guaranteed to guys who don't perform that it has soured them on the MLB.  

Yes,  if a floor were used right,  to extend young talent and bring in good players, then it would help,  maybe.   But I'm afraid too often the tanking teams would simply overpay some mediocre vet on an absurd 1 year deal just to satisfy a number.   That does no good for anyone,  except the overpaid vet.   And could do more harm than good if it turns more folks off to baseball.   

If I had to choose between an owner pocketing that $20M or a Odor type getting it,  yes,  I'd rather it stay with the owner.   Not because they deserve it,  but because I think it's less damaging to the health of the sport overall.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

The Rangers offense concerns me. Their entire lineup is built with power and contact and they can change the game in an instant with 1 stroke of the bat. 

Garcia had the 2nd most home runs in the entire American League. 

Good pitching and defense shuts down good hitting. Orioles have good SP. Do they have good defense and do they have good RP. Those are the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Malike said:

I don't agree with the Scrooge thing either, but I've never been a fan of the Yankee way of buying championships, it rarely works, so we have that going for us I guess, which is nice.

 

 

11 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure, it rarely works.

Let 'em spend.

It rarely "works" because they crown the champion based on a small handful of short series between relatively closely matched teams, so that the odds of even a 110-win team ending up on top are far less than 50-50.

While there are exceptions like the Rays and the Mets, if you did a correlation between wins and payroll over multiple years it would be pretty high. I'm pretty sure over the last 25 years the Yanks have both the highest payroll and the most wins in the sport, and if not it's close. The Dodgers' recent regular season performances are dynastic, and that coincides with them surpassing the Yanks' payroll several times.

The issue I have with spending is that it papers over any number of shortcomings. You can win without a high payroll, but only if you're run extremely efficiently and you take full advantage of things like the discounts in young player salaries. But it's really hard to beat a well-run team that's flush with cash. Imagine if Angelos told Elias he could acquire anyone he wanted in July? The O's might have approached the late 60s, early 70s teams' win totals.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • I honestly think there is very little difference in most the teams that made the playoffs.  The most wins was 98 wins and there was 12 teams with 86 wins or more.  It also seems that many of the teams are on the same page with scouting and analytics now hitting wise.  Years back you had moneyball which the A’s used before anyone else.  Then the Astros and few teams started with analytics and seemed to be ahead of the rest of the league but they have caught up now imo.  Now the move seems to be on launch angle and hitting homers by getting the ball in the air but that seems to be across the league.  Obviously some teams have more money and more talented players but the strategy seems about the same.  The main differences I see is in pitching in the playoffs which is bullpen games and using openers rather then a starter to go 7 innings and carry your team to win now a slight sign of trouble they are taking them out.  With all these short inning guys and pitching them in certain pockets we are seeing very little offense and the hitting with runners in scoring position has been awful.  It all comes down to RISP at bats and getting 1 or 2 big base hits in those situations.  We just haven’t been able to get those hits so far in short series.  
    • And we've seen similar with Kjerstad. Kjerstad might be the best pure hitting prospect in the Orioles system of recent years besides Gunnar. I want to see him playing everyday next year is possible none of this sitting him versus LHP more often than not. These prospects need to get their reps and stop treating them like John Lowenstein and Benny Ayala.
    • I don’t see Elias trading off prospects anymore at least top guys.  We have moved a few guys in last year and I expect they try to build that back up.  They should have money to use if they want to add talent.  
    • Blah, well Rob Manfred has to be happy along with Fox network. A Yankees-Mets World Series match up is still on the table and the Dodgers as well if they win tomorrow. I knew the Royals would get jettisoned by the Yankees without too much of a fight.
    • For Mountcastle …Maybe Chase Petty and Tristan Smith?
    • I’m guessing they ask for Mayo or Basallo of Kjerstad. For me …I’d give them Kjerstad since he’s defensively challenged IMO. Maybe Kjerstad, McDermott, Beavers, and O’Ferrall? 
    • 192 wins in two seasons is a pretty strong argument to stay the course.  That said, I wonder if the young players wouldn't be better off long-term if the scientific matchups took a back seat to the raw talent a little more than we've seen.  Overthinking something can be a thing you know.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...