Texas Rangers
Exciting new research has revealed that this edition of the Texas Rangers is the fourth-best team in the history of baseball. Unfortunately for the Rangers, the top three spots are held by the current Anaheim Angels, Seattle Mariners, and Oakland Athletics.
Okay, so it's not that bad. But Texas does suffer from being in such a strong division. They were a .500 team last year (52-52) in their games outside the AL West. Furthermore, Texas went 18-26 in one-run games in 2002, and underperformed their .479 Pythagorean percentage by .035--a larger margin than any other AL team except Boston. All of which adds up to the Rangers likely being a better team than they appear at first glance.
But the big story for the 2002 Rangers of course centered around shortstop Alex Rodriguez, who once again missed out on the American League Most Valuable Player Award--this time to fellow AL West shortstop Miguel Tejada. Of course, A-Rod should remember the not-too-old saying: an MVP award and $3.50 will get you a cafe latte--well, and a $500,000 award bonus.
On the other hand, Rodriguez nearly unanimously won the more prestigious Baseball Primer AL MVP Award. Really, agents and general managers would be well-advised to link award-based incentives to Baseball Primer's end-of-season awards rather than those other baseball writers', if for no other reason than we can easily be bought. For 50 bucks, I'd happily put Charles Gipson or someone like that on the top line of my ballot. If anyone questions it, I'll say he had a deceptively low BABIP or something--no one will actually check.
But I digress. A-Rod has been fantastic for the Rangers, even though the mean old sportswriters haven't given him the MVP award. I know, I know: his salary is a huge constraint on his team's payroll; in fact, after paying Rodriguez's salary, Texas could only scrounge up enough cash to pay the rest of their players twice the opening day payroll of the team that won Texas's division. I wouldn't wish that curse on my worst enemies, because I'm too busy wishing it on myself.
So I'm going to put A-Rod squarely in the "Good News for Ranger Fans" column. No other team has less to worry about at shortstop, particularly since A-Rod has played in 162 games in each of his two years in Texas, starting all but two. He's above average defensively. He's phenomenal at the plate. He heals the sick and can hit the high note in "Take On Me."
But what of the rest of the Rangers? Let's take a look position by position:
Catcher
Oh, it is the end of an era. For twelve years, Ivan "The Other" Rodriguez was the Rangers' starting catcher. For the last nine of those years, he had an OPS+ above 100. For the last five years, it was at least 120. Whether Pudge will remain that productive or not, the Rangers will miss having that kind of output from a catcher.
So with Ivan now playing for the Marlins, who will be catching for the Rangers? Look for Einar Diaz to be crouching behind the plate. Diaz came to Texas in a trade with Cleveland, where he replaced Sandy Alomar Jr. Einar might make an entire career out of replacing progressively better famous catchers; in fact, he's already been fitted for a Mets uniform.
The question for Texas now is whether Diaz will do more than make Pudge look even better in retrospect and prevent baseballs from hitting the home plate umpire's sensitive areas. He has been somewhat productive in the past; in 2001 his hitting was above average for a catcher. However, he had a very rough 2002, in which he hit .206 and posted an OPS+ of just 43 before suffering a season-ending elbow injury.
Diaz is entering his age-30 season, so his better days may be behind him. He is certainly not going to replace Ivan's production, but the Rangers can reasonably expect him to be better than he was last year.
First Base
Other than shortstop, this is where the Rangers need to worry the least. Rafael Palmeiro should primarily handle the cool corner this year, and he has been so consistently productive that he tends to be somewhat forgotten. The last time Palmeiro played in more than ten games fewer than his team was 1987, when he appeared in 84 games with the Cubs as a 22-year-old. The last time he had an OPS+ below 100 was the year before that, when in his first 73 major league at bats, he had an OPS+ of 90. Lately, he's been showing better power and walking more than ever.
Just ten more home runs will get him to 500. And if you ask me, he's already a Hall-of-Famer. He's shown no signs of declining with age, so I fully expect Palmeiro to be just about as good as ever next year.
Second Base
Second base appears to belong to Mike Young for the time being. Young will be at least competent, but his performance could make a difference for Texas. He's being considered for the role of leadoff hitter--if he lands it, his on-base percentage had better improve from the .308 he posted in 2002.
Third Base
Being a third baseman in the Texas system right now is like being a guitarist in the Yardbirds--the future looks bright, the present is more hit and miss, and there are more of you than necessary.
Currently, prospect Mark Teixeira is not really in the picture; the Rangers want him to get more minor league experience. Hank Blalock will likely get the starting job, with Herbert Perry as the contingency plan. The production that the Rangers get from third base is unpredictable enough that it could have a big effect on how the team as a whole performs.
Outfield/Designated Hitter
The four primary names in this mix are Kevin Mench, Doug Glanville, Carl Everett, and Juan Gonzalez. Mench did pretty well as a 24-year-old rookie in 2002, which should guarantee him a full-time job this year.
Everett and Gonzalez both struggled with injuries in 2002. Both stand to do much better next year if they can stay healthy. They look to be the default options for center and right. Meanwhile, Glanville should play outfield in place of whichever of those three is the DH du jour. However, Palmeiro and Ruben Sierra could also appear in the designated hitter role, in addition to Herbert Perry and Mike Lamb.
Lamb is also another candidate to hit leadoff, and he would probably be the best choice. This year marks his age-27 season, and his on-base percentage has been decent over the past two years. The Rangers like Lamb's versatility, and he's also a good hitter.
Obviously, the Ranger outfield is more questionable than their infield, both in terms of who belongs there and how they will do. In 2002, a lot went wrong in that outfield. If, in 2003, Texas outfielders are more productive, it could improve the Rangers' offense to the level of run-scoring juggernaut.
Starting Rotation
Chan Ho Park is the Rangers' likely number one starter. His performance in 2002 was way out of whack with the rest of his career--in a bad way--which was terrible news for the Texas team that had shelled out a very large contract for his services. Park will almost certainly be better in 2003, but he probably won't be as good as he was for the Dodgers.
Ismael Valdes has returned to Texas from his information-gathering mission with the Seattle Mariners. In addition to his new knowledge of his mortal foes, Valdes has a good chance to be the Rangers' best starter. And John Thomson owns the only other secure job in the rotation; he's been average with the Rockies and the Mets. If nothing else, those three pitchers won't be too bad for the Rangers.
The rest of the rotation is still up for grabs. Doug Davis will likely get a spot; he's surely the most deserving of the remaining candidates, having established himself as about average at a young age. Besides Davis, Colby Lewis, Joaquin Benoit, Ryan Drese, and C. J. Nitkowski are competing for a place in the rotation.
In 2002, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and Colorado were the only major league teams to allow more runs than Texas did (882). Improvement in the Rangers' pitching is imperative for them to approach contention, and while some improvement should come in 2003, it likely won't be enough to even bring them to average. Pitching is still the missing piece of the great Ranger puzzle, and it could take some surprising performances to change that.
Bullpen
Ugueth Urbina will be closing Ranger games this season. Urbina has been pretty consistently good, and there's no reason to expect his success to end in Texas. Additionally, Francisco Cordero and particularly Jay Powell should help out in what could be a surprisingly good Texas bullpen. Esteban Yan will be something of a wild card, and Aaron Fultz ought to be competent. There's almost certain to be improvement from 2002 in this area.
While the Rangers could conceivably be a surprise team in 2003, it's more likely that they're still a couple years away from seriously competing. History shows that they will win the World Series after ridding themselves of new manager Buck Showalter. Actually, Showalter was probably a good choice for this Texas team. And if everything goes well, Texas will be an offensive powerhouse for years to come. And at that point, with some improvement in run prevention, Texas should routinely compete for the AL West crown. Until then, they'll still be better than they look.
2003 ZiPS
Projections - Click for info
PO Player G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG
C Diaz 107 343 40 85 23 1 3 32 16 35 1 2 .248 .281 .347
1B Palmeiro 148 533 93 147 31 0 38 107 97 95 2 0 .276 .387 .548
2B Young 149 553 77 145 27 7 11 66 42 115 8 6 .262 .314 .396
3B Blalock 148 544 102 158 46 2 14 83 54 89 3 3 .290 .355 .460
SS Rodriguez 155 595 124 183 29 2 53 139 86 123 13 4 .308 .395 .630
LF Mench 133 473 73 118 30 2 23 75 40 102 2 2 .249 .308 .467
CF Everett 107 398 55 108 20 2 20 70 35 97 6 3 .271 .330 .482
RF Gonzalez 105 408 68 126 28 1 22 84 29 81 1 0 .309 .355 .544
DH Perry 115 390 58 110 24 1 16 61 29 68 3 2 .282 .332 .472
c Greene 92 307 43 86 17 0 18 57 10 63 1 0 .280 .303 .511
3b Teixiera 89 324 64 99 21 4 20 64 41 61 3 2 .306 .384 .580
1b-3b Lamb 128 435 63 124 23 1 9 50 22 64 1 1 .285 .319 .405
of Glanville 141 528 64 139 20 4 10 44 24 76 24 5 .263 .295 .373
of Sierra 103 359 46 103 20 0 15 59 24 64 3 0 .287 .332 .468
PO Player W L ERA G GS IP H ER HR BB SO
SP Park 13 13 4.39 31 31 199 192 97 23 94 166
SP Thomson 9 9 4.32 29 29 173 187 83 22 43 106
SP Valdes 7 8 4.47 29 28 177 195 88 23 45 100
SP Benoit 5 6 4.75 20 18 108 105 57 13 62 90
SP Davis 11 10 4.47 29 25 155 175 77 17 59 97
RP Yan 6 6 4.45 51 7 93 99 46 14 29 75
RP Fultz 3 3 4.57 55 0 61 65 31 9 24 49
RP Van Poppel 3 4 4.73 53 0 78 76 41 13 37 66
RP Powell 3 4 4.58 59 0 55 55 28 6 28 40
RP Cordero 2 1 4.26 45 0 57 58 27 6 26 45
CL Urbina 2 1 3.30 60 0 60 50 22 9 20 75
Dan 'The Boy' Werr
Posted: March 10, 2003 at 12:00 AM |
6 comment(s)
Related News:
General
Reader Comments and Retorts
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.
Also, any thoughts/news on the Blalock 2B experiment?
Where do I want Hank Blacock in my fantasy draft? Before or after Adrian Beltre? Amaris Ramirez? Anyone?
Also, you get into the territory at which predicting playing time can detract from the usefulness of the results. Say you have a minor-league player like Jose Leon of the Orioles. What is more useful? A projection that he'll go 4-13 with 2 RBI for the season, or a full season line tempered with knowledge of his chances of making the team? I've opted for the latter choice, but nothing's going to please all parties.
Rather than making cockeyed assumptionss about playing time, ZiPS projects folks out to something close to a full season. Therefore, adding up the runs scored isn't a fruitful thing to do....the Rangers are unlikely to get almost 2000 PA out of Blalock, Perry, Lamb, and Teixeira.
It's up to you to apply your own playing time assumptions. This has certain advantages in that it allows you to play around with what would happen if Teixeira were to head north (well, east) or what if Palmeiro gets hurt.
I assume that you're referring to ZiPS, as Park's ERA was considerably higher last year. However, I'm not convinced that when there's a huge home/road split, road is the end-all.
Also, any thoughts/news on the Blalock 2B experiment?
I haven't heard anything new, and I have no idea how Blalock is at second. I don't think it will come up yet, as I don't think Teixeira will be up that soon.
I have to take issue with the description of Urbina as "consistenty good." If it's possible to have a terrible year and still have 40 saves, then that's what Urbina did last year with the Sox.
Well, it wasn't based on saves; his ERA and peripherals have been pretty darn good, particularly his K-rate.
The Rangers as a team had an ERA above 5.00 last year, yet ZiPS has everyone on the staff below 5.00.
There's a couple reasons I think aggregating ZiPS is problematic.
First is the playing time, which has pretty well been covered.
Second is that these are the primary players; they'll likely be better than everyone else who gets playing time on average. For example, it's correct that the Rangers had an ERA above 5, but the 5 starters and 6 relievers who pitched the most innings had a collective ERA of (I believe) 4.76.
Third is a little more esoteric, and while I'm pretty sure it's true, I have no evidence to back it up: these projections are for individuals, not for the aggregate. Some individuals will perform better and some will be worse.
Imagine that you took a bunch of dice, and replaced the four with a three. The dice now have faces of 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, and 6. When you roll any individual die, the most likely outcome is three. So if you had to bet on each die, you'd bet three on all of them. However, if you rolled them all at once, you'll get a big mix. Saying that each is more likely to come up three doesn't mean they're all likely to come up three.
What I'm not sure about is whether there's more of an underperforming possibility than an overperforming possibility. That would add an extra skew to aggregated projections when compared with actual results.
Is the preference for Texeira just a preference for the infinitely exciting unknown quantity over the equally impressive prospect who, because he's more advanced, has proved human?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main