Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Y: Despite being a Texas legend, it's Nolan Ryan who is at fault in Rangers front-office flap


gotbeer

Recommended Posts

Nollie wants to get the credit, that's what this is about.   Just like the media was all over his nuts for turning around the rangers, when it was really the work of daniels and that front office that have put together the team they have now.   Nollie was just the recognizable face and figurehead of the group, kinda like magic johnson with the doyers.

 

I'm sure he enjoyed having his emperor palpatine face all over the TV the past couple of octobers and getting the pats on the back he was receiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't believe that comparing nolan's contributions to magic's is equitable to nolan in any way. the rangers were literally perennial losers before his arrival, and while jon daniel's contributions, to their sea change in culture, can in no way be minimized i don't see how nolan's can be either. 

 

their pitchers were soft and wilted under the texas heat, nolan was the one credited with that change in approach and attitude. being that they were the same pitchers having improved results, i don't see how the general manager would be credited with that improvement. i think the gm's major accomplishment  was the amateur talent improvements both foreign and domestic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't believe that comparing nolan's contributions to magic's is equitable to nolan in any way. the rangers were literally perennial losers before his arrival, and while jon daniel's contributions, to their sea change in culture, can in no way be minimized i don't see how nolan's can be either. 

 

their pitchers were soft and wilted under the texas heat, nolan was the one credited with that change in approach and attitude. being that they were the same pitchers having improved results, i don't see how the general manager would be credited with that improvement. i think the gm's major accomplishment  was the amateur talent improvements both foreign and domestic.

 

 

You may want to look at how completely out of whack the Rangers pitching injuries have been in recent years compared to the rest of MLB -- usage may be playing into that.  

 

People talk up how much more pitchers used to throw while seemingly forgetting how often those pitchers were done by their early 30s, in particular guys who tacked on heavy workload before turning 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't believe that comparing nolan's contributions to magic's is equitable to nolan in any way. the rangers were literally perennial losers before his arrival, and while jon daniel's contributions, to their sea change in culture, can in no way be minimized i don't see how nolan's can be either. 

 

their pitchers were soft and wilted under the texas heat, nolan was the one credited with that change in approach and attitude. being that they were the same pitchers having improved results, i don't see how the general manager would be credited with that improvement. i think the gm's major accomplishment  was the amateur talent improvements both foreign and domestic.

 

Sure, he was credited.  A lot of people get credit that don't deserve it.  You mean to tell me, Nolan Ryan has actually willed guys to pitch better and for longer.  I'm not buying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nolan is CEO and wants a say, a major day, in player personal decisions. He apparently killed a higher offer for Cliff Lee. Daniels was the one who pushed through Beltre (fantasting signing Reagins, as I said at the time, should have done) and others.

Daniels and the FO should get most of the credit for the Rangers fantastic on-field product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pitcher injuries have been just as prevalent in the pitch count era. it has more to do with conditioning and delivery than it does throwing an extra 10 innings a year. also, i'd love to hear how out of whack rangers injuries have been.

10 innings? More like 100-150. That's a huge difference. That being said, nothing much has really changed. There are people today that could handle that workload and ones who cannot. It's just depends on the individual. Teams just dont take that risk on everybody anymore. I mean, don't you think someone like Roy Halladay could handle larger workloads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pitcher injuries have been just as prevalent in the pitch count era. it has more to do with conditioning and delivery than it does throwing an extra 10 innings a year. also, i'd love to hear how out of whack rangers injuries have been. 

 

Why don't you look it up?

Since you likely blind yourself to anything that isnt a sparkling account of Rangers superiority, you likely missed this article.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-white-sox-and-beating-projections/  There are others -- take some time to educate yourself a bit.

 

BTW, you are wrong about workloads and injuries.   There are several studies that have been done.  Injuries have gone up considerably since they lowered the mound and more and more pitchers went to the slider in particular.  There have also been studies done on innings loads before age 25.  There seemed to be a very strong correlation between a heavy workload pre age 25 and early ineffectiveness or flat out injury.  Even good ole Nolan didn't pass the 200 inning mark until he was 25.  

 

The 90s and the PED era saw pitchers dominate longer than they had in the past -- so things get a bit murky but prior to that the data was pretty much all pointing in the same general direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 90s and the PED era saw pitchers dominate longer than they had in the past -- so things get a bit murky but prior to that the data was pretty much all pointing in the same general direction.

 

Good point. So many pitchers used, and so few were suspected or tested, a whole generation of comparitave stats are skewed enough to be murky at best, worthless at worst.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...