What To Say About Josh Hamilton?

By The Common Man

I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out what to say about Josh Hamilton. It’s been exceptionally difficult. All I feel is sadness for the man and for his family. That’s, apparently, not what I should be feeling.


I think Jeff Passan wants me to be angry at Hamilton for not caring enough about his sobriety, or maybe angry at the concept of addiction. But Passan’s writing is so muddled that it’s impossible to tell if he’s got an actual point to make about Hamilton’s behavior or not. Mostly, it’s about Hamilton’s failure on Monday night. (Update:  In the interest of fairness, Jeff and I talked on Twitter and he said the following: "The column's point was about the difficulty bordering on impossibility of sobriety and how it tripped up Hamilton. That even the strongest man or woman can be waylaid, and that it's not wrong to lose that care. It's addiction's worst symptom."  I still feel like his point was muddled, but I appreciate the sentiment he was going for.)

I know that Randy Galloway wants me to be angry at the MLBPA, because it has inspired Josh Hamilton not to re-sign with the Rangers, who apparently really care about him as a person or something, for less than market value. The Rangers, who have nurtured Hamilton and kept him away from his demons, except for those two times, always have had his back according to Galloway and that nasty union wants just cares about how much money the former MVP will make.

I know that commenters want me to be angry at the media for even bringing this up. Josh Hamilton is a grown-ass man, they write, and has a right to a drink if he wants one. Others are turned off by this very human story, and believe it’s a matter only relevant for Hamilton and his family. Ignore it, they say.

World Series Prediction: A Nickname Face-Off

Once upon a time, The Common Man committed to objectively reviewing and grading all 30 of the nicknames of baseball's 30 teams.  He got eight done.  While he is committed to finishing the list this offseason, The Common Man did happen to review the nicknames for both Texas and St. Louis, and on the basis of those reviews, he is confident he can predict the outcome of the 2011 World Series. How will it go when the Rangers meet the Cardinals?  Re-printed below are TCM's nickname reviews for each squad.  Predictions at the end.

Hey Colby, Your Wife Called, She Said It's a Girl and To Pitch Magglio Down-and-Away

By The Common Man

The Common Man is going to try very hard to write this post without using the “You’re not a parent, so you don’t understand,” card. That card is incredibly easy to play, of course, but it’s just as unfair. Because how is someone going to argue with that? And, in playing it, you’re casting a moral judgment against someone who has probably chosen to not become a parent. And if they made that choice, because they knew they would not be a good parent, or simply didn’t have any feelings one way or the other, they chose correctly. It also does a disservice to all the non-parents out there who are inclined to think that becoming a parent is a pretty damn important thing.  And it does a disservice to all the excellent step-parents out there.


But Colby Lewis did, apparently, make the choice to be a parent, and by luck or design his second daughter was due right at the start of the 2011 season. This created a conflict, as it became apparent that Lewis would have to skip his start last Wednesday to accommodate the birth.

Rangers X Factor: C.J. Wilson

By Bill

Not for lack of trying, but the Rangers now find themselves trying to defend a league championship with a rotation that finds at the top a guy just one year removed from being a full-time relief pitcher, and just two seasons removed from an absolutely disastrous year as the team's full-time closer. That makes C.J. Wilson a pretty obvious choice for the Rangers' "X Factor" for 2011.

Wilson responded brilliantly to his conversion back to a starter (about three-quarters of his minor league appearances were starts), especially by traditional methods, going 15-8 with a 3.35 ERA in 204 innings across 33 starts. But there are reasons to question whether that kind of performance can be repeated.

Wilson's strikeout rate dropped precipitously, as you might guess -- falling from 10.26 Ks per 9 to 7.5 as his innings per appearance jumped from almost exactly 1 to over 6 -- but you might expect at least a slight increase in control to go along with that, right? That is, if you're not striking out as many because you can't afford to simply throw every pitch as hard as you can (and his average fastball dropped by almost 3 miles per hour from 2009 to 2010), you'd think you'd have more of a say in where those pitches go, and give up fewer walks. But that didn't happen for Wilson; his walk rate actually climbed a bit, from 3.91 in '09 to 4.10 in '10. The combination resulted in the sixth-worst K/BB rate (1.83) of any qualifying pitcher in the AL, well below the league average for starters of 2.17.

Wilson was successful nonetheless, posting a 3.56 FIP that isn't terribly out of line with his ERA, but did it by limiting home runs, permitting only ten of them in his 204 innings. His xFIP of 4.20 (higher than the 2010 AL average ERA of 4.14, in this new pitcher-happy world) suggested he was probably getting pretty lucky on that front, though, and that several more of the fly balls he permitted should have left the yard. So if he's going to actually take his place as the ace of a contending team, one would think that at least one of these things should have to improve: he starts striking out more, starts walking less, and/or starts getting more ground balls.

I'm rooting for Wilson; he's a great Twitterer, and he's proving my "starter >> reliever" credo. And frankly, the Rangers, with the underappreciated Colby Lewis, the promising Derek Holland and easily the best offense in the division, will probably be at least competitive whether Wilson comes in at 3.00 or 4;50. But a repeat performance from Wilson would sure help, and it seems likely that if he's going to repeat his 2010, something's going to have to change.

Obligations

By The Common Man

Dammit, people, stop writing things The Common Man needs to respond to today. TCM is looking straight at you, Austin Swafford, mega-Astros fan, proprieter of Austin’s Astros 290 Blog on the SweetSpot Network and holder of the proverbial keys to the SweetSpot blog today:

“Are the Rangers the only ones who were surprised by this? Were even the Rangers surprised? [Michael] Young has become the face of the Rangers and has been a model citizen, but you can only push a guy so far, and it's been going on with him for years. Granted, he's been paid well for what he's done with the Rangers. But it's nice to feel like the team is behind you, respects you and views you as an important piece of their success. Young's contributions for a decade have certainly warranted Texas' respect.”

How have the Rangers disrespected “the face of the franchise?” Well, Austin takes Young at his word that he’s been "misled and manipulated on different occasions." And as evidence of this, Austin points out that the Rangers have “taken advantage of his versatility and willingness” and asked/cajoled him to switch positions. This after making him the face of the franchise in the first place. And after making him one of the highest paid players in Major League Baseball. Both of which are excellent ways to show a ballplayer respect.

3 Questions: Texas Rangers

Continuing the three questions series, here are three questions facing the AL champ Texas Rangers:

1. Can they afford to keep Cliff Lee?
Look, the point isn't to be creative here.  That's the question, really.  The Rangers entered 2010 with one of the lowest payrolls in the league, but they're looking at a massively huge pay raise for Josh Hamilton, be it through arbitration or a new contract, and slightly less big ones for Nelson Cruz and C.J. Wilson.  Then there are planned raises for Ian Kinsler, Colby Lewis, and Scott Feldman. The team elected not to pick up Vladimir Guerrero's $9 million option, but they'll either sign him back or have to find another DH to replace him, which is unlikely to cost significantly less than the $6.5 million they ended up paying him this year.
But all this is just kind of an interesting sidebar, because no one seems to have any idea how much the Rangers will be able to spend for 2011.  They had the bankruptcy thing, but they've also got a reportedly crazy-huge TV deal and, no doubt, a nice load of cash coming in from the 2010 playoff run.
So can they afford to do what everyone outside of the immediate vicinity of New York City wants them to do, and spend whatever it takes to get Lee?  Nobody knows yet, but it won't surprise me at all if they can.  It also won't surprise me too much if they can't come anywhere close, because again, I have no idea what's going on with them, and I don't think many people in the world do.

2. Can they afford NOT to keep Cliff Lee?
That's right, two questions about Cliff Lee.  There seems to be a thought in some quarters (mostly, I think, Yankees fans who want to believe it) that it wouldn't make sense for the Rangers to get into a bidding war with the Yankees for Lee, because it would end up crippling them.
Well, I have no idea whether that's true or not, for all the reasons above, and I don't think anyone else who's talking about it does, either.  It's entirely possible that the TV deal, the playoff profits, and an expected increase in attendance this year will give them the freedom to pay a little more than they "should" for Lee, even more than the Yankees will be willing to.
What I do know, though, or think I know, is that the 2011 Rangers need Lee.  Almost more than any other team needs any other player that isn't currently theirs, and certainly more than the Yankees need Lee.  The back of the Rangers' rotation was a terrible mess last year, and failing to sign Lee will mean, first, way too innings for Scott Feldman, and second, either (a) trusting at least one young pitcher that probably isn't ready yet, or (b) throwing less, yet too much, money at a mediocre and/or highly risky free agent (like, say, what happened with Rich Harden).  Lee figures to be worth six or so wins in 2011 (or more, of course), and it really seems possible that to the Rangers, that could be something close to a straight-up six-win improvement.  With the A's and Angels both figuring to be better in 2011, and with Josh Hamilton likely to take a step back in 2011 (just because nobody is likely to repeat that kind of performance) that could be exactly what it takes to keep the Rangers on top.  I have no idea what it'll mean for them financially or for 2012 and beyond, but for 2011, signing lee at all costs seems like a reasonable plan.

3. Who plays center?
24 year old Julio Borbon played about 75% of the team's innings in center, and whether he was intolerably awful or simply well below average depends on what you think of his defense (the various systems disagree).  Whatever it is, there have to be some serious questions now about whether Borbon is going to be able to hit in the big leagues, and it seems like the Rangers fans, at least, would rather have another option.  It seems as though the team would like to put Hamilton out there, but left seems like a much better fit for him; he's less likely to get hurt flying into the walls and such, and he's frankly just probably not good enough to play in center.  And center field is one position where there's literally absolutely nothing worth considering on the free agent market.  It's possible that, if they fail to sign Lee, they go get a free agent corner outfielder and try to get 140 games or so out of Hamilton in center field...but that seems like a bad idea to me, and I have to assume it does to them too.  You're probably stuck hoping that Borbon figures out a way to play more like the guy he looked like he was between the majors and minors in 2009.  Which, since he'll be just 25 and put up a .310/.360/.401 career line in the minors, is probably the way to go (but it could hurt a lot).

Happy Birthday...

Toby Harrah!

Hello, birthday post, my old copout/fallback/friend. I haven't done one of you in a while. But on the eve of the Texas Rangers' first-ever World Series game tomorrow, I thought it would be appropriate to celebrate the career of the guy who, by at least one measure, is the fourth-best position player in the team's history. Harrah turns 62 today.

Toby Harrah made four All-Star teams and twice was named on MVP ballots, but my sense is that he's a guy who didn't get the credit due him when he played, and is scarcely remembered at all now. In an era in which the ideal shortstop was short, slight, and quick, and might put up an OBP of .280 but could slap it the other way or execute a sac bunt with the best of them, Harrah was more or less the opposite of that. Harrah played decent defense and stole a few bases (everybody stole a few bases in that period), but he wasn't terribly fast or flashy. He hit .300 just once (.290 twice) and put up a career average of .264, but at his peak, he drew nearly 100 walks and hit more than 20 homers a year. He was kind of a Cal Ripken Jr. lite, before there was a Cal Ripken Jr. Less defense and a better eye at the plate, and nowhere near the durability or staying power, but there's just nobody else from that period to compare him to.

Nickname Review: Texas Rangers

Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks is in a lot of trouble these days, as Maury Brown related yesterday on Forbes.com. Currently shouldering more than $525 million in debt, Hicks has left his Rangers frozen in carbonite, essentially unable to move on a player acquisition front, while awaiting the findings of a bankruptcy court judge, and an auction of the club. Since buying the club in 1998, Hicks has done a lot to besmirch the good name of the Rangers, which begs the question, just how good of a name was it to begin with? Fortunately, The Common Man is uniquely equipped to provide an objective review of the name.

Basic Stats:
Name: Texas
Nickname: Rangers
NicknameTypology: Human
Definition: Law enforcement officers for the state of Texas with broad jurisdiction over criminal investigation.
Characteristics: Chuck Norris

The best thing about being a Texas Ranger: You are forever associated with Chuck Norris, and boy is he badass.

The worst thing about being a Texas Ranger: You will never live up to the example set by Chuck Norris.

More good news: The Texas Rangers are the oldest state-wide law enforcement agency in the United States, tracing their organization back to 1823 (more than 20 years before Texas was even a state). As such, the Rangers have a strong sense of tradition that is respected around the state and country. For a team as young as the Rangers (the club moved from Washington in 1972), tapping into this tradition is important. The Rangers have also proven extremely successful over the course of their existence. Rangers were instrumental in the capture or killing of bank robbers Sam Bass, Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, and “the meanest man alive,” John Wesley Hardin. They are, as an organization, generally beloved by many of the state’s residents, who have lionized them. Their toughness is legendary, and is underscored by their Western apparel, which they are required to wear. Supposedly, you only need one ranger to stop one riot, which is good when your team is struggling. Finally, they are legally protected (as of 1976) by the Texas Government Code from being disbanded, which means they have some excellent job security.

On the other hand: Look, TCM hates to bring this up, but the Texas Rangers’ history has not always been pleasant. Many of the Rangers left to fight for the Confederacy in the Civil War. Also, while the Rangers have been used to keep the peace along the Mexico border, it had a pretty shameful track record in the 19th and early 20th centuries regarding how they treated Hispanics in that area. In particular, they were known to summarily execute suspected bandits and torture them for information and confessions. In 1918, Rangers massacred every single male between the ages of 16 and 72 (15 in all, all Mexican-Americans) in Porvenir, Texas. A 1919 investigation by the Texas Legislature concluded that, between 1910 and 1919, somewhere between 300 and 5000 people, mostly of Mexican descent, had been killed by Rangers. Tom Hicks, it would seem, would have fit in well with the Rangers of the era. Also, you have been made into a movie starring James Van der Beek, Dylan McDermott, Usher, and Ashton Kutcher (a movie that TCM now, absolutely, needs to see).



Final Analysis: Finally, we get a nickname that refers to a specific group of people with a specific task, not some amorphous group like “Metropolitans,” “Yankees,” or “Nationals.” This specificity is a huge point in the name’s favor. Also, Texas Rangers are a much beloved institution, such that they are protected by law, and are generally respected for being all around bad-asses. While their ability to work together (one ranger, one riot) is somewhat in question, they are generally so awesome individually that we can overlook this deficiency. Aside from that pesky tendency toward racism and massacre (that TCM prays was weeded out a century ago), the Texas Rangers are a pretty awesome nickname. If you have to be associated with a particular group, this is the one TCM would want to belong to. Nothing will make you forget about Tom Hicks faster than Chuck Norris. Grade: A

By the way, TCM’s prediction on this Rangers/bankruptcy situation is that Chuck Norris will buy the Rangers just so that he can arrange a brawl with Nolan Ryan. The fight will end in a draw, when the men collide, emitting a mushroom cloud of testosterone that rains down on the population of Texas, resulting in everyone (women included) growing a manly stubble on their jaw.