The inevitable September Collapse of the Texas Rangers

Certainly true - and I'd agree not to read much into a good month. But this team has been as good as almost anyone in baseball for 4 months now. The sample size is growing.

 

That's different than what you're complaining about though. Wanting to see the team win before you die gives you a much longer time horizon. All the stats nerds you complain about are on the same timeline - they are looking at how to build the team to have the most chances to win over the next many years. In theory, what you say you want and what the stats nerds want line up. But your complaints seem to be about a one-year time horizon and that they aren't winning this very instant, despite the fact that they actually do have that chance this year.

 

My complaints aren't about a one year time frame at all. It's about a franchise's history and frustration as a fan for decades. The current owner bought that franchise...with all its history and goodwill. That's the reality of it.

 

was this intended to be directed to me? it didn't seem responsive to what i had said.

 

Nope; was contextualizing the discussion. When Houstana argued being a Cub fan was... better (I guess?) because Chicago has celebrated lots of championships, I was pointing out that the discussion (per your quote) was about baseball.

 

But don't we have to be... I'm not sure what the right term is... intellectually honest (?) about that? Yes, as fans we have a history that pre-dates ownerships, front offices and players... But shouldn't we properly contextualize that so that we can properly enjoy the moment, at least to some extent?

Carlos Correa has nothing to the do with Jeff Bagwell, who has nothing to do with Mike Scott, who has nothing to do with 1980 Nolan Ryan/Jose Cruz, etc., etc....

 

Astros can't change the past. As much fun as Johnson, Clemens, Pettite (sp?), and The Carlos who shall not be named, I enjoyed cheering for the "homegrown" Astros more than the mercenaries/trade acquisitions.

I'm a stat geek, but can't we all just sit back, drink a beer, and enjoy watching Altuve, Correa, Springer, and Bregman stomp Arlington this weekend.

 

I absolutely enjoy watching the Astros. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't, either.

And no, they can't change the past...I get that, of course. It's my connection to the team over my lifetime. I think it sucks we're fans of one of a handful of franchises that has never won a title in their history. It's ok for me to feel that way right? Because I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to feel about that. So I'm hoping I'm granted permission here at CF to feel that way.

I guess I didn't anticipate that it was "silly" or "illogical" to be frustrated by the fact the pro sports franchise I love the most has never won a title. If ya'll aren't at all, then that's great!

My bigger original point was about being annoyed by bloggers and fans (whose opinions I read on twitter or elsewhere) who use the point of the OP in this thread to build the argument that the Astros are better than the Rangers. I think that's ridiculous. Or maybe even silly and illogical.

 

Totally logical. Not at all how I feel as a fan of the franchise. I love all those guys for the one common thread...they were or are Houston Astros. They're all part of the goodwill of the franchise. They absolutely have something to do with one another in my view...in my view, they're different pieces of the same thing. And we contextualize them often relative to one another...or eras relative to others.

We see this differently, and have for a while now. And you never fail to tell me about how it's allowed you to enjoy it all differently. Great!! Honestly, great for you!!! Keep doing you!!!

 

You sound like my wife....

 

I'm on record as leaning towards the MadMax train of thought of on this discussion, but I've gotta say.....it's refreshing to be able to read a thread where people have differing opinions and instead of just overtly calling each other names, they try and understand the other person's perspective. Reps for everybody!!

 

Of course you are. But if you're going to call Astros fans an embarassing fan base and "b**** ass" and talk about how you're so tired of hearing different opinions, then you probably should expect similar types of responses to your own opinions, no? If you can criticize how other fans view their team, why would you expect anything different from other fans?

 

You know what really sucks?.... The the ****ing, ******* Florida Marlins have won two World Series titles. That's what's throwing all this into a **** blender.

I can tolerate the strange, one-off of an Anaheim or Arizona between Yankee, Red Sox and Cardinal titles - but the Marlins having two - TWO!!! - is just patently absurd and undermines any credible deflection around how disappointing it is that the Astros haven't won one.

(Actually, Arizona winning one is just as overtly lame. **** them.)

 

Totally fair, and I hope you know I wasn't saying that about you. I just think it's a bad look to keep making excuses about losing to a team that beats you like a rented mule over and over and over again across multiple seasons.

 

But that in and of itself speaks volumes to the randomness of this individualistic game. It technically should not matter as far as the age of the franchise goes... randomness in randomness (unlike other team sports where expansion franchises struggle to build up a solid foundation to eventually build a winner).

In 100 years, Arizona and Miami could be with the same number of WS titles... and it won't look that egregious.

Obviously the Astros not winning one to this point is disappointing... but hey, at least we aren't Seattle.

 

Can you please link to some of these articles? I'm morbidly curious to read how someone could rationally excuse the Astros dropping 24 of 32 games to the Rangers.

I mean, I'd argue the huge disparity between the Astros v. MLB and v. Texas is a strange fluke (which... it totally is!) - but I can't fathom how anyone would argue the Astros are a better team than the Rangers.

 

Or Texas!

And sure, the Cubs get to claim a title - it was 108 years ago! Literally no one is alive when it happened. And while it did happen in our lifetimes (well, most of our lifetimes) - and it beats having a big 'ol zero - the Pirates haven't won a title in 37 years; the Orioles 33; Tigers 32; Mets 30; Dodgers (!) 28; A's 27; Reds 26; Twins 25...

Again, beats zero. But... it's not like *every* team BUT the Astros are getting a title handed to them. So that's... what? 19 teams that haven't won a title in 25+ years? 15 in the last 30 years - which is half of MLB...

 

All true. I only said Seattle because them, along with the Nats/Expos, have never even played in a World Series... let alone win one.

We always lament 1998 as the one that got away... yet I wonder what Seattle fans think about 2001?

 

Search Crawfish Boxes right after the trade deadline. One of their geniuses wrote an article about how Astros were still a better team then. Cited to great pitch framing. I vomited some. That's my Exhibit A.

 

What's crazy to me is that the Rangers have had only 2 players put up star level production over the course of this entire season: Beltre and Hamels. No other player who has been an everyday/core guy for the whole year has a wRC above 112, and Hamels is the only pitcher with more than 2 fWAR. Combined with the fact that they also have a host of guys who have put up negative value and it's just crazy that they're in first place especially by such a wide margin.