Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Actually, having great pitching, particularly starting pitchers that can go deep, allows teams to stay in more games than great offensive teams. I tend to agree with this.  But, having watched "Moneyball" again the other day, it is about runs.  You score them and you prevent them.  Working either side of the equation should yield the same results.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]

    Yes, but the pitcher faces all nine slots of the opposing team, while the offense is divided into 9 slots (players). A good FT starting pitcher usually faces over 100 more hitters than any single batter has PAs.

    (PS I read the book)

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    But you only have 5 FT starting pitchers.  You have (in the AL, anyway) 9 FT hitters.  It evens out; pitchers cannot face more batters in a game than batters play in that game, and batters cannot face more pitches in a game than are thrown by the pitchers that pitch that game.  So each player, pitcher or batter, has his statistics adjusted to account for their contribution towards wins.  A single pitcher might have more value in the game they pitch in, but to say pitching is more important than hitting is not backed up by the statistics.  You have to score more runs than you allow.  The nine batters and 4 to 5 bench players make up one side of the equation and the pitching makes up the other side.

    (PS I read the book several years back as well.  I just like the movie and decided to rent it a few days back.  The movie almost entirely ignores pitching, but the essence of player value is there.  And I really like what Jonah Hill did, even if the character he played is fictional).
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    But you only have 5 FT starting pitchers.  You have (in the AL, anyway) 9 FT hitters.  It evens out; pitchers cannot face more batters in a game than batters play in that game, and batters cannot face more pitches in a game than are thrown by the pitchers that pitch that game.  So each player, pitcher or batter, has his statistics adjusted to account for their contribution towards wins.  A single pitcher might have more value in the game they pitch in, but to say pitching is more important than hitting is not backed up by the statistics.  You have to score more runs than you allow.  The nine batters and 4 to 5 bench players make up one side of the equation and the pitching makes up the other side.

    (PS I read the book several years back as well.  I just like the movie and decided to rent it a few days back.  The movie almost entirely ignores pitching, but the essence of player value is there.  And I really like what Jonah Hill did, even if the character he played is fictional).

    My point was that a great pitching team/avg hitting team will stay close enough to win more times than a great hitting team/avg pitching team. If it was a simple as scoring more runs than your opponents then run differential over a season should more-or-less predict W-Ls. It doesn't.

    That is why teams with great pitching (and fielding) teams tend to win more games than the run differential tends to predict.

    Let's look at the past 5 years: (W-L  R/RA  +- differential)
    Boston:                       TB:
    90-72  875/737 +138    91-71  707/614  +93
    89-73  818/744  +72    96-66  802/649  +153
    95-67  872/736  +136  84-78  803/754  +49
    95-67  845/694  +151  97-65  774/671  +103
    96-66  867/657  +210  66-96  782-944  -162

    Yes, run differential helps win games, no doubt, and I'm not trying to downplay offense, but notice that whenever a team has a worse run differential but wins more games than the other team, they always let up less runs. 

    Lower runs allowed seem to coorelate to wins more than higher runs scored.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]  Suck for 13 years, accumulate assets, collect revenue sharing and contribute nothing to the league.  Tampa is baseball most successful welfare queen.
    Posted by vtfanofcs[/QUOTE]

    How many other teams have been bad for 13 years, but are still bad?

    Plus, the Ray's farm system is getting stronger even as they get better and no longer get top picks. Why aren't other poor/bad teams doing this?

    The Rays have traded assets "just in time". Almost everyone they trade or let walk to free agency stinks immediately afterwards.  They continuously pick up relief pitchers that do not appear to be all that good, but time and time again they over-achieve.

    The Rays had an unprecedented 12picks out of the first 89 in last year's draft. (10 out of top 60), but none were higher than 24.
    In 2010, TB had 5 picks in teh first 2 rounds. 

    Yeah, the Rays still have some #1 picks that are vital to their success, but why don't other bad teams have as many success stories as the Rays? Let's face it: the Rays know what they are doing.

    2007:
    #1 David Price
    245 Matt Moore

    2006:
    3 Longoria
    109 Alex Cobb
    289 Desmond Jennings

    2005:
    118 Hellickson

    2004:
    4 Niemann
    45 Bignac
    75 W Davis
    135 J McGee
    375 Sonnanstine

    2003: 
    1 Delmon Young (Traded for Garza & Bartlett)
    338 J Jaso

    2002:
    2 BJ Upton

    2000:
    6 Baldelli
    466 Shields

    1999:
    1 Josh Hamilton
    52 Crawford

    I see lots of picks here than any team could have drafted.

    Give the Rays some credit.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    As long as the Rays can get another team to repeat an all-time greatest collapse in baseball history, they will not "go away". Of course, they have zero chance to win a championship, but Ortiz was supposed to be terrible against LHP in 2011, according to Moonshwemp.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III : I suspect you're not interested in reading, but ... http://www.amazon.com/Extra-2-Street-Strategies-Baseball/dp/0345517652
    Why do you suspect I'm not interested in reading?
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    I'm still waiting for the Red Sox to follow the great Moonshwemp's pleas, and offer the great Tim Wastefield 1 million dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RonSwanson. Show RonSwanson's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]As long as the Rays can get another team to repeat an all-time greatest collapse in baseball history, they will not "go away". Of course, they have zero chance to win a championship, but Ortiz was supposed to be terrible against LHP in 2011, according to Moonshwemp.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]




    You ever get sick of being wrong?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    You ever get sick of the greatest season collapse in MLB history....................

    Have you ever said anything right, .............I didn't think so.............
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]My point was that a great pitching team/avg hitting team will stay close enough to win more times than a great hitting team/avg pitching team. Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I agree.  Obviously, it takes a balance of pitching and hitting, but I would take the great pitching/avg hitting team any day over the great hitting/avg pitching team. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    The Rays have some terrific young talent on the team right now, but I don't see a whole lot in their farm system.  Chris Archer had a WHIP of 1.6 at AA last year - I really think some of these scouts out-think themselves.  If a guy is playing with other players his age, and he's getting knocked around, how on earth can you think he's going to dominate the big leagues in another couple of years?  Same with Lee - he was good in high A ball - a lot has to go right for him to ever make the club from there, and chances are he won't be a contributor for several years, if at all.

    Beckham is still young, but he's been a bit disappointing - certainly nothing to write home about.  Torres is 24, and had a 1.5 WHIP at AAA last year.  He made Kyle Weiland look like Roy Halladay, and they are only 9 months apart in age.  I don't know - some of these guys might pan out, but there aren't any Hellicksons or Moore's left in the system.  If you take Moore's prospect status away, I'd rather have the Sox prospects, hand down.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    My point was that a great pitching team/avg hitting team will stay close enough to win more times than a great hitting team/avg pitching team.

    The 2009 Yankees blunt a flat and dull point. A very shallow minded and meaningless generalization. The Rays benefited from the greatest collapse in MLB history, and you want to put on a cheerleader uniform and talk about how great their pitching is. Didn't look to great in the 3 out of 4 losses, late in the season to the Yankees. Didn't look to great in the post season, the last two years.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    As long as the Rays can get another team to repeat an all-time greatest collapse in baseball history, they will not "go away". Of course, they have zero chance to win a championship, but Ortiz was supposed to be terrible against LHP in 2011, according to Moonshwemp.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr



    You ever get sick of being wrong?

    Oh for 190 must mean no.

    Using the silly clowns logic, I guess they should take away the Sox 2004 WS rings. If it wasn't for the greatest collapse in MLB history, we'd have never won. 

    Is that Oh for 191 now? Or, is this just a repeat of an earlier wrong?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    The Rays have some terrific young talent on the team right now, but I don't see a whole lot in their farm system.  Chris Archer had a WHIP of 1.6 at AA last year - I really think some of these scouts out-think themselves.  If a guy is playing with other players his age, and he's getting knocked around, how on earth can you think he's going to dominate the big leagues in another couple of years?  Same with Lee - he was good in high A ball - a lot has to go right for him to ever make the club from there, and chances are he won't be a contributor for several years, if at all.

    Beckham is still young, but he's been a bit disappointing - certainly nothing to write home about.  Torres is 24, and had a 1.5 WHIP at AAA last year.  He made Kyle Weiland look like Roy Halladay, and they are only 9 months apart in age.  I don't know - some of these guys might pan out, but there aren't any Hellicksons or Moore's left in the system.  If you take Moore's prospect status away, I'd rather have the Sox prospects, hand down.

    Not counting Moore 22, Cobb 23 and Torres 23
    and 24 year olds Hellickson, Jennings, and McGee
    the Rays made some very good picks the few 2 years.

    2011 (12 picks in the top 2 rounds)
    24 Guerrieri
    31 Mahtook
    32 Hager
    38 B. Martin
    41 Goeddel
    42 J Adams
    52 Snell
    56 K Carter
    59 G Garvin
    60 Harris
    75 Goetzman
    89 Linsky

    2010: (5 in the top 2 rounds)
    17 J Sale
    31 O'Conner
    42 Vettleson
    66 Thompson
    79 Dietrich 


    Other Draft Picks:
    Tim Beckham
    Parker Markel
    Ryan Brett
    Ryan Carpenter

    Via trade:
    Hal-Ju Lee
    Alex Torres
    Chris Archer
    Brandon Guyer

    Int'l FA:
    Enny Romero
    Alex Colome
    Oscar Hernandez

    The Sox probably won't have any 23-24 year olds on the 25 man roster, unless Doubront (24) makes it. The Rays may have 6 or more.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    If it wasn't for the greatest collapse in MLB history, we'd have never won. 

    A 7 game post season series does not make for the greatest collapse in MLB history, Mr. zero for infinity. That dubious distinction belongs to the greatest season collapse in MLB history, the 2011 Boston Red Sox.

    Still waiting for Tim Wastefield's 1 million dollar contract offer, along with Ortiz to sit v. LHP in 2011.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III : I put up a thread saying Wake would beat King Felix, and he did. You never know. The Rays are going down.
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]

    I did the same before the Halliday game in Philly!

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]But you only have 5 FT starting pitchers.  You have (in the AL, anyway) 9 FT hitters.  It evens out; pitchers cannot face more batters in a game than batters play in that game, and batters cannot face more pitches in a game than are thrown by the pitchers that pitch that game.  So each player, pitcher or batter, has his statistics adjusted to account for their contribution towards wins.  A single pitcher might have more value in the game they pitch in, but to say pitching is more important than hitting is not backed up by the statistics.  You have to score more runs than you allow.  The nine batters and 4 to 5 bench players make up one side of the equation and the pitching makes up the other side. (PS I read the book several years back as well.  I just like the movie and decided to rent it a few days back.  The movie almost entirely ignores pitching, but the essence of player value is there.  And I really like what Jonah Hill did, even if the character he played is fictional). My point was that a great pitching team/avg hitting team will stay close enough to win more times than a great hitting team/avg pitching team. If it was a simple as scoring more runs than your opponents then run differential over a season should more-or-less predict W-Ls. It doesn't. That is why teams with great pitching (and fielding) teams tend to win more games than the run differential tends to predict. Let's look at the past 5 years: (W-L  R/RA  +- differential) Boston:                       TB: 90-72  875/737 +138    91-71  707/614  +93 89-73  818/744  +72    96-66  802/649  +153 95-67  872/736  +136  84-78  803/754  +49 95-67  845/694  +151  97-65  774/671  +103 96-66  867/657  +210  66-96  782-944  -162 Yes, run differential helps win games, no doubt, and I'm not trying to downplay offense, but notice that whenever a team has a worse run differential but wins more games than the other team, they always let up less runs.  Lower runs allowed seem to coorelate to wins more than higher runs scored.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    And I think that the reason for that is that high scoring teams score runs in bunches.  Their high scoring games skew the bell curve.  I would prefer a statistic that showed the mean number of runs scored combined with the width of the distrubition (the leaner, the better).  I may not be using the right jargon, as it's been more than a decade since I was in grad school taking all my statistics and psychometric courses, but I hope you understand my meaning. A good offense can score 12 runs one day, and none the next (averaging 6 runs a game). But really good pitching isn't likely to give up 0 runs one day and 8 the next (averaging 4 runs a game). Good pitching is much more likely to have a tight distribution.  And I believe that is why good pitching and run preventions does do better than great offense and run differential at predicting wins.

    That said, both sides of the equation have to be addressed to build a winning team, and run differential is very important unless you are comfortable leaving it up entirely to chance.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III : See? Don't underestimate the power of throwing it out there. And don't put your thread up before I get a chance to beat you to it. Although, I'm secretly hoping that what I've said here has some impact on their 2012 season as well.
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]

    OK. Next year, I'll wait for you to post first.

    Smile

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    And I think that the reason for that is that high scoring teams score runs in bunches.  Their high scoring games skew the bell curve.  I would prefer a statistic that showed the mean number of runs scored combined with the width of the distrubition (the leaner, the better).  I may not be using the right jargon, as it's been more than a decade since I was in grad school taking all my statistics and psychometric courses, but I hope you understand my meaning. A good offense can score 12 runs one day, and none the next (averaging 6 runs a game). But really good pitching isn't likely to give up 0 runs one day and 8 the next (averaging 4 runs a game). Good pitching is much more likely to have a tight distribution.  And I believe that is why good pitching and run preventions does do better than great offense and run differential at predicting wins.

    Yes, I totally understand this, and recognize that this is why good pitching teams with less of a run differential tend to out perform high scoring teams with average or poor pitching. That is why pitching is more important to winning than hitting... over the long haul. Low scoring games allow teams to stay closer more often and pull out wins.

    That said, both sides of the equation have to be addressed to build a winning team, and run differential is very important unless you are comfortable leaving it up entirely to chance.

    I agree. I'm looking at it this way: I'd rather be a team that scores 800 runs and lets up 700, than one that scores 900 and lets up 800. The former will almost always win more games even though they have the same run differential. I don't have the data in front of me, but I'd even bet that a team that scores 800 and lets up 700 will win more than a team that scores 900 and lets up 780.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III:
    [QUOTE]The Rays have some terrific young talent on the team right now, but I don't see a whole lot in their farm system.  Chris Archer had a WHIP of 1.6 at AA last year - I really think some of these scouts out-think themselves.  If a guy is playing with other players his age, and he's getting knocked around, how on earth can you think he's going to dominate the big leagues in another couple of years?  Same with Lee - he was good in high A ball - a lot has to go right for him to ever make the club from there, and chances are he won't be a contributor for several years, if at all. Beckham is still young, but he's been a bit disappointing - certainly nothing to write home about.  Torres is 24, and had a 1.5 WHIP at AAA last year.  He made Kyle Weiland look like Roy Halladay, and they are only 9 months apart in age.  I don't know - some of these guys might pan out, but there aren't any Hellicksons or Moore's left in the system.  If you take Moore's prospect status away, I'd rather have the Sox prospects, hand down. Not counting Moore 22, Cobb 23 and Torres 23 and 24 year olds Hellickson, Jennings, and McGee the Rays made some very good picks the few 2 years. 2011 (12 picks in the top 2 rounds) 24 Guerrieri 31 Mahtook 32 Hager 38 B. Martin 41 Goeddel 42 J Adams 52 Snell 56 K Carter 59 G Garvin 60 Harris 75 Goetzman 89 Linsky 2010: (5 in the top 2 rounds) 17 J Sale 31 O'Conner 42 Vettleson 66 Thompson 79 Dietrich  Other Draft Picks: Tim Beckham Parker Markel Ryan Brett Ryan Carpenter Via trade: Hal-Ju Lee Alex Torres Chris Archer Brandon Guyer Int'l FA: Enny Romero Alex Colome Oscar Hernandez The Sox probably won't have any 23-24 year olds on the 25 man roster, unless Doubront (24) makes it. The Rays may have 6 or more.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    That's more a result of the difference in budget between the two teams, and I don't know if that works in the Rays favor in a pennant race.  I think you saw the Rays fade down the stretch in 2010 because they relied on two many young arms that were used to pitching 130 innings a year, and were suddenly asked to pitch 200.  I think that's the same formula the A's used in the 90s and that's why so little of their staff remained healthy and effective past their mid 20s.

    For the most part, the 22 - 24 year olds on the Rays roster are not ready by Red Sox standards.  Matt Moore's stats look a lot like Buchholz at that age - he looks very promising, but I wouldn't pencil in a winning season for him in 2012.

    Michael Bowden was a better pitcher than both Chris Archer and Andres Torres at their respective ages (Bowden is only 15 months older than Torres as it is).

    Even Desmond Jennings has been a bit of a disappointment, hot MLB start not withstanding.  He had an .830 OPS at AAA at the age of 25.  Do you really think he'll become an all-star?  Lavarnway, who's a year younger than Jennings, outslugged him by 160 points.  Shouldn't the Sox be more excited about Lavarnway right now, regardless of defense and scout rankings?

    I'm not saying the Rays don't have potential, but the guys you could look at their stat lines and see them coming - the Prices, Hellicksons, Moores and Longorias, I don't think they have any of those guys left right now.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    That's more a result of the difference in budget between the two teams, and I don't know if that works in the Rays favor in a pennant race.  I think you saw the Rays fade down the stretch in 2010 because they relied on two many young arms that were used to pitching 130 innings a year, and were suddenly asked to pitch 200.  I think that's the same formula the A's used in the 90s and that's why so little of their staff remained healthy and effective past their mid 20s.

    For the most part, the 22 - 24 year olds on the Rays roster are not ready by Red Sox standards.  Matt Moore's stats look a lot like Buchholz at that age - he looks very promising, but I wouldn't pencil in a winning season for him in 2012.

    Michael Bowden was a better pitcher than both Chris Archer and Andres Torres at their respective ages (Bowden is only 15 months older than Torres as it is).

    Even Desmond Jennings has been a bit of a disappointment, hot MLB start not withstanding.  He had an .830 OPS at AAA at the age of 25.  Do you really think he'll become an all-star?  Lavarnway, who's a year younger than Jennings, outslugged him by 160 points.  Shouldn't the Sox be more excited about Lavarnway right now, regardless of defense and scout rankings?

    I'm not saying the Rays don't have potential, but the guys you could look at their stat lines and see them coming - the Prices, Hellicksons, Moores and Longorias, I don't think they have any of those guys left right now.

    Great points, slo. My points about TB having younger players on their roster now, was meant to emphasize that as the reason why they might not have many MLB-ready players on the farm right now, but like the Sox, they have had many recent top 2 round picks and that those players might not show up on the charts for another year or so.

    I'm not sure I'd say Desmond Jennings has been a dissapointment. He was drafted in the 10th round in June of 2006. By 2006, he was rated #59 by BA. He got up to #6 by 2010. He has an .805 OPS in his first 80 ML games. Comparing him to Lava is tough, but I'm not sure that I wouldn't want Desmond over Lava.

    The Rays are super young, but many of those players are now nearing their early or mid prime years.

    (Sox in Red)

    22:
    Matt Moore
    (Iglesias)
    23:
    (Archer, Colome)
    (Kalish, Middlebrooks, Lin)
    24:
    J. Hellickson
    Alex Cobb
    (A Torres) 
    Doubront
    (Lavarnway, Lars Anderson)
    25:
    Desmond Jennings
    Jake McGee
    (Tazawa, Bowden)
    26:
    D Price
    Longoria
    W Davis
    S Rodriguez
    B Guyer
    R Brignac
    Bard
    Melancon
    Salty
    Morales
    A Miller
    Mortensen
    27:
    BJ Upton
    M Joyce
    B Gomes
    C Ramos
    J Lobaton
    (R Chirinos, E Johnson)
    Buchholtz
    R Sweeney
    A Bailey
    28:
    Ellsbury
    Pedroia
    Lester
    29:
    J Niemann
    A Gonzalez
    Aceves
    Albers
    30:
    J Shields
    Ben Zobrist
    Sam Fuld
    JP Howell
    (Badenhop, De La Rosa) 
    Crawford
    Aviles
    Jenks
    31:
    Keppinger
    Beckett
    Dice-K
    C Ross
    Shoppach
    32:
    Youkilis
    33:
    Lackey
    D Mac
    34:
    F Rodney
    C. Pena
    N Punto
    35:
    Farnsworth
    Peralta
    Luke Scott
    36:
    D Ortiz
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    I think if Pena returns to form it instantly makes Tampa the favorites in the AL East - of course it requires all their other players to perform at a 2011 level and that JP Howell get it going again.

    Watch out, even with 140 k's Pena is good for 30/100 and will garauntee protection for Longoria.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay Rays Will Not Go Away: Part III

    I'm actually thinking Joyce, Zobrist, and Longoria will all improve over their 2011 numbers.

    The Rays were about middle of the pack in runs scored last year. I expect them to improve this year.
     

Share