Jump to content

Hank Chinaski

Legacy Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3435

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Hank Chinaski

  1. Hank Chinaski
    Well I’ve never been accused of being fun.
  2. Hank Chinaski
    Yeah I think this is right, and a reasonable way of looking at it. I still wouldn’t do it though. I wouldn’t give a mid-30s pitcher, who has started 26 games in 2 years, that many years and that much money, in hopes in one of those 5 years that he has a single CY caliber season. Y’all would hate me, I’d run a team like the Rays do. Paying deGrom $40mm for valueless years at the end of this deal would drive me nuts, particularly if he doesn’t figure to be the difference in winning a pennant or not in the years he’s most likely to be best (‘23 and ‘24). like I said, I doubt this will be a disaster for them; just wouldn’t be my approach; I’d rather invest that in player development, front office talent, players who give more bang for the buck, etc.
  3. Hank Chinaski
    ZiPS projects him at about +14 WAR over the 5 years. So, over $13mm/win. That seems steep. I get that in the expanded playoff era, 3 wins/year May be more valuable than they used to be. It’ll probably be a reasonably Ok deal for the rangers. Wouldn’t be my course of action if I were them, but I’m not.
  4. Hank Chinaski
    Sure, but I’d counter with guys like Akina, G Robinson, Muschamp, etc. I think once his honeymoon was over (after the 03 holiday bowl) he figured this part out a bit. As others have stated, maybe Herman’s biggest screwup was his staff that he brought in.
  5. Hank Chinaski
    Exactly. Going back to the Mack years, people have maintained this idea of “coach X isn’t a good coach, he just attracts really good talent, hires great assistants, keeps everyone happy, etc.” That’s most of the goddamn job. Was Mack a genius Xs and Os guy? No, but he was elite at the above (for his first dozen years here anyway). (Also, Herman never really seemed to be much of a schematic genius either.)
  6. Hank Chinaski
  7. Hank Chinaski
  8. Hank Chinaski
    This is the thing - you’d pay a premium for him because he’s the rare catcher that can hit…then you wouldn’t even play him at catcher for 1/2 of the season? So not only are you getting less value than you paid for by not playing him at catcher 75% of the time, but you probably have to expect a further decline in value based on his (probable) bad LF defense.
  9. Hank Chinaski
    Yeah, and playing Contreras in LF would not help there. That (potential) move doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. He’s played 39 games in the OF in his career, and just 15 since 2016 (23 total innings in the OF since 2017). He’s a good (not great) hitter. If we are keeping Maldy around, I’d probably just try to bring back Vazquez, a better defensive C than Contreras, and sing an actual OF (I like the idea of Conforto).
  10. Hank Chinaski
    Maybe, but goddamnit the level of buy-in should be commensurate with the level of data support!
  11. Hank Chinaski
  12. Hank Chinaski
    It irrationally drives me crazy. In my mind, there is no reason not to play the numbers and maximize potential run production, ever. I understand that it doesn’t matter that much, big picture. But again, why wouldn’t you always try to maximize your odds? And if Dubon goes 2/4 while hitting second IT WAS STILL THE WRONG DECISION.
  13. Hank Chinaski
    I hope this is correct and he doesn’t have an outsized voice in the FO.
  14. Hank Chinaski
    I generally do trust that Crane will not abandon the approach that has been so successful, but things like this concern me. I love Bagwell. I love him in the booth. But the way that he doesn’t seem to understand the analytics - for example, he mocks exit velo and other metrics that have real meaning - makes me nervous if he is having real input into roster management. The “baseball isn’t played by numbers” sentiment is all too reminiscent of the “computers don’t play the games” tropes that indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what the data are actually used for.
  15. Hank Chinaski
    It was the Nebraska game, I remember this clearly. As I recall, it all changed when Colt kept it on a ZR play and gained an easy 20 yards or so. Up to that point, Chiles would come in to run it, to the point where it became predictable. (At least, that’s how I remember it, could be wrong.) Once Colt finally began to keep, it opened everything and we all finally realized that Jamaal Charles was the best player in college football. (Still one of my favorite games I’ve attended; goddamn I loved watching JC run the ball. 200+ in the 4th Q lol.)
  16. Hank Chinaski
    oh shit, this was supposed to be our year? Let’s see…started the season ranked #24, coming off 5-7, freshman QB, 2 freshman starters on the OL…yup, that’s generally the recipe for a breakthrough to national title contention. Meanwhile, ags were preseason #6. But this was supposed to Texas’s year.
  17. Hank Chinaski
    “8+” includes predictions of 8, 9, 10, etc.
  18. Hank Chinaski
    That all our coaches suck is almost unanimously agreed upon; we really just like to debate the degree to which they suck. Let’s face it, we really just like to argue.
  19. Hank Chinaski
    Well, I’m not funny, so not your fault. At the end of the day, I think we both wish both coaches were better.
  20. Hank Chinaski
    Good god. The original comment about “let’s not give Herman too much credit” was a joke about how crappy we’ve been for years. But no, I don’t think that comparing single games against Kansas with almost identical scores tell us anything about whether one coach is meaningfully better than the other, beyond how it contributes to their overall records. It means Texas won one and lost one - of course that’s all that’s meaningful for the team and the season, but it isn’t significant evidence of coaching acumen.
  21. Hank Chinaski
    You used the results of playing Kansas as an indicator of how good the head coach is. The scores of the two games in question were 50-48 and 49-49 at the end of regulation. In both cases, the team performed in such a way that the outcome was basically a coin flip. One worked out, the other didn’t. This seems fairly self-evident.
  22. Hank Chinaski
    The point is that if losing to Kansas in OT is absolutely inexcusable, then needing a last-second FG to beat them should be almost as inexcusable.
  23. Hank Chinaski
    I mean, Herman was a last-second drive/FG away from losing to Kansas too (at home, with a 3-year starter at QB). Let’s not give him too much credit there.
  24. Hank Chinaski
    I mean, I just assume everyone fucking hates both Briles and Baylor. And Waco.
  25. Hank Chinaski
    You’re right in the sense that Mack had experienced much more success at that point; I’d say that the essence of the discussion was mostly the same though. Mack was typecast as the guy who couldn’t beat Bowden at UNC and couldn’t beat Stoops at Texas. Couldn’t win the big games (shit, remember that whole thing?). Most were pretty convinced that’s how it would always be. With Sark, we’re just asking him to win the medium games consistently…until he does, at which point we’d demand he win all the games like we did with Mack. (And I’m not saying that’s unfair, just saying that’s how it will be.)

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...