I’m not sure if I’m consumed more by relief (from Duke hanging on against Creighton) or excitement (at the now infant amount of time before Opening Day), but I do know that I’m generally always satisfied, at worst, when my teams are doing well. And from a comparative standpoint, I don’t think I’m stretching too far in saying I believe the Rangers’ season will unfold a lot like Duke’s has.

Before the year, the general consensus was that Duke would be a good team, which is how most pundits/fans view the Rangers. Preseason the Blue Devils were #7 in the country, and they ended up as a #2 seed in the NCAA tournament — so their preseason rank was technically accurate in that sense — but I think it’s the way the season transpired that told the real story. Now they are one of the Sweet 16 teams remaining in a field previously carrying 68.

And that’s where I’m getting with this. The perception of the Rangers is that they will be a good team, but I don’t think any of us — as their fans — will be surprised if they end up as one of the 2-3 best teams in baseball. Sure, a lot of things (if not every thing) will have to go in our favor, but we have that kind of potential.

On the surface, to justify being one of the 2-3 best, the Rangers would, in theory, have to make a World Series appearance, or at least make a legitimate competition of the ALCS. That’s how the media (and subsequently, the fans) judge everything — by what’s most obvious; results. We live in a very reactionary culture that is quick to define the historical significance of something that happened 10 minutes ago. Everything is in black and white, and the grey area exponentially lessens by the year like an attention span.

Down in reality, I don’t think I could do a better job in defining a “successful” 2013 than saying, if the Rangers make the postseason, it’s a success. If they happen to be one of the 5 teams in the American League field, I will be satisfied.

Should we win the American League West, which I predicted a few weeks ago, then I would consider it a very successful season. With the new 5-team playoff format, it places a near-imperative emphasis on winning your division — to save yourself from a one-game elimination.

Last year, for instance, the Rangers had as much talent as any team in baseball. In a 5- or 7-game series, there’s isn’t a team in either league I would have picked us to lose to. That’s not my bias coming into play; that’s just how good we were. On paper.

But like Kenny Mayne used to say when he anchored Sportscenter with Dan Patrick in the late-90′s: “Games aren’t played on paper, they are played inside little television screens.”

That’s why the Rangers lost to the Orioles — a far inferior team talent-wise — in last year’s wild card game. In the playoffs, the bigger sample favors the better team; the smaller the sample, the better chance something freak happens, or the lineup is in a funk for a game, or someone just gets lucky. With how last season finished for the Rangers, I’m not so sure our fate would have changed no matter how many games we played against Baltimore, or anyone else, really.

The Rangers’ best 25-man roster in their history, and they just flat-out sucked at the end.

2013 is different because we are flying under the radar again, which hasn’t been the case since 2010 — the first time we made the World Series.

In 2011 they weren’t expected to return to the World Series because “Cliff Lee wasn’t pitching there anymore,” but when people saw the Rangers’ dominate they weren’t all that surprised. By October 2011 the Rangers were turning into a “national team.” Their fan base expanded rapidly — particularly and naturally in Texas — and the quiet stars we had known, like Ian Kinsler and Elvis Andrus and Nelson Cruz and Neftali Feliz and Derek Holland, were earning big hype from the media; the causation was their stellar play on the diamond.

Like all good things, eventually they must come to an end. Those rosters, filled with players who made deep runs into October in 2010 and 2011, and were probably part of the best team in the Majors last year from April-August, are blown up. Josh Hamilton and Michael Young, C.J. Wilson, Mike Napoli, Koji Uehara, Mike Adams, Scott Feldman, Mark Lowe;

they are all gone.

Some were great Rangers; some had a little too much baggage; some complained to the media; some kept their mouth shut.

This year doesn’t feel quite the same as the last 2-3, but damn I’m excited to see what we can do.

It was also Game 6 — the following Game 6, in St. Louis — when Nelson Cruz made what many people probably consider the most catastrophic error in the history of the franchise. In the 9th inning, with a two-run lead, two men on base, two men out, and on a 1-2 pitch, Neftali Feliz threw a nearly un-hittable 99 mph fastball on the lower quadrant of the outside corner, and David Freese hit it.

Off the bat, it appeared like a playable ball. When I noticed David Freese running — the type of sprint that just screams there’s hope — I knew it might take a play. A great play. Nelson Cruz took a terrible route, eventually tracking the ball, and then flopped in the air some 3 feet away from where the ball landed. Game-tying triple then … Cardinals win then … yada yada yada. You remember how it went. I tend to think Cruz gets more flack for this play than he deserves, but since the Rangers wound up losing the World Series, inevitably the fan base looked for something, anything, to scapegoat. And for that, Cruz is the goat. The good credit he accumulated acting as savior of the prior ALCS against Detroit quickly turned into a steep debt. It only takes one negative play to give the common fan amnesia as to how much they like a player when he’s doing well. It changes in an instant.

I suppose the situation could have turned out well, and all could have been forgotten, but Nelson Cruz didn’t exactly set the world on fire the following season, in 2012. He put up a pedestrian .260/.319/.460, hitting 24 HR’s and driving in 86. Defensively, he was a tad below league average (UZR of -3.3), and he lost a step on the bases according to BsR (-3.2). For his supposed MVP-like talent, he certainly had a below-average season, yet he played in more games than any other Ranger (159).

For the fan base, I’m getting the impression a lot of people are considering this alleged Miami PED scandal as Nelson Cruz’s 3rd and final strike (if the ’11 World Series was strike one, and his underwhelming ’12 was strike two). Since the Miami New Time’s article surfaced I haven’t seen one writer or fan say they believe Nelson Cruz will be back in 2014 (after this, the final year on his contract).

Personally, I tend to agree with the notion that he won’t be back, but I disagree in begrudging him for the botched World Series play, or for the lackluster season that ensued. Even with this PED scandal, it doesn’t spawn any hate or disgust from me in Cruz’s direction. If he’s guilty, he gets a suspension, and I hope he kills baseballs when he comes back. That’s all it comes down to with me.

Let’s just put it this way: if Nelson Cruz comes back and performs at a high level, the fan base will embrace him. But the mob is fickle. Suppose he comes back and has another poor season — like last season — then how do you think he’ll get treated? If Rangers fans can turn on Josh Hamilton, the team’s most talented player, booing him during his sendoff game against Baltimore, then Cruz will certainly be an obvious target.

Overall, I like Nelson Cruz. I may have fallen too much in love with his potential at some point along the way, but right now I try my best to keep objectivity above all. The way I see it, Nelson Cruz has one year left and he’s set to make $10.5 million. If each Win Above Replacement is worth $5 million, that means Cruz needs to generate 2.1 fWAR to justify the terms of his contract.

($/WAR) = ($10.5M/$5M) = 2.1 WAR

It’s a contract year. He has 5-win potential, but all we need is a couple. A few would be nice. 4.0 WAR would be fantastic.

What do you think? Do you have positive feelings toward Nelson Cruz, or would you like to see him gone after this year? (Or, I guess option [c] would be: both.)

(more…)