Last offseason, the Astros made one of their biggest free-agent acquisitions ever with the signing of Jeff Kent. The former Most Valuable Player was expected to give the middle of the Houston batting order a boost.
With Kent, the Astros have had a good but not great lineup. Their 4.8 runs per game rank them fifth in the league, although they are farther from the top three teams — the Braves (5.6), Cardinals (5.5) and Rockies (5.3) — than they are from the 14th-ranked Mets (4.3).
They also benefit from playing in one of the league’s best hitters parks. While their 5.2 runs per game place them fifth in the league at home, they’re just 10th in the league on the road at 4.4 runs per game. The Astros and their opponents have scored about 4.7 runs per game at Minute Maid Park and 4.3 runs per game elsewhere. That’s run inflation of approximately 8 percent.
What Kent has helped do is keep the lineup about as good as it was in 2002. In fact, the Astros are on pace to score within about 3 percent of the number of runs they scored last year. What has changed considerably is where those runs are coming from.
Batting Order
Comparing the 2002 and 2003 Astros at every slot in the batting order shows a substantial difference at every position except No. 4 and No. 9. What follows is a comparison of the Astros this year and last at each rank in the batting order, showing an estimate of the difference in runs.
Runs, denoted “BR,” are estimated using a modified version of Total Baseball’s batting runs equation, which looks like this:
(.47*1B) + (.78*2B) + (1.09*3B) + (1.40*HR) + (.31*BB) + (.31*HBP) + (.3*SB) - (.6*CS) - (.09*(AB-H))
This equation gives a highly accurate estimate of the number of runs a team scored based on its hits, walks, hit by pitch, stolen bases, caught stealing and hitless at-bats. In 2002, the Astros scored 749 runs, while the equation estimates 755, a difference of less than 1 percent. In 2003, the Astros have scored 615 runs, while the equation estimates 599, a difference of less than 3 percent. (This actually suggests that the Astros offense, based on their offensive statistics other than runs, have done a little worse this season than last.)
For the comparison, 2002 batting runs are scaled to the number of outs made in 2003, to show both seasons with a comparable amount of playing time. The “/27” indicates the number of batting runs per 27 outs estimated to have been produced at the position.
Batting No. 1
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .257 .313 .390 .703 65 4.3 2003 .254 .332 .402 .734 72 4.7
While Craig Biggio may be struggling, he has actually helped the Astros squeeze an estimated seven more runs out of the leadoff position than they generated in 2001. Last year saw the top spot chiefly shared by Julio Lugo, Jose Vizcaino, Brian Hunter and Biggio. Biggio has gotten the slot mostly to himself this year.
Batting No. 2
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .274 .342 .414 .756 78 5.1 2003 .257 .306 .411 .717 67 4.3
Almost all of the production from the two-hole this year is from the third basemen, Geoff Blum and Morgan Ensberg. Last year this was Biggio’s place, with Brad Ausmus and Vizcaino hitting there a little. This has been a net loss to the tune of an estimated 11 runs for the Astros in 2003.
Batting No. 3
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .298 .410 .572 .981 112 8.3 2003 .271 .374 .490 .864 89 6.6
Lance Berkman seized No. 3 from Jeff Bagwell after about a third of the season last year. Bagwell got it back this year. The result has been a drop off of an estimated 23 runs, the biggest decline anywhere in the lineup.
Batting No. 4
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .285 .394 .520 .914 96 7.4 2003 .302 .384 .536 .920 95 7.3
This is where Bagwell and Berkman flip-flopped to and from in 2002. Jeff Kent has held it most of 2003, with Berkman hitting clean-up when Kent was injured. The productivity at No. 4 has been almost exactly the same.
Batting No. 5
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .265 .342 .421 .763 65 5.2 2003 .306 .385 .552 .937 95 7.6
Daryle Ward and Richard Hidalgo shared most of the time at No. 5 in 2002, with Ward getting almost twice as many opportunities as Hidalgo. This year, Berkman and Hidalgo have shared the slot, with Berkman getting a bit more time than Hidalgo. The improvement of Ward/Hidalgo 2002 to Berkman/Hidalgo 2003 has been huge: an estimated 30 runs.
Batting No. 6
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .267 .317 .426 .743 62 4.7 2003 .270 .340 .467 .807 73 5.6
Hidalgo got a plurality of the plate appearances at No. 6 in 2002, sharing with Orlando Merced, Ward and Vizcaino, among others. This year has also been mostly Hidalgo, with some of Merced and Ensberg. The improvement of an estimated 11 runs is most attributable to Hidalgo’s comeback season.
Batting No. 7
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .255 .330 .378 .708 59 4.4 2003 .221 .300 .308 .608 43 3.2
Blum got a lot of plate appearances at No. 7 in 2002, with Ausmus and Ensberg hitting here too. Ausmus and Gregg Zaun have shared the slot in 2003. Ausmus’ off-year, along with Zaun’s release-worthy performance, have seen productivity fall here by an estimated 16 runs.
Batting No. 8
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .272 .352 .383 .735 63 4.9 2003 .234 .291 .330 .621 44 3.4
Ausmus hit a lot more in the eight-hole in 2002, with Lugo, Adam Everett, Blum and Zaun batting here as well. This season No. 8 is mostly Everett, with Lugo’s performance before he was released. Year on year, the Astros have hemorrhaged an estimated 19 runs here.
Batting No. 9
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .176 .215 .239 .455 17 1.3 2003 .182 .221 .264 .485 22 1.7
The pitchers, pinch-hitters and whomever was stuck here in interleague road games have combined for an estimated five-run increase in productivity at No. 9 in 2003.
Here’s a chart that summarizes the data, including the percent of the team’s runs estimated to have been produced at each rank:
Slot 2002 Pct 2003 Pct Dif -------------------------------- No. 1 65 11% 72 12% 7 No. 2 78 13% 67 11% -11 No. 3 112 18% 89 15% -23 No. 4 96 16% 95 16% -1 No. 5 65 10% 95 16% 30 No. 6 62 10% 73 12% 11 No. 7 59 10% 43 7% -16 No. 8 63 10% 44 7% -19 No. 9 17 3% 22 4% 5
Positions
Let’s do the same thing, but from another perspective. The net gains and losses from 2002 to 2003 can also be looked at by position:
Catchers
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .254 .320 .346 .666 49 3.8 2003 .227 .305 .292 .597 40 3.1
With Ausmus struggling badly in the first half of 2003, the Astros have gotten an estimated nine fewer runs out of their catchers this season. Ausmus has been hitting well since the All-Star break (.295/.364/.368) and has been among the team’s hottest hitters in August (.315/.415/.426), so he may close this gap before the end of the year.
First Basemen
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .288 .395 .519 .914 100 7.5 2003 .274 .372 .498 .870 90 6.7
Bagwell’s lengthy, dreadful slump has caused an estimated 10-run decline year-to-year. Like Ausmus, Bagwell has been hot in the second half (.279/.401/.590), so he might make up some ground if he keeps it up.
Second Basemen
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .268 .336 .417 .753 69 5.1 2003 .294 .336 .502 .838 82 6.0
Kent 2003 over Biggio 2002 is an obvious improvement. Without Kent’s injury, the estimated 13-run difference might be even greater. Not only would Kent, rather than Blum and others, have been in the lineup, but Kent has not quite been himself. Consider that in the same number of outs, Kent in 2002 produced an estimated 12 more runs than he has in 2003. And this doesn’t reflect the difference of moving from pitcher-friendly PacBell Park to hitter-friendly Minute Maid Park, where Kent would expect bigger numbers.
Third Basemen
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .294 .376 .448 .824 88 6.2 2003 .267 .329 .445 .773 74 5.2
It might surprise fans to know that the Astros have seen a net loss of an estimated 14 runs from their third basemen this season. Of the estimated 74 runs contributed by Astros third basemen at the plate in 2003, 50 have come from Ensberg and 24 have come from Blum. Thus, Ensberg has about 25 percent more plate appearances but has produced an estimated 100 percent more runs.
Shortstop
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .260 .321 .363 .684 53 4.1 2003 .241 .294 .359 .654 48 3.7
As much as Everett is considered an offensive sacrifice in exchange for his fine defense, the Astros have an estimated net loss of only about five runs in 2003 from what mostly Lugo and Vizcaino produced in 2002. That’s probably less than a lot of fans impressed with Everett’s glovework might’ve assumed.
Left Fielders
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .268 .329 .439 .768 62 5.0 2003 .274 .388 .494 .882 87 7.0
After splitting time between left and center field in 2002, Berkman’s full-time transition to the corner in 2003 has seen the Astros pick up an estimated 25 runs here.
Center Fielders
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .282 .375 .534 .909 107 7.1 2003 .255 .332 .398 .730 70 4.7
The estimated gains of 13 runs from second basemen and 25 runs from left fielders has not come without a side effect. That side effect has been the estimated 37 fewer runs produced by Astros center fielders in 2003. In fact, if you add up the three positions that have been affected by Kent’s signing to play second base, Biggio’s shift from second base to center field, and Berkman’s move full-time to left field, the Astros are virtually run-neutral:
Combined 2B, LF, CF
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .272 .347 .462 .809 237 5.7 2003 .274 .351 .462 .814 240 5.8
Does this mean this move has worked for the Astros, to the extent they’ve been able to keep potentially the first Hall of Famer in an Astros cap starting with the team while continuing to field the best team they can in the process?
Not necessarily. First, while the Astros may be breaking even in comparison to 2002, that doesn’t mean they’re breaking even relative to whom they otherwise could’ve started in center field in 2003. For example, they might’ve broken camp with Jason Lane. Berkman, Hidalgo or Lane could’ve played in place of Biggio in center field. Berkman and Hidalgo could certainly outhit him, and Lane might’ve been able to do so as well. Of course, Lane was injured much of the season, so this option wasn’t actually available. Within the system, nobody else — for instance, Colin Porter — looked to be a better package than Biggio.
Second, there is the question of whether Kent at second, Berkman in left and Biggio in center was as good defensively as other options the Astros had. Third, there is the issue of what the Astros are paying Kent, Berkman and Biggio compared with what they would pay if Biggio weren’t part of the equation. This is moot for 2003, though, since Biggio’s salary this year was guaranteed before Biggio inked an extension last offseason. Next year is a different story, however. Now that Biggio’s signed, he’s likely to play, but how much remains a tough question for Houston.
Finally, as noted, Kent to date has produced an estimated 12 runs fewer than his 2002 performance in the same number of outs. Berkman has likewise not matched his 2002 season, producing an estimated 10 fewer runs. Had the Astros gotten from Kent and Berkman what they produced in 2002, the net gain from the three positions would be an estimated 22 runs. But whether having Biggio in center field is the team’s best choice shouldn’t hinge on what Kent and Berkman haven’t done.
And none of this changes the fact that, if Lane stays healthy and demonstrates a continued ability to hit big-league pitching, the Astros are going to have to decide whether to change the fixtures next year. Playing Biggio part-time might not be palatable from a nostalgic perspective, but it could help the Astros put more runs on the scoreboard. Right now the Astros are arguably paying a Cooperstown premium to keep Biggio in the lineup every day.
Right Fielders
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .265 .344 .454 .798 73 5.7 2003 .293 .361 .523 .884 83 6.5
Hidalgo’s stellar comeback has gained the Astros an estimated 10 runs from its right fielders relative to 2002. The Astros had a fine part-time contribution from Merced in 2002 in right field, not so fine in 2003.
Pitchers
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .128 .153 .155 .309 -1 0.0 2003 .135 .164 .170 .333 1 0.1
The pitchers have hit better in 2003 than in 2002, but their contribution is so small that the effect is negligible. The negative number indicates that their hitless at-bats were more costly than any positive things they did on offense. Batting runs does not include sacrifice hits, however, so it is not a particularly useful evaluator for most pitchers.
Pinch Hitters
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .228 .311 .312 .623 21 3.4 2003 .200 .265 .322 .587 18 2.9
The pinch-hitters have been out machines in 2003, and even in few opportunities, they’ve been an estimated three runs worse than in 2002.
Designated Hitters
Year Avg OBP Slg OPS BR /27 -------------------------------------- 2002 .304 .360 .435 .795 5 5.5 2003 .278 .341 .389 .730 5 4.9
This is such a small handful of plate appearances that the differences are minute. Despite hitting better in 2002, Astros designated hitters have more or less broken even in 2003.
Here’s a summary of the position-by-position data:
Pos 2002 Pct 2003 Pct Dif ------------------------------ C 49 8% 40 7% -9 1B 100 16% 90 15% -10 2B 69 11% 82 14% 13 3B 88 14% 74 12% -14 SS 53 9% 48 8% -5 LF 62 10% 87 15% 25 CF 107 17% 70 12% -37 RF 73 12% 83 14% 10 P -1 0% 1 0% 2 PH 21 3% 18 3% -3 DH 5 1% 5 1% 0
Merely matching rather than exceeding last season’s output might seem like a disappointment given the much-heralded Kent signing, Ensberg’s breakout and Hidalgo’s comeback. It beats losing ground, however. Given how tight their division race is, picking up some slack wherever they can the last five weeks of the season is imperative.