OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: Mr. Happy on September 30, 2007, 06:30:04 pm
-
Luke Scott had virtually no playing time in RF during September. From that, I would infer that the powers that be know what they have in Scott in RF-his production was not too bad given his injury situation and spotty playing time. Pence's arm, IMHO, is a big minus for RF. Is the CF determination (can Anderson play like he's played in September) going to dictate who plays RF? Does Berkman go back to RF to get Lee, a below average LF in my opinion, to 1B? If so, does that put Scott in LF? What FA options are out there for RF if none of the in-house options are appealing?
-
Luke Scott had virtually no playing time in RF during September. From that, I would infer that the powers that be know what they have in Scott in RF-his production was not too bad given his injury situation and spotty playing time. Pence's arm, IMHO, is a big minus for RF. Is the CF determination (can Anderson play like he's played in September) going to dictate who plays RF? Does Berkman go back to RF to get Lee, a below average LF in my opinion, to 1B? If so, does that put Scott in LF? What FA options are out there for RF if none of the in-house options are appealing?
Berkman won't be moved back to the outfield.
But if he were, and you moved Lee to 1b, then Pence could play his "natural" position in LF, and you'd still need a CF.
-
Berkman won't be moved back to the outfield.
But if he were, and you moved Lee to 1b, then Pence could play his "natural" position in LF, and you'd still need a CF.
So basically the same problem they had this year, for which they ended up firing the GM and Head Coach.
-
I figure that as long as Lee and Pence are both on the team the Astros' OF defense will always be in the bottom half of the league. Problem is they both should be playing LF, and they are 2 of the Astros' 3 best hitters.
And Berkman is going to remain at 1B until he leaves,is traded or retires would be my guess.
Do you trade away a guy you signed to a big contract (Lee or Berkman)? Or trade away an emerging young hitter (Pence)? Or just live with less than average defense in the OF?
Anderson looks pretty good in CF, and may have done enough to impress management to give him a shot at it next year. And the reason him over Scott is, the Astros don't have a lead-off type hitter, and Anderson fits that role best. Scott is a decent #6/7 hitter, but the team already has Wigginton to fit that role.
Alot could be desided by who they choose at 2B, Burke, Ransom, or some FA?
-
Alot could be desided by who they choose at 2B, Burke, Ransom, or some FA?
This is my question. If they don't believe in Burke, second base is one of the strongest positions on the market, with guys like Iguchi and Castillo who could hit near the top of the order and probably not cost too terribly much. The upside of signing one of those guys is that they've essentially proven that they'll consistently provide what we now only hope for from Burke.
-
This is my question. If they don't believe in Burke, second base is one of the strongest positions on the market, with guys like Iguchi and Castillo who could hit near the top of the order and probably not cost too terribly much. The upside of signing one of those guys is that they've essentially proven that they'll consistently provide what we now only hope for from Burke.
Could you live with the following lineup?
Anderson-CF
Iguchi/Castillo-2B
Berkman-RF
Lee-1B
Pence-LF
Wigginton-3B
Everett-SS
Towles/Ausmus-C
-
If Burke is not 'handed' the 2B role, get ready for a massive whine. I say ship his arse out, I'd rather see Loretta/Ransom/Bruntlett there.
A first round bust is nothing new, every team has plenty of examples.
-
Could you live with the following lineup?
Depends what your expectations are. That line up is basically functional, but unlikely to be making much of a challenge.
And it's still a screwy defensive line-up, requiring your two best players to play out of position.
-
Could you live with the following lineup?
Anderson-CF
Iguchi/Castillo-2B
Berkman-RF
Lee-1B
Pence-LF
Wigginton-3B
Everett-SS
Towles/Ausmus-C
From the position players Smith has expressly said speed and defense and the hitting will take care of itself. Is this a speed/defense team?
-
From the position players Smith has expressly said speed and defense and the hitting will take care of itself. Is this a speed/defense team?
No, but didn't the Grocer say that hitting was a priority?
-
From the position players Smith has expressly said speed and defense and the hitting will take care of itself. Is this a speed/defense team?
To the extent that it can be, it is, don't you think?
Berkman is locked in - not fast. Lee, locked in - not fast, poor defense. Pence, locked in - not-great defense. Wigginton, theoretically acquired to start at third for the next year or two - not fast, not-great defense. Your catcher is pretty much not going to be fast.
Anderson is speed and defense in center. Castillo, for one, would be speed and reportedly solid defense at second; Iguchi is solid defensively and not slow. Are there spots in that lineup at which you think the Astros can (and are willing to) improve the speed and defense?
Personally, I'd probably leave Lee in left, Pence in right and Berkman at first, for the record.
-
For the record, Castillo would be a mistake IMO. He had to take quite a few days off the past several seasons to rest his 'tired' legs. If this is Luis Castillo that was mentioned. He is an old 32 years old.
-
Personally, I'd probably leave Lee in left, Pence in right and Berkman at first, for the record.
You may well have it the way it will happen. However, in that case, automatically going from 1B to 3B and 2B to the pay station on all hits to RF will not make the pitchers very happy. I view life through the eyes of a pitcher. Sorry. They'll need to keep Scott around as insurance for PENCE!!! getting off to a rough start at the plate, which could happen, because they'll have to pull him quickly due to poor fielding, especially if he isn't hitting.
-
...Wigginton, theoretically acquired to start at third for the next year or two - not fast, not-great defense. Your catcher is pretty much not going to be fast....
Two things. Wigginton, while maybe "not-great" is certainly good. Better than I had been lead to believe. And good is good enough, except for those who need All Stars at every position, like the Mets. And Towles, the 08 catcher, has decent speed.
-
No, but didn't the Grocer say that hitting was a priority?
Yes, he did, when Purp was fired. When Wade was hired, Smith said pitching, speed, defense and the hitting will take care of itself. McLane was there when Smith said it and wanted Smith as GM. Seems to me Tal has done a lot of work convincing Drayton that the team's problems are deeper and different than not enough hitting.
-
To the extent that it can be, it is, don't you think?
Berkman is locked in - not fast. Lee, locked in - not fast, poor defense. Pence, locked in - not-great defense. Wigginton, theoretically acquired to start at third for the next year or two - not fast, not-great defense. Your catcher is pretty much not going to be fast.
Anderson is speed and defense in center. Castillo, for one, would be speed and reportedly solid defense at second; Iguchi is solid defensively and not slow. Are there spots in that lineup at which you think the Astros can (and are willing to) improve the speed and defense?
Personally, I'd probably leave Lee in left, Pence in right and Berkman at first, for the record.
I don't know how fast and good a defender Castillo and Iguchi are. That's why I asked. I know Burke can run. I know he's an average defender.
-
You may well have it the way it will happen. However, in that case, automatically going from 1B to 3B and 2B to the pay station on all hits to RF will not make the pitchers very happy. I view life through the eyes of a pitcher. Sorry. They'll need to keep Scott around as insurance for PENCE!!! getting off to a rough start at the plate, which could happen, because they'll have to pull him quickly due to poor fielding, especially if he isn't hitting.
Barring a trade of Lee, Pence or Berkman next year's team is likely to be Lee, Anderson, and Pence in the outfield and Wigginton, Everett, Burke, and Berkman third to first with Towles catching. I believe Anderson and Towles will be there because of Moore's promotion to bench coach.
Pence was better in right field last year at Corpus than he was this September. He played right all year in 06.
-
Two things. Wigginton, while maybe "not-great" is certainly good. Better than I had been lead to believe. And good is good enough, except for those who need All Stars at every position, like the Mets. And Towles, the 08 catcher, has decent speed.
Towles had 13 SB in 06 for LEX while getting caught 5 times. In 07 he was a combined 14 out of 27 attempts.
-
Barring a trade of Lee, Pence or Berkman next year's team is likely to be Lee, Anderson, and Pence in the outfield and Wigginton, Everett, Burke, and Berkman third to first with Towles catching. I believe Anderson and Towles will be there because of Moore's promotion to bench coach.
Pence was better in right field last year at Corpus than he was this September. He played right all year in 06.
I see that being the starting 8 as well. The roation configuration could be interesting, as I think they have about 10 bodies for 5 spots.
-
I see that being the starting 8 as well. The roation configuration could be interesting, as I think they have about 10 bodies for 5 spots.
Roy, Backe, Woody, Wandy, Patton, Paulino, Gutierrez, Albers, and Nieve. That's 9. Though Nieve coming back from arm surgery would have to be the longest shot. Paulino, I believe, is still being looked at for the bullpen long-term.
-
Towles had 13 SB in 06 for LEX while getting caught 5 times. In 07 he was a combined 14 out of 27 attempts.
Stealing bases is a learned skill, only one component of which is speed. Astros need 1st to 3rd on a single to right speed. Towles has that.
-
Yep, I agree. I see the most likely combo being: Roy, Brandon, Wandy, Woody, Troy in that order. But you just never know.
That staff, while ok, doesn't seem to be something the is likely to win you 90 games... but then the Central may not need 90 to win. It certainly didn't this year. The real question is, is that rotation good enough for the Astros management?
-
Roy, Backe, Woody, Wandy, Patton, Paulino, Gutierrez, Albers, and Nieve. That's 9. Though Nieve coming back from arm surgery would have to be the longest shot. Paulino, I believe, is still being looked at for the bullpen long-term.
Is there a reasonable chance that they'd buy out Woody if the youngsters really come on in the spring, and Woody has a poor spring?
-
Yep, I agree. I see the most likely combo being: Roy, Brandon, Wandy, Woody, Troy in that order. But you just never know.
That staff, while ok, doesn't seem to be something the is likely to win you 90 games... but then the Central may not need 90 to win. It certainly didn't this year. The real question is, is that rotation good enough for the Astros management?
The real question is do they have a choice?
-
The real question is do they have a choice?
Unfortunately they always have a choice.... just that they have not always made the RIGHT choice.
-
The real question is do they have a choice?
They could choose to try to deal some of that younger pitching for a more established pitcher.
-
Anderson looks pretty good in CF, and may have done enough to impress management to give him a shot at it next year. And the reason him over Scott is, the Astros don't have a lead-off type hitter, and Anderson fits that role best. Scott is a decent #6/7 hitter, but the team already has Wigginton to fit that role.
Alot could be desided by who they choose at 2B, Burke, Ransom, or some FA?
Scott is an excellent #6/7 hitter, and wouldn't look bad at #5.
Re: Scott and his production, I am not sure why it is in question. He sometimes gets short shrift, I think because he is streaky, and if one happens to watch a series of games when he is cold, that sticks in the mind.
But damn, .336/.426/.631 (214 ABs) and .255/.351/.504 (369 ABs) in the last two seasons -- I'll take it.
That is well above average. Add into that Scott is a left-handed hitter who hits left-handed pitching slightly better than he does right-handers, so he doesn't really need to be platooned; I'm not 100% sure about his defense, but he has seemed all right when I've been able to watch him.
This season's stats projected to 520 ABs -- 70 runs, 90 RBIs, 25 HRs, 75 BBs.
While I agree the team doesn't have many candidates to lead off, and that at the moment Anderson fits the role best, I would not throw Scott overboard just to get Anderson at #1. He may be the best cadidate at the moment, but if getting on base is the criteria, unless Anderson is going to hit .300 or above all season he's not going to be very good at it. At least going by his minor league record (http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=481), he doesn't walk very much. The highest full-season OBP he posted was .349 (twice, in A and AA), and he had to hit .300 to achieve that. Hell, I'd rather stick Burke in there and see if he can bounce back; because Burke would only have to hit about .270 (at least a possibility, if he reverts to 2006) to get on more often than Anderson hitting .300 (not very likely, I am thinking, and Anderson leading off and hitting .270 or less would be a real offensive liability.) That way you don't have to jettison Scott's production.
BTW, I think the team is more likely to go your way on this, but for the sake of argument, I think it would be the wrong move in the long run. I'd have to think twice before taking time away from Scott to get Anderson into the rotation. Nothing against Anderson, who looks like he could be a nice player. But we are looking at him after 67 major league at bats, and about 20 games in the field, with offensive numbers which far exceed anything he did in five seasons in the minors. IOW, Scott is a much better bet to continue putting up numbers like he has than Anderson is to come even close to what he did the last 20 games or so this season. I do think he'd could be useful as a 4th or 5th OF, defensive replacement, PH/PR type guy, though.
Edited to add a lineup proposition, given the current roster:
2B Burke
CF Pence
1B Berkman
LF Lee
RF Scott
3B Wigginton
C Towles
SS Everett
-
Scott is an excellent #6/7 hitter, and wouldn't look bad at #5.
Re: Scott and his production, I am not sure why it is in question. He sometimes gets short shrift, I think because he is streaky, and if one happens to watch a series of games when he is cold, that sticks in the mind.
But damn, .336/.426/.631 (214 ABs) and .255/.351/.504 (369 ABs) in the last two seasons -- I'll take it.
That is well above average. Add into that Scott is a left-handed hitter who hits left-handed pitching slightly better than he does right-handers, so he doesn't really need to be platooned; I'm not 100% sure about his defense, but he has seemed all right when I've been able to watch him.
This season's stats projected to 520 ABs -- 70 runs, 90 RBIs, 25 HRs, 75 BBs.
I agree 100% about Scott's production. I think that they should have just left him out there full-time.
-
I agree 100% about Scott's production. I think that they should have just left him out there full-time.
Cooper said that he knew what Scott could do, don't know if that's good or bad, so that's why Anderson played.
-
Scott is an excellent #6/7 hitter, and wouldn't look bad at #5.
Re: Scott and his production, I am not sure why it is in question. He sometimes gets short shrift, I think because he is streaky, and if one happens to watch a series of games when he is cold, that sticks in the mind.
But damn, .336/.426/.631 (214 ABs) and .255/.351/.504 (369 ABs) in the last two seasons -- I'll take it.
That is well above average. Add into that Scott is a left-handed hitter who hits left-handed pitching slightly better than he does right-handers, so he doesn't really need to be platooned; I'm not 100% sure about his defense, but he has seemed all right when I've been able to watch him.
This season's stats projected to 520 ABs -- 70 runs, 90 RBIs, 25 HRs, 75 BBs.
While I agree the team doesn't have many candidates to lead off, and that at the moment Anderson fits the role best, I would not throw Scott overboard just to get Anderson at #1. He may be the best cadidate at the moment, but if getting on base is the criteria, unless Anderson is going to hit .300 or above all season he's not going to be very good at it. At least going by his minor league record (http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=481), he doesn't walk very much. The highest full-season OBP he posted was .349 (twice, in A and AA), and he had to hit .300 to achieve that. Hell, I'd rather stick Burke in there and see if he can bounce back; because Burke would only have to hit about .270 (at least a possibility, if he reverts to 2006) to get on more often than Anderson hitting .300 (not very likely, I am thinking, and Anderson leading off and hitting .270 or less would be a real offensive liability.) That way you don't have to jettison Scott's production.
BTW, I think the team is more likely to go your way on this, but for the sake of argument, I think it would be the wrong move in the long run. I'd have to think twice before taking time away from Scott to get Anderson into the rotation. Nothing against Anderson, who looks like he could be a nice player. But we are looking at him after 67 major league at bats, and about 20 games in the field, with offensive numbers which far exceed anything he did in five seasons in the minors. IOW, Scott is a much better bet to continue putting up numbers like he has than Anderson is to come even close to what he did the last 20 games or so this season. I do think he'd could be useful as a 4th or 5th OF, defensive replacement, PH/PR type guy, though.
Edited to add a lineup proposition, given the current roster:
2B Burke
CF Pence
1B Berkman
LF Lee
RF Scott
3B Wigginton
C Towles
SS Everett
All of this is why I can't shake the feeling that SmithWade is going to be willing to include one or more outfielders including minor leaguers as well in any deals this winter.
-
Cooper said that he knew what Scott could do, don't know if that's good or bad, so that's why Anderson played.
I kind of wondered when he said that. I understand trying to see what some of the younger guys can do out there, but do you sit one of your better hitters the last month of the season to find out? On the other hand, it could mean just what Cooper said. He knows what Scott can do, and he likes it. If they were trying to groom him for a trade or something, they'd be more likely to have him out there playing in the meaningless (to the standings) games, piling up stats.
The best thing about Scott might be that it only took J. 15-Game-Winner Robertson to get him.
-
Scott is an excellent #6/7 hitter, and wouldn't look bad at #5.
Re: Scott and his production, I am not sure why it is in question. He sometimes gets short shrift, I think because he is streaky, and if one happens to watch a series of games when he is cold, that sticks in the mind.
But damn, .336/.426/.631 (214 ABs) and .255/.351/.504 (369 ABs) in the last two seasons -- I'll take it.
That is well above average. Add into that Scott is a left-handed hitter who hits left-handed pitching slightly better than he does right-handers, so he doesn't really need to be platooned; I'm not 100% sure about his defense, but he has seemed all right when I've been able to watch him.
This season's stats projected to 520 ABs -- 70 runs, 90 RBIs, 25 HRs, 75 BBs.
While I agree the team doesn't have many candidates to lead off, and that at the moment Anderson fits the role best, I would not throw Scott overboard just to get Anderson at #1. He may be the best cadidate at the moment, but if getting on base is the criteria, unless Anderson is going to hit .300 or above all season he's not going to be very good at it. At least going by his minor league record (http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=481), he doesn't walk very much. The highest full-season OBP he posted was .349 (twice, in A and AA), and he had to hit .300 to achieve that. Hell, I'd rather stick Burke in there and see if he can bounce back; because Burke would only have to hit about .270 (at least a possibility, if he reverts to 2006) to get on more often than Anderson hitting .300 (not very likely, I am thinking, and Anderson leading off and hitting .270 or less would be a real offensive liability.) That way you don't have to jettison Scott's production.
BTW, I think the team is more likely to go your way on this, but for the sake of argument, I think it would be the wrong move in the long run. I'd have to think twice before taking time away from Scott to get Anderson into the rotation. Nothing against Anderson, who looks like he could be a nice player. But we are looking at him after 67 major league at bats, and about 20 games in the field, with offensive numbers which far exceed anything he did in five seasons in the minors. IOW, Scott is a much better bet to continue putting up numbers like he has than Anderson is to come even close to what he did the last 20 games or so this season. I do think he'd could be useful as a 4th or 5th OF, defensive replacement, PH/PR type guy, though.
Edited to add a lineup proposition, given the current roster:
2B Burke
CF Pence
1B Berkman
LF Lee
RF Scott
3B Wigginton
C Towles
SS Everett
I like this lineup the best with the current players. Are there any 3B out there in FA? 3B and a #2 starter remain the biggest holes imo.
-
I like this lineup the best with the current players. Are there any 3B out there in FA? 3B and a #2 starter remain the biggest holes imo.
Did you watch Ty Wigginton play the last two months of the season?
He hit .284/.342/.462 in 50 games. Solid at the plate and with the glove, IMO.
-
Did you watch Ty Wigginton play the last two months of the season?
He hit .284/.342/.462 in 50 games. Solid at the plate and with the glove, IMO.
In mine too. None of the 3bs who are better hitters are going to be available. 3b is a no brainer in 2008.
-
Personally, I liked the team speed and defense with Anderson instead of Scott. Scott may provide more power but that power is wasted if the guys on base, in front of him (i.e. Lee and Berkman), are station to station runners. Scott doesn't register too well on a grading system that emphasizes speed and defense over offense, IMO. I'm not claiming any insight into which way they go with this decision. As a matter of fact, it's one of the key things I'm hoping to read about during the VOID.
Changing subjects, I'm still at a loss to understand the affection for Burke. He has the speed aspect, but his defense has been suspect, from what I've seen of him at 2B. If he isn't going to be a great lead off, I'm not sure how you justify a starting role for him. If I had to play GM, I think this is what I'd do:
1 Anderson in CF - Unless they pull off that deal for Bourne...
2 Iguchi at 2B - From what I've seen, an all around solid player, capable of starting and not declining.
3 Pence RF - He's not ideal in this role but he keeps the speed at the top of the order
4 Berkman 1B
5 Lee LF
6 Wigginton 3B
7 Everett SS - If Ransom can prove he can hit at this level, AE may be on the way out. But it's hard for me to see Everett not getting first shot under a GM asserting speed, defense, and offense (in that order of priority)
8 Towles/Ausmus
That lineup may not be what some fans of the long ball would prefer but outside of Lee, Berkman (and his lapses in focus), and Pence (mostly Pence's arm), this would improve the defense significantly.
-
Changing subjects, I'm still at a loss to understand the affection for Burke. He has the speed aspect, but his defense has been suspect, from what I've seen of him at 2B. If he isn't going to be a great lead off, I'm not sure how you justify a starting role for him.
I believe that every higherup except for Bennett who was responsible for the acquistion and development of Burke is now gone.
-
I believe that every higherup except for Bennett who was responsible for the acquistion and development of Burke is now gone.
While I realized many involved in the appraisal of Burke are gone, I didn't realize it was down to Bennett. The reassignment of Ricciarini is very interesting. I'm trying not to read too much into that and the furthest I'll go is to conclude that going into an off-season where they may net a number of early round draft picks, this was a no-confidence vote.
-
Luke Scott had virtually no playing time in RF during September. From that, I would infer that the powers that be know what they have in Scott in RF-his production was not too bad given his injury situation and spotty playing time. Pence's arm, IMHO, is a big minus for RF. Is the CF determination (can Anderson play like he's played in September) going to dictate who plays RF? Does Berkman go back to RF to get Lee, a below average LF in my opinion, to 1B? If so, does that put Scott in LF? What FA options are out there for RF if none of the in-house options are appealing?
Luke Scott is a left fielder, slightly above average at that. He's blocked by Carlos Lee so his PT was severely in danger when the owner signed Lee. Scott as a platoon in right was passable, but you needed Lane to step up and he didn't. That exposed a huge need for the Astros because you had a right handed hitting outfielder who could handle RF but was mired in a season long slump and a left handed hitting outfielder who was passable in spurts but any overexposure in RF would show he was a glorified LF (see: Alou, Moises... circa 2000). Pence is no bed of roses in right but he's worse in CF.
Houston needs to make a strong decision for the outfield next year, two spots of which seem to be locks for Lee and Pence, two less than great options defensively (passable is the word of the day).
The best thing? IMHO, get a seriously good defensive CF to make up for the misgivings you have in the corners and you'll be more than alright.
-
All of this is why I can't shake the feeling that SmithWade is going to be willing to include one or more outfielders including minor leaguers as well in any deals this winter.
I agree. Luke Scott was included in the trade that would've brought over Michael Bourn this trading deadline. Philly backed out at the last minute. I anticipate Scott being part of a trade package this off-season if the bring back for Houston is something they need.
Scott is a LF who can produce good numbers but is limited in his defense. Plenty of teams who would want to take a chance on him if he's on the market. Houston has no room in Houston because of Pence and Lee. Plain and simple.
-
Did you watch Ty Wigginton play the last two months of the season?
He hit .284/.342/.462 in 50 games. Solid at the plate and with the glove, IMO.
Yeah.. I dunno he splits a bit though.
-
Luke Scott is a left fielder, slightly above average at that. He's blocked by Carlos Lee so his PT was severely in danger when the owner signed Lee. Scott as a platoon in right was passable, but you needed Lane to step up and he didn't. That exposed a huge need for the Astros because you had a right handed hitting outfielder who could handle RF but was mired in a season long slump and a left handed hitting outfielder who was passable in spurts but any overexposure in RF would show he was a glorified LF (see: Alou, Moises... circa 2000). Pence is no bed of roses in right but he's worse in CF.
Houston needs to make a strong decision for the outfield next year, two spots of which seem to be locks for Lee and Pence, two less than great options defensively (passable is the word of the day).
The best thing? IMHO, get a seriously good defensive CF to make up for the misgivings you have in the corners and you'll be more than alright.
I agree. My point was that they gave Lane too many AB's in my view. Had they stuck with Scott, the team would have been better off, again in my opinion.
-
I agree. Luke Scott was included in the trade that would've brought over Michael Bourn this trading deadline. Philly backed out at the last minute. I anticipate Scott being part of a trade package this off-season if the bring back for Houston is something they need.
Scott is a LF who can produce good numbers but is limited in his defense. Plenty of teams who would want to take a chance on him if he's on the market. Houston has no room in Houston because of Pence and Lee. Plain and simple.
I agree here as well. We're definitely going to be shopping Scott this winter.
-
From the position players Smith has expressly said speed and defense and the hitting will take care of itself. Is this a speed/defense team?
No team with Lee and Berkman is going to be a Speed/Defense Team.
-
I agree here as well. We're definitely going to be shopping Scott this winter.
Hopefully for a CFer because I wouldn't hang everything on Anderson yet.
-
No team with Lee and Berkman is going to be a Speed/Defense Team.
Bingo. I was watching yesterday's game on the TiVo last night, and when AE said Lance might surpass B/B as the greatest Astro, I nearly threw things at the TV.
-
If you deal in a vacuum look at the OFers you probably rate them this way:
Hitting: Lee>Pence>>Scott>Anderson
Defense: Anderson>>>Scott>Pence>Lee
So what do you do?
If you are 100% committed to defense then you trade Lee. That isn't going to happen.
If you are 100% committed to offense then you play Scott. This violates the team's "new" policy of pitching, speed and defense.
So now you are stuck. I think Scott is going to get the short end of the stick, as a result. I also agree that it is possible that he is going to be included in any trade, but only if it gets something important back. Things that would rate that high are CFer who is significantly better than Anderson in the eyes of management, or a true #2 type starter.
While it may not be ideal for him, having him as your 4th OFer and Lefty power off the bench is something the team ought to consider. Mike Lamb is going to want to go somewhere he can play more often, either as DH, 1B, 3B or platoon player. This would, if he finds that place, leave the Astros without a Lefty power bat. And if OP is gone, you have need of a 4th OFer as well.
I just see too many things against Scott starting to say he will... even if he is the best OPS option.
-
No team with Lee and Berkman is going to be a Speed/Defense Team.
No doubt, but if both are "un-tradeable" you can at least try to make the best of the rest. No team is going to have all-stars everywhere and no team is going to have "speed/defense" everywhere and not sacrifice something. So in their case you are sacrificing speed/defense for bat. Just like Everett and Ausmus arguements, the opposite will be true for Lee and Berkman.
-
Personally, I liked the team speed and defense with Anderson instead of Scott. Scott may provide more power but that power is wasted if the guys on base, in front of him (i.e. Lee and Berkman), are station to station runners. Scott doesn't register too well on a grading system that emphasizes speed and defense over offense, IMO.
If Scott is hitting with sufficient power, station-to-station runners shouldn't be a problem. The speed becomes more important when you don't have a lot of power in the line-up to drive in runners.
-
I figure that as long as Lee and Pence are both on the team the Astros' OF defense will always be in the bottom half of the league.
This is a bit of an overstatement. If they had solid up-the-middle defense, the corner outfielders would be less of an issue. (This assumes that Pence would be the right fielder rather than the center fielder.)
-
This is a bit of an overstatement. If they had solid up-the-middle defense, the corner outfielders would be less of an issue. (This assumes that Pence would be the right fielder rather than the center fielder.)
Well my statement was in regard to OF defense not defense as a whole. And a Good CFer can cover up alot, but cannot cover-up weak throwing arms in both corners.
-
Bingo. I was watching yesterday's game on the TiVo last night, and when AE said Lance might surpass B/B as the greatest Astro, I nearly threw things at the TV.
Only Lance can prevent that from occurring. Lance is a good player, a bit of Bagwell and Biggio's work ethic and he could be one of the great Astros also.
-
If Scott is hitting with sufficient power, station-to-station runners shouldn't be a problem. The speed becomes more important when you don't have a lot of power in the line-up to drive in runners.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
-
Couple thoughts:
1) Seem to remember a member (who opinion I value) saying Pence would never be traded. (Why you ask? "Because I said so, that's why!" - The Grocer)
2) Anyone think Scott might be the likely replacement for Lamb and his lefthanded, power bat off the bench? I love Clank, but I fear management may see Scott as a more cost effective option, especially with Ransom's emergence as the infield utility-whiz.
3) Don't forget about Jennings as a possible candidate for the rotation in '08. Can't remember the expected recovery time table for him, but if healthy...I'd be happy to see him get a shot at redemption.
-
Couple thoughts:
1) Seem to remember a member (who opinion I value) saying Pence would never be traded. (Why you ask? "Because I said so, that's why!" - The Grocer)
2) Anyone think Scott might be the likely replacement for Lamb and his lefthanded, power bat off the bench? I love Clank, but I fear management may see Scott as a more cost effective option, especially with Ransom's emergence as the infield utility-whiz.
3) Don't forget about Jennings as a possible candidate for the rotation in '08. Can't remember the expected recovery time table for him, but if healthy...I'd be happy to see him get a shot at redemption.
Jennings would only get an incentive-laden contract, so he could be a cheap option. OTOH, the powers that be might decide to just discard the work of the previous regime and set him free without an offer.
-
To the extent that it can be, it is, don't you think?
Berkman is locked in - not fast. Lee, locked in - not fast, poor defense. Pence, locked in - not-great defense. Wigginton, theoretically acquired to start at third for the next year or two - not fast, not-great defense. Your catcher is pretty much not going to be fast.
Anderson is speed and defense in center. Castillo, for one, would be speed and reportedly solid defense at second; Iguchi is solid defensively and not slow. Are there spots in that lineup at which you think the Astros can (and are willing to) improve the speed and defense?
Personally, I'd probably leave Lee in left, Pence in right and Berkman at first, for the record.
Lee is not "poor defense."
-
Lee is not "poor defense."
Lee's "problem" is that he's occupying a position that is the only really safe place to shoehorn another couple of players the Astros might want in the batting order. The actual problem is that Pence is not suited to centre or right and that everyone who's been put in RF hasn't hit well enough to be a corner outfielder. Which would be fine if they were getting above average output from other places, but they're not.
The 2007 team was a Picasso: all the bits are there but in all the wrong places. The 2008 team might not look a whole lot different.
-
Lee is not "poor defense."
I think you're right. I wouldn't call Lee a great outfielder, but I'd call him good enough to win consistently. I think that Lee's defense takes a hit in response to his perceived lack of hustle at times.
-
Luke Scott is a left fielder, slightly above average at that. He's blocked by Carlos Lee so his PT was severely in danger when the owner signed Lee. Scott as a platoon in right was passable, but you needed Lane to step up and he didn't. That exposed a huge need for the Astros because you had a right handed hitting outfielder who could handle RF but was mired in a season long slump and a left handed hitting outfielder who was passable in spurts but any overexposure in RF would show he was a glorified LF (see: Alou, Moises... circa 2000). Pence is no bed of roses in right but he's worse in CF.
Houston needs to make a strong decision for the outfield next year, two spots of which seem to be locks for Lee and Pence, two less than great options defensively (passable is the word of the day).
The best thing? IMHO, get a seriously good defensive CF to make up for the misgivings you have in the corners and you'll be more than alright.
I agree with all of this. My only points: 1.) Scott's splits lefty-righty this season were almost dead even. I don't know if that is a fluke or a trend. If it is the latter, why would one platoon him? Unless one had some extreme right-handed hitting, LHP-killer freak like Kevin Mench or Matt Murton on one's bench? 2.) I feel kind of ridiculous about feeling this way, but for some reason I can't quite shake some skepticism about Pence still. He seems like a hitter on a fairly thin edge to me. I realize in reality someone will have to pry PENCE!! from McLane's cold, dead fingers, but if his bubble bursts offensively (and I sure hope it doesn't), a lot of these scenarios don't look so good.
-
The 2007 team was a Picasso: all the bits are there but in all the wrong places.
Funny, but I think that makes the 2007 team a Mickey Gilley. {no, I'm not a very sophisticated man}
Great thread.
-
If Chris Burke is our starting 2b, I cannot vouch for the safety of anyone within my throwing distance.
Unfortunately, this would be a larger number of people than those within Burke's throwing distance.
-
Not really recommending this but a thought just occurred to me.
Given Pence's great Rookie performance, could the team strike while the iron is hot and parlay Pence into either Detroit's or Seattle's hot-shot AAA CFer?
Seems like that might be the best option if you want to increase defense and speed and not lose as much offensively...
just a thought
-
I'd still like to see them explore Lidge for Maybin scenarios.
-
Detroit's looking for a shortstop, too, after deciding to move Guillen to 1b next year.
Mr. Dombrowski, have you heard about this former #1 pick playing shortstop down in Houston? I hear he's got power and speed...
-
They were actually looking for a defense-first SS.
And Dombrowski's no fool.
But if TalWade think that Ransom can hold the SS job...
-
They were actually looking for a defense-first SS.
And Dombrowski's no fool.
But if TalWade think that Ransom can hold the SS job...
My impression is that Cooper very much values Everett.
-
I'd still like to see them explore Lidge for Maybin scenarios.
I'm hoping they can somehow work out a trade for Santana.
-
I'm hoping they can somehow work out a trade for Santana.
Certainly, but I just don't see it happening.
-
Certainly, but I just don't see it happening.
The Tigers are never giving up Maybin.
-
Certainly, but I just don't see it happening.
If the Twins can't or don't think they can lock him up they have to deal him. The longer they wait the less they'll get for him.
-
If the Twins can't or don't think they can lock him up they have to deal him. The longer they wait the less they'll get for him.
Current rumor is Dodgers offering Kemp and Kershaw for openers. Astros can't compete with that.
-
My impression is that Cooper very much values Everett.
Is it Cooper's choice?
-
Current rumor is Dodgers offering Kemp and Kershaw for openers. Astros can't compete with that.
I'm not convinced of anything. Santana has a complete no-trade I believe. If he doesn't want to go to LA then anything the Dodgers offer is irrelevant. I don't know where Santana would agree to be traded though. I do know the Twins want hitters particularly a 3b. If I'm TTBing this thing then I'd deal for Atkins then pair him with anything the Twins want. The Astros have some young outfielders that might help put a package together, but I don't know how the Twins view them. If the Astros can't get a 3b to deal then there's no way IMO.
What the Twins don't need is young pitchers. They're loaded with them.
-
I'm not convinced of anything. Santana has a complete no-trade I believe.
Only if he finishes in the top 3 in the Cy this year. Otherwise, he names 12 no-trade teams.
What the Twins don't need is young pitchers. They're loaded with them.
EVERYONE needs pitching.
-
Is it Cooper's choice?
It appears that both he and the front office think that pitching and defense and a little speed (the running variety) are something they want to have.
-
Only if he finishes in the top 3 in the Cy this year. Otherwise, he names 12 no-trade teams.
He better start naming the 12.
-
Only if he finishes in the top 3 in the Cy this year. Otherwise, he names 12 no-trade teams.
I thought it was an either or with 06 or 07. And since he won last year he'd get the complete no-trade throughout his contract.
EVERYONE needs pitching.
MLB pitching. Kershaw's at AA. The Twins have high caliber pitching in the minors and young guns in the majors. They have Slowey and Garza now. Liriano should be back next season. Add to that a number of live arms at AA and A and the Twins can look for position players more so than young pitchers. The benefits of drafting and developing well.
-
It appears that both he and the front office think that pitching and defense and a little speed (the running variety) are something they want to have.
Only if you believe what they say,
(the day Wade was hired, Mclane recall back in 1993) "I asked Tal [Smith], 'What do I need to know?' He said 'Three words -- pitching, speed and defense.' I said 'Where's hitting?' He said 'If you do those other three right, the hitting will work out,' " McLane said.
McLane brought up that anecdote when it was mentioned that Ed Wade, who was named Houston's general manager Thursday, has the same baseball philosophy as Smith, the team's president.
Ed Wade "Yeah, speed, pitching and defense. You can try to re-invent this game, but some things are pretty constant and those are three of them."
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20070920&content_id=2221241&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp
Cecil Cooper "For me, the only way you play consistent is you play good defense and you have pitching."
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070911&content_id=2202164&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Otherwise, there's room to speculate.
-
Only if you believe what they say,
(the day Wade was hired, Mclane recall back in 1993) "I asked Tal [Smith], 'What do I need to know?' He said 'Three words -- pitching, speed and defense.' I said 'Where's hitting?' He said 'If you do those other three right, the hitting will work out,' " McLane said.
McLane brought up that anecdote when it was mentioned that Ed Wade, who was named Houston's general manager Thursday, has the same baseball philosophy as Smith, the team's president.
Ed Wade "Yeah, speed, pitching and defense. You can try to re-invent this game, but some things are pretty constant and those are three of them."
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20070920&content_id=2221241&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp
Cecil Cooper "For me, the only way you play consistent is you play good defense and you have pitching."
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070911&content_id=2202164&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Otherwise, there's room to speculate.
Relatedly, is Everett's leg back to 100%? It took him a long time to come back and the only time I saw him on the field in September (in Cincy I think) he looked gimpy.
-
Relatedly, is Everett's leg back to 100%? It took him a long time to come back and the only time I saw him on the field in September (in Cincy I think) he looked gimpy.
He has said that neither his leg, nor his stamina, were 100%. His recovery was interrupted a couple times with family issues.
-
Only if you believe what they say,
(the day Wade was hired, Mclane recall back in 1993) "I asked Tal [Smith], 'What do I need to know?' He said 'Three words -- pitching, speed and defense.' I said 'Where's hitting?' He said 'If you do those other three right, the hitting will work out,' " McLane said.
McLane brought up that anecdote when it was mentioned that Ed Wade, who was named Houston's general manager Thursday, has the same baseball philosophy as Smith, the team's president.
Ed Wade "Yeah, speed, pitching and defense. You can try to re-invent this game, but some things are pretty constant and those are three of them."
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20070920&content_id=2221241&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp
Cecil Cooper "For me, the only way you play consistent is you play good defense and you have pitching."
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070911&content_id=2202164&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Otherwise, there's room to speculate.
The speed item may be misinterpreted by many to mean basically stealing bases... and that is not entirely the case. In fact, it is probably the least aspect of "speed" that they're talking about. BTW - they better clarify that for McLane as well, just in case.... but I digress.
Speed on defense helps in the outfield moreso than the infield, where quickness and range help in all four positions. Range helps tremendously at shortstop and second base, but definitely at shortstop. Quickness at first and thirds is a need and not so much range. Any time you hear someone talk about "range" in terms of the corner infield, then be a bit concerned about what they're saying if they identify it as a "need". Catchers need quickness (that's why they make pretty decent first or third base options some times), but the defense for them is measured in other ways as well.
So speed is very much a need in the outfield, plus good reads off the bat. Roger Cedeno had great speed and awful reaction time and reads that negated speed altogether as a weapon on defense. ThunderPants has awesome speed in terms of his long strides, but his reads have been suspect quite a bit, sometimes bordering on comical. What you want with speed is the ability to make the read and use the speed to your advantage. Ken Griffey Jr. once remarked that ESPN was doing a disservice to great centerfield play with all those highlights of diving catches by CFs, most especially Jim Edmonds. That is not great CF play, that is actually deterimental to good to great CF play if you have to rely on speed only to make a play... more diving means you're going to eventually miss a play and then you're going to cost your team a game and in the playoffs, that could be huge. So don't just look at CF as a speed only requirement, look to see if they can make great reads and use that speed appropriately. On occasion make the great play, but by and large with great reads and great speed, tough hard plays become more routine like in outcome. Hardly ESPN highlight worthy, but very much the need for a contending team, especially when you talk speed as an ingredient to winning baseball. Carlos Beltran is perhaps the best example I can think of as the primo example of speed harnessed by great reads equals more routine plays and the occasional highlight reel play.
Speed on offense is not entirely necessary for stealing bases, although that would be nice on occasion. But just like speed on defense for a CF isn't entirely about speed to make highlight plays, speed on offense isn't entirely about using it to steal bases. Speed is about making it to third from first on a single, scoring from third on a ground out to the infield, beating out the throw to first on a GIDP to keep an inning going, et. al. The lack of speed in these areas make for a huge deficit in how you can score runs easier without a huge dependence on the longball. I think Milwaukee was a longball team this year and in the end, pitching let them down, but the lack of having more than one way to score held them in check and keep them from running away with the NL Central this year when they actually had a chance to run away and hide.
So I like hearing about speed from the powers that be because I trust they fully understand what that means on defense and on offense. It would be a welcomed turn from the frustration of the last three years of not being able to score a man from third with less than two outs because you have a one dimensional offense. And while I loved Willy T., he had some problems on offense and defense with his speed that led many to believe he had reached his ceiling and they (the Astros) could actually do better. It isn't that Chris Burke was the answer per se, it is just that Willy T was perhaps limited as the answer as well.
-
Speed on offense is not entirely necessary for stealing bases, although that would be nice on occasion. But just like speed on defense for a CF isn't entirely about speed to make highlight plays, speed on offense isn't entirely about using it to steal bases. Speed is about making it to third from first on a single, scoring from third on a ground out to the infield, beating out the throw to first on a GIDP to keep an inning going, et. al. The lack of speed in these areas make for a huge deficit in how you can score runs easier without a huge dependence on the longball. I think Milwaukee was a longball team this year and in the end, pitching let them down, but the lack of having more than one way to score held them in check and keep them from running away with the NL Central this year when they actually had a chance to run away and hide.
The above is an excellent primer on speed as a component of offense. Very nice.
I think one could make an argument that speed is overrated in terms of stealing bases, and underrated in terms of everything else to do with offense. Or, to put it another way, speed in terms of offense is sometimes wholly misunderstood.
Speed is of course predominant among the most prolific base stealers. Speed can make up for other deficiencies, like the inability to "read" a pitcher's move or get a good lead or jump. For awhile, anyway. One could argue the "best" base stealers, in terms of setting the team up to score runs (which is ultimately what offense boils down to) are the most efficient theives, not necessarily those with the highest totals. And it doesn't necessarily take great speed to swipe bases. We all know that. The years that Jeff Bagwell stole 30+, there were 4-5 other regulars in the lineup who were arguably faster afoot (Biggio, Bogar, Luis Gonzalez, Chuckie Carr, Commandant Bell in 1997; Biggio, Bogar, pre-wide ass Hidalgo, C4, Admiral Bell in 1999), yet only Biggio (and C4 for one year) approached Bagwell in total+percentage.
For historical perspective, the NL in 2007 collectively stole 1564 bases in 2070 attempts (75.5% success rate). In 1982, in the middle of a small ball, stolen base era, the NL stole 1782 bases in 2604 attempts (68.4%). The 2007 NL (16 teams) averaged just under 100 SBs per team; the 1982 NL (12 teams) averaged 150. They were certainly running more back in the good old days, just like I remember. But they were doing it a lot less efficiently. Also, classically the NL has been thought of as the speed league, and the AL more attuned to the three walks and a cloud of dust offensive style. That was certainly true back in 1982, when the 12-team NL stole 388 more bases than the 12-team AL (1782-1394). Now we hear the leagues are becoming more alike, with less distinctive styles of play. And that is absolutely true, as well, at least when it comes to stolen bases -- the 2007 16-team NL out-stole the 14-team AL by 210 (1564/97.75 per team vs. 1354/96.7 per team). So, adjusting for the number of teams/games, there is now virtually no difference between leagues in base stealing in total or success rate (75.5 vs.73.2). For someone who is old enough to remember the division in league offensive styles very clearly, that is pretty remarkable. But I digest.
As has been suggested, team speed in terms of offense really means the speed to take an extra base, either from the plate or on base, the ability to make an opponent play a less than ideal infield coonfiguration in order to cut off some of that speed, the ability to distract the opponent and especially the opposing pitcher, etc. That sort of thing is harder to quantify directly, though, which I think is why the stolen base total is often the default when it comes to discussing team speed offensively.
It is interesting to me that Milwaukee, which led the known universe in home runs, scored nearly 100 fewer runs than Philadelphia, which hit 20 less HRs but had a much better offense, because they actually hit for more power (.458 vs. .456 team SLG), and a higher average (.274 vs. 262); walked significantly more, and ran far more and far more efficiently - one of the most remarkable stats I have seen in awhile is the Philadelphia team stolen bases totals: 138 steals, 19 caught stealing, 88% success rate for the team. That just seems incredible to me. In fact, overall the 2007 Philly offense may be one of the better ones to come along in awhile, in terms of overall production and balance. Everyone talks about Milwaukee, but damn. . .
-
THAT was one awesome read!
Thanks!
-
The above is an excellent primer on speed as a component of offense. Very nice.
I think one could make an argument that speed is overrated in terms of stealing bases, and underrated in terms of everything else to do with offense. Or, to put it another way, speed in terms of offense is sometimes wholly misunderstood.
Speed is of course predominant among the most prolific base stealers. Speed can make up for other deficiencies, like the inability to "read" a pitcher's move or get a good lead or jump. For awhile, anyway. One could argue the "best" base stealers, in terms of setting the team up to score runs (which is ultimately what offense boils down to) are the most efficient theives, not necessarily those with the highest totals. And it doesn't necessarily take great speed to swipe bases. We all know that. The years that Jeff Bagwell stole 30+, there were 4-5 other regulars in the lineup who were arguably faster afoot (Biggio, Bogar, Luis Gonzalez, Chuckie Carr, Commandant Bell in 1997; Biggio, Bogar, pre-wide ass Hidalgo, C4, Admiral Bell in 1999), yet only Biggio (and C4 for one year) approached Bagwell in total+percentage.
For historical perspective, the NL in 2007 collectively stole 1564 bases in 2070 attempts (75.5% success rate). In 1982, in the middle of a small ball, stolen base era, the NL stole 1782 bases in 2604 attempts (68.4%). The 2007 NL (16 teams) averaged just under 100 SBs per team; the 1982 NL (12 teams) averaged 150. They were certainly running more back in the good old days, just like I remember. But they were doing it a lot less efficiently. Also, classically the NL has been thought of as the speed league, and the AL more attuned to the three walks and a cloud of dust offensive style. That was certainly true back in 1982, when the 12-team NL stole 388 more bases than the 12-team AL (1782-1394). Now we hear the leagues are becoming more alike, with less distinctive styles of play. And that is absolutely true, as well, at least when it comes to stolen bases -- the 2007 16-team NL out-stole the 14-team AL by 210 (1564/97.75 per team vs. 1354/96.7 per team). So, adjusting for the number of teams/games, there is now virtually no difference between leagues in base stealing in total or success rate (75.5 vs.73.2). For someone who is old enough to remember the division in league offensive styles very clearly, that is pretty remarkable. But I digest.
As has been suggested, team speed in terms of offense really means the speed to take an extra base, either from the plate or on base, the ability to make an opponent play a less than ideal infield coonfiguration in order to cut off some of that speed, the ability to distract the opponent and especially the opposing pitcher, etc. That sort of thing is harder to quantify directly, though, which I think is why the stolen base total is often the default when it comes to discussing team speed offensively.
It is interesting to me that Milwaukee, which led the known universe in home runs, scored nearly 100 fewer runs than Philadelphia, which hit 20 less HRs but had a much better offense, because they actually hit for more power (.458 vs. .456 team SLG), and a higher average (.274 vs. 262); walked significantly more, and ran far more and far more efficiently - one of the most remarkable stats I have seen in awhile is the Philadelphia team stolen bases totals: 138 steals, 19 caught stealing, 88% success rate for the team. That just seems incredible to me. In fact, overall the 2007 Philly offense may be one of the better ones to come along in awhile, in terms of overall production and balance. Everyone talks about Milwaukee, but damn. . .
Nice analysis, but if you ran some regressions analysis I think you'd see which of those stats you mentioned contributes more to the runs scored total.
-
Nice analysis, but if you ran some regressions analysis I think you'd see which of those stats you mentioned contributes more to the runs scored total.
No, that's what I have you for. I'm just the idea man.
BTW, what stats are we talking about here?
-
No, that's what I have you for. I'm just the idea man.
BTW, what stats are we talking about here?
Reasons for the difference between the Phillies and Brewers runs scored.
Using only the basic metrics, the on base percentage difference stands out. My guess is that team obp has enormously more to do with why the Phillies scored more runs than team speed.
-
Reasons for the difference between the Phillies and Brewers runs scored.
Using only the basic metrics, the on base percentage difference stands out. My guess is that team obp has enormously more to do with why the Phillies scored more runs than team speed.
Thank you, Mr. Beane.
-
Reasons for the difference between the Phillies and Brewers runs scored.
Using only the basic metrics, the on base percentage difference stands out. My guess is that team obp has enormously more to do with why the Phillies scored more runs than team speed.
I don't doubt it, and thanks for running the regressions. I'd have done it myself, but I'd just seen my 15th Frank Caliendo commercial of the day as was too busy looking for an ice pick to put my eyes out with.
I figured the OBP and non-HR slugging were the main factors. The speed number was more to show how balanced that team was offensively between speed and power. That, and because I just find 88% success for the team to be a little unreal. Still do.
-
I don't doubt it, and thanks for running the regressions. I'd have done it myself, but I'd just seen my 15th Frank Caliendo commercial of the day as was too busy looking for an ice pick to put my eyes out with.
I figured the OBP and non-HR slugging were the main factors. The speed number was more to show how balanced that team was offensively between speed and power. That, and because I just find 88% success for the team to be a little unreal. Still do.
Yeah the slugging is close to the same for both teams, it's probably the OBP. I guess the issue is that when trying to get guys to fill out a roster, the ones that are complete players are harder to get. And if you had to pick from attributes like plate discipline, speed, power, defense, etc. i'd generally go with plate discipline and power for positions that aren't up the middle.
-
- one of the most remarkable stats I have seen in awhile is the Philadelphia team stolen bases totals: 138 steals, 19 caught stealing, 88% success rate for the team. That just seems incredible to me.
A ML Record
-
Ol' Herzog said he liked speed for defensive purposes for sure but that speed on the bases lead to:
1) more infield hits
2) more fielding/throwing errors by the opposition rushing to beat "speedy" runners to the bag/dish
3) more singles becoming doubles
4) more doubles becoming triples
5) better first to third conversions
6) and runners in scoring position conversions....
...not to mention the obvious distraction to the pitcher when every other guy on base is fast enough to steal the next one.
-
Ol' Herzog said he liked speed for defensive purposes for sure but that speed on the bases lead to:
1) more infield hits
2) more fielding/throwing errors by the opposition rushing to beat "speedy" runners to the bag/dish
3) more singles becoming doubles
4) more doubles becoming triples
5) better first to third conversions
6) and runners in scoring position conversions....
...not to mention the obvious distraction to the pitcher when every other guy on base is fast enough to steal the next one.
Breaking down baseball to the the most important two functions, one would say this: You have to score runs, you have to keep the other team from scoring runs. Avoiding any theorems at this point, the fundamental point is "How" as in "How do you score runs" and "How do you keep the other team from scoring runs". Answer: pitching, defense, speed, just enough offense... perhaps in that order. You can build an offense to suit your ballpark first and "how to score runs primarily at our home park" and then work your way from there. But if you want just basics, think in terms of "how to score runs" period. One dimensional approaches will hurt a club's chances to do just that. Offense is prone to slumps if you are one dimensional moreso if you have multi-options on how to score. But if you focus on "how to keep the other team from scoring" first, the need to score runs becomes one of "score just enough to win". 2-1 wins are just as viable as 10-1 wins in the end. It may not make your theorems look good, but it will make your W/L stat look pretty damn impressive.
And in the end, that is what matters most. So when the Astros talk about "speed", they're saying something very important. It's an ingredient to win whether you apply to "How to score runs" or "How to keep others from scoring" or both.
-
Breaking down baseball to the the most important two functions, one would say this: You have to score runs, you have to keep the other team from scoring runs. Avoiding any theorems at this point, the fundamental point is "How" as in "How do you score runs" and "How do you keep the other team from scoring runs". Answer: pitching, defense, speed, just enough offense... perhaps in that order. You can build an offense to suit your ballpark first and "how to score runs primarily at our home park" and then work your way from there. But if you want just basics, think in terms of "how to score runs" period. One dimensional approaches will hurt a club's chances to do just that. Offense is prone to slumps if you are one dimensional moreso if you have multi-options on how to score. But if you focus on "how to keep the other team from scoring" first, the need to score runs becomes one of "score just enough to win". 2-1 wins are just as viable as 10-1 wins in the end. It may not make your theorems look good, but it will make your W/L stat look pretty damn impressive.
And in the end, that is what matters most. So when the Astros talk about "speed", they're saying something very important. It's an ingredient to win whether you apply to "How to score runs" or "How to keep others from scoring" or both.
You're bringing up some interesting points of discussion here.
Do you agree with the defense up the middle, offense from the corners model?
-
You're bringing up some interesting points of discussion here.
Do you agree with the defense up the middle, offense from the corners model?
defense up the middle
pitching
offense from wherever you can find it.
-
You're bringing up some interesting points of discussion here.
Do you agree with the defense up the middle, offense from the corners model?
Pitching. Defense, especially up the middle. Speed. Just enough offense (corners, yes, traditionally).
-
I generally agree.
I just would rather see the corner guys have more offense and less defense/speed than you, especially Noe.
-
I generally agree.
I just would rather see the corner guys have more offense and less defense/speed than you, especially Noe.
Huh?
-
Huh?
I can't believe you want 9 gold glovers out there. What kind of strategy is that?
-
I can't believe you want 9 gold glovers out there. What kind of strategy is that?
It works because they're also Silver Sluggers.
-
It works because they're also Silver Sluggers.
Aren't GG and Silver Sluggers, essentially the same award? Oh wait, one's for the best hitter at a position, the other is for the second best, right?
-
Huh?
Well isn't there an element of give and take? Multi dimensional players are much more expensive generally than somebody who is only a great hitter or only a speed/defense guy. So for the purposes of having overall team balance, I think it makes sense to really focus on offensive talents (to the detriment of defense/speed) at the corners and defense up the middle.
-
Aren't GG and Silver Sluggers, essentially the same award? Oh wait, one's for the best hitter at a position, the other is for the second best, right?
Nope. GG is for best defense at that position, and SS is for the best hitter at that position who didn't win the batting title.
-
Well isn't there an element of give and take? Multi dimensional players are much more expensive generally than somebody who is only a great hitter or only a speed/defense guy. So for the purposes of having overall team balance, I think it makes sense to really focus on offensive talents (to the detriment of defense/speed) at the corners and defense up the middle.
Actually the most expensive players are always the best hitters.
Take a look at the top paid position players in 07:
Jason Giambi $23,428,571
Alex Rodriguez $22,708,525
Derek Jeter $21,600,000
Manny Ramirez $17,016,381
Todd Helton $16,600,000
Barry Bonds $15,533,970
Richie Sexson $15,500,000
Bobby Abrey $15,000,000
Jim Thome $14,833,333
Lance Berkman $14,500,000
See any Gold Glovers here? Jeter has one one I think, and A-Rod has, and Bonds a decade ago. But Jeter didn't deserve his, and A-Rod got his at SS, and it might be argued it was more for his bat than his glove. Bonds was a legit winner prior to his steroid use, but even then you could argue it was more because of his bat.
The reality is, the most expensive players are paid for their bats and their bats only.
And when the Yankees were winning all their titles, they were doing it without big power, they were doing it with pitching, speed and defense. Their batters were very good, but not much power. I don't think they had a 35 HR hitter on the team until after their title runs. They would work you to death in pitch counts, walks, doubles and... taking the extra base. The taking extra base came in SBs but more importantly the moving 1st to 3rd on a single type stuff.
-
And when the Yankees were winning all their titles, they were doing it without big power, they were doing it with pitching, speed and defense. Their batters were very good, but not much power. I don't think they had a 35 HR hitter on the team until after their title runs. They would work you to death in pitch counts, walks, doubles and... taking the extra base. The taking extra base came in SBs but more importantly the moving 1st to 3rd on a single type stuff.
It also helps to have a park which is about 315' to either foul pole with a 10' or shorter wall, and also play a lot of road games in a park with a 304' LF foul pole (albeit 37' high).
-
It also helps to have a park which is about 315' to either foul pole with a 10' or shorter wall, and also play a lot of road games in a park with a 304' LF foul pole (albeit 37' high).
Wouldn't the lack of HRs then make it more obvious they didn't have alot of power? Not sure how those dimensions are conducive to working counts and moving people from 1st to 3rd on singles....
I guess I am confused all the way around.... not the first time, not the last either.
-
Wouldn't the lack of HRs then make it more obvious they didn't have alot of power? Not sure how those dimensions are conducive to working counts and moving people from 1st to 3rd on singles....
I guess I am confused all the way around.... not the first time, not the last either.
Don't try and make any sense of it. It was just me using the thinnest of excuses to tilt at one of my favourite windmills: the media's criticism of MMPUS for it's dimensions while exalting Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park as baseball's Mecca and Jerusalem.
-
Don't try and make any sense of it. It was just me using the thinnest of excuses to tilt at one of my favourite windmills: the media's criticism of MMPUS for it's dimensions while exalting Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park as baseball's Mecca and Jerusalem.
You just don't get it... it is YANKEE STADIUM and FENWAY PARK...
OBVIOUSLY they are the best parks in baseball, 'cause... 'cause.... well 'cause they are!
MMPUS gets canned cause Mediots can't get ideas out of their heads once they are there, and MMPUS was 10-run field in 2000, therefore it must always be 10-run field. Even though it is in the bottom 3rd of the league in park affects this year.
-
Don't try and make any sense of it. It was just me using the thinnest of excuses to tilt at one of my favourite windmills: the media's criticism of MMPUS for it's dimensions while exalting Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park as baseball's Mecca and Jerusalem.
You forgot to mention that the RF fence is 5' high and a mere 302' at Pesky's Pole.
-
and that Yankee Stadium was 296' for many years in RF (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Maris et al.)
-
I have never been one to really care about field dimensions. Mostly because the other team plays in the same park and can use them too.
Although there is a certain amount of truth to "building your team to do well in your park", in the end you still have to win in other parks too, so the team that wins in one spot should reasonable win in another, otherwise you have a flawed team, see Rockies any year other than this year.
-
Nope. GG is for best defense at that position, and SS is for the best hitter at that position who didn't win the batting title.
I sense a sarchasm here.
-
I have never been one to really care about field dimensions. Mostly because the other team plays in the same park and can use them too.
Although there is a certain amount of truth to "building your team to do well in your park", in the end you still have to win in other parks too, so the team that wins in one spot should reasonable win in another, otherwise you have a flawed team, see Rockies any year other than this year.
Players have made careers that tailored to their home parks. Check out the old Baker Bowl, I imagine Hall-of-Famer Chuck Klein peppered that 280' from home plate, 60' wall in RF quite regularly.
Then check on the "Moon shots" at the old LA Memorial Coliseum, 250' to the LF wall that was 40' high, and an absolutely huge foul area down the LF line.
Ballparks.com (http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm)
-
and that Yankee Stadium was 296' for many years in RF (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Maris et al.)
All lefties, other than Mantle who switched.
-
Nope. GG is for best defense at that position, and SS is for the best hitter at that position who didn't win the batting title.
One of us is having problems with our sarc-o-meters, I think.
eta: and it could very well be me...
-
I have never been one to really care about field dimensions. Mostly because the other team plays in the same park and can use them too.
That works when you're looking at results, but when you look at a player's individual stats they will definitely be skewed by their home park. Think of Todd Helton in Coors while Bagwell was playing in the Dome.
-
Actually the most expensive players are always the best hitters.
Take a look at the top paid position players in 07:
Jason Giambi $23,428,571
Alex Rodriguez $22,708,525
Derek Jeter $21,600,000
Manny Ramirez $17,016,381
Todd Helton $16,600,000
Barry Bonds $15,533,970
Richie Sexson $15,500,000
Bobby Abrey $15,000,000
Jim Thome $14,833,333
Lance Berkman $14,500,000
See any Gold Glovers here? Jeter has one one I think, and A-Rod has, and Bonds a decade ago. But Jeter didn't deserve his, and A-Rod got his at SS, and it might be argued it was more for his bat than his glove. Bonds was a legit winner prior to his steroid use, but even then you could argue it was more because of his bat.
The reality is, the most expensive players are paid for their bats and their bats only.
And when the Yankees were winning all their titles, they were doing it without big power, they were doing it with pitching, speed and defense. Their batters were very good, but not much power. I don't think they had a 35 HR hitter on the team until after their title runs. They would work you to death in pitch counts, walks, doubles and... taking the extra base. The taking extra base came in SBs but more importantly the moving 1st to 3rd on a single type stuff.
Good point. But I guess trade value is still relevant with the multidimentional guys.
-
and that Yankee Stadium was 296' for many years in RF (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Maris et al.)
And the upper deck supposedly had an overhang that placed it even a few feet closer to home.
Another great old stadium like that was Tiger Stadium. Norm Cash or Jim Northrup would hit a lazy fly to right, the OF would drift over casually, have it all lined up, and -- plop, the ball would land in the front row of the second deck, which hung 5-10 feet out over he field.
I think it has been moved a few times since, but the alleys and CF in Yankee Stadium were at one time considered a hitters graveyard, especially for right-handers. There was an oft repeated statement that Joe DiMaggio lost X amount of HRs by playing his entire career there. At one point I believe the monument park behind the current left centerfield wall was in the field of play.
-
And the upper deck supposedly had an overhang that placed it even a few feet closer to home.
Another great old stadium like that was Tiger Stadium. Norm Cash or Jim Northrup would hit a lazy fly to right, the OF would drift over casually, have it all lined up, and -- plop, the ball would land in the front row of the second deck, which hung 5-10 feet out over he field.
I think it has been moved a few times since, but the alleys and CF in Yankee Stadium were at one time considered a hitters graveyard, especially for right-handers. There was an oft repeated statement that Joe DiMaggio lost X amount of HRs by playing his entire career there. At one point I believe the monument park behind the current left centerfield wall was in the field of play.
one of my favorite stories is that Yawkey and either Webb or Topping got drunk one night and agreed on a Williams for DiMaggio sraight up trade. one or both sobered up and called it off the next day. can you imagine the numbers each would have put up after that trade?
-
And the upper deck supposedly had an overhang that placed it even a few feet closer to home.
Another great old stadium like that was Tiger Stadium. Norm Cash or Jim Northrup would hit a lazy fly to right, the OF would drift over casually, have it all lined up, and -- plop, the ball would land in the front row of the second deck, which hung 5-10 feet out over he field.
I think it has been moved a few times since, but the alleys and CF in Yankee Stadium were at one time considered a hitters graveyard, especially for right-handers. There was an oft repeated statement that Joe DiMaggio lost X amount of HRs by playing his entire career there. At one point I believe the monument park behind the current left centerfield wall was in the field of play.
Here are the changes to Yankee Stadium over the years. From Ballparks.com. It has shrunk dramatically.
Dimensions: Left field: 280.58 (1923), 301 (1928), 312 (1976), 318 (1988); left side of bullpen gate in short left-center: 395 (1923), 402 (1928), 387 (1976), 379 (1985); right side of bullpen gate: 415 (1937); deepest left-center: 500 (1923), 490 (1924), 457 (1937), 430 (1976), 411 (1985), 399 (1988); left side of center-field screen: 466 (1937); center field: 487 (1923), 461 (1937), 463 (1967), 417 (1976), 410 (1985), 408 (1988); deepest right-center: 429 (1923), 407 (1937), 385 (1976); left side of bullpen gate in short right-center: 350 (1923), 367 (1937), 353 (1976); right side of bullpen gate: 344 (1937); right field 294.75 (1923), 295 (1930), 296 (1939), 310 (1976), 314 (1988); backstop: 82 (1942), 80 (1953), 84 (1976); foul territory: large for the catcher behind home plate, but small for fielders down the foul lines.
-
Here are the changes to Yankee Stadium over the years. From Ballparks.com. It has shrunk dramatically.
Dimensions: Left field: 280.58 (1923), 301 (1928), 312 (1976), 318 (1988); left side of bullpen gate in short left-center: 395 (1923), 402 (1928), 387 (1976), 379 (1985); right side of bullpen gate: 415 (1937); deepest left-center: 500 (1923), 490 (1924), 457 (1937), 430 (1976), 411 (1985), 399 (1988); left side of center-field screen: 466 (1937); center field: 487 (1923), 461 (1937), 463 (1967), 417 (1976), 410 (1985), 408 (1988); deepest right-center: 429 (1923), 407 (1937), 385 (1976); left side of bullpen gate in short right-center: 350 (1923), 367 (1937), 353 (1976); right side of bullpen gate: 344 (1937); right field 294.75 (1923), 295 (1930), 296 (1939), 310 (1976), 314 (1988); backstop: 82 (1942), 80 (1953), 84 (1976); foul territory: large for the catcher behind home plate, but small for fielders down the foul lines.
Until 1976, the wall, quote-unquote, at the RF foul pole was less than four feet high. I once saw Yankee RF Ron Woods (the guy who grew up with Jim Wynn in Ohio, not the Stones guitarist) back up on a fly and, just as he was catching it, flip over backwards into the RF stands. He didn't leap or anything, just kind of tripped over it while backing up.
-
Until 1976, the wall, quote-unquote, at the RF foul pole was less than four feet high. I once saw Yankee RF Ron Woods (the guy who grew up with Jim Wynn in Ohio, not the Stones guitarist) back up on a fly and, just as he was catching it, flip over backwards into the RF stands. He didn't leap or anything, just kind of tripped over it while backing up.
3.75 feet until the 1976 renovation, now it's 10 feet.
The Fenway rail is even lower in spots, 3.42' at the bullpen sloping to 5.37' at Pesky's Pole.
-
And the upper deck supposedly had an overhang that placed it even a few feet closer to home.
Another great old stadium like that was Tiger Stadium. Norm Cash or Jim Northrup would hit a lazy fly to right, the OF would drift over casually, have it all lined up, and -- plop, the ball would land in the front row of the second deck, which hung 5-10 feet out over he field.
I think it has been moved a few times since, but the alleys and CF in Yankee Stadium were at one time considered a hitters graveyard, especially for right-handers. There was an oft repeated statement that Joe DiMaggio lost X amount of HRs by playing his entire career there. At one point I believe the monument park behind the current left centerfield wall was in the field of play.
I don't have a problem with field's being configured in whatever fashion (although the hill and flag pole in MMPUS, while a nod to days of yore, are a little contrived). I have a problem with people who have a problem with one field and then ignore the same or worse problem with another, just because it's old and/or an older franchise plays there.
Having said that, before the roid-freaks came along the single-season home run record was owned by two lefties hitting to a short, overhanging right field...
-
Good point. But I guess trade value is still relevant with the multidimentional guys.
Trade values depend on how important that player is to the team giving up the player. Lots of factors come into this, but most of them are very similar to the FA value system. The more you produce the more you are worth. If the Astros had ever considered trading Biggio or Bagwell in their Prime, whom do you think would have more value? I think you could argue that Biggio was more "multidimensional' than Bagwell, because Biggio had speed and some pop in his bat, while Bagwell was mostly power (although for a 1B, he did have good speed). Perhaps that isn't a great comparison, but you get my point (I hope).
Multidimensional is better than single dimensional, but in general the teams don't care unless their offensive production is roughly the same. Maybe comparing Frank Thomas to Jeff Bagwell would be good. Both were very close production at the plate, but Jeff was more valuable because he was excellent defensively and was good on the bases. Even though if you look at their numbers I think Frank Thomas had better numbers when both were in their prime, but not by enough to out weigh the other factors Jeff brought to the table.
But keep in mind this is value in trade or FA situations, not to be confused with how you should build a team.
When building a team, you want pitching, defense and speed. The offense you should be able to find, simply by the fact that these players reached the majors... they should be able to hit enough to win, if you are strong in the other 3 areas... may not look pretty, but then the Astros made the playoffs many times with those type of teams... lots of 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 wins.
-
Well isn't there an element of give and take? Multi dimensional players are much more expensive generally than somebody who is only a great hitter or only a speed/defense guy. So for the purposes of having overall team balance, I think it makes sense to really focus on offensive talents (to the detriment of defense/speed) at the corners and defense up the middle.
Oh, I get it. Thanks.
Yes, give and take. With what Jeff Kent did to the second base position, it's hard to argue a stringent strategy of where to find defense and where to find offense *based* on position on the field. But as far as defense alone goes, I think rock solid defense/speed up the middle is necessary at the very least in two of those four positions: Shortstop and Centerfield. Defense at catcher. Defense at second base? Well, okay, yeah... but qualified defense unlike shortstop or centerfield.
-
Oh, I get it. Thanks.
Yes, give and take. With what Jeff Kent did to the second base position, it's hard to argue a stringent strategy of where to find defense and where to find offense *based* on position on the field. But as far as defense alone goes, I think rock solid defense/speed up the middle is necessary at the very least in two of those four positions: Shortstop and Centerfield. Defense at catcher. Defense at second base? Well, okay, yeah... but qualified defense unlike shortstop or centerfield.
I've always thought 2B was sort of ancillary to that conversation. It was usually an offensive (not to say power) position, going way back. Most teams would keep a light-hitting glove man at SS, but not at SS and 2B, if they could help it.
I still think it is defense-first at catcher. Most guys who have no business back there get moved somewhere else pretty soon. But I agree it is also looked at as a place some power and offense should come from. Even moreso recently. And there is always the guy who can hit but not catch all that well being held back by his defensive deficiencies. There was a guy in the Tampa Bay system a few years back, from Quebec, named Pierre or Pete something. Left-handed hitter, plenty of power, good strike zone judgement. He'd tear up the minors offensively, but apparently couldn't catch well enough to stick in the majors. Of course, part of the problem might have been it was Tampa Bay. . . most teams would've tried to find that guy a spot somehwere. Probably not behind the plate, though.