Post by: MusicMan on December 04, 2006, 02:46:58 pm
Quote:
Spend all the money you want, Mr McLane. Until you reduce the number of OBP sinks in the lineup below the four spot, your team isn't going to score enough runs to win. Chris Burke could replace Craig Biggio if the Astros were so inclined, and Adam Everett and Willy Taveras play enough defense to justify their spots. Brad Ausmus is just a black hole, however. Brad Lidge has been available for a while, but why sell low? Even in the NL Central, there are too many flaws here to think one good trading week would change things.
BP NL winter meetings preview
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on December 04, 2006, 02:55:46 pm
Post by: No? in Austin on December 04, 2006, 02:56:30 pm
Quote:
Quote:
Spend all the money you want, Mr McLane. Until you reduce the number of OBP sinks in the lineup below the four spot, your team isn't going to score enough runs to win. Chris Burke could replace Craig Biggio if the Astros were so inclined, and Adam Everett and Willy Taveras play enough defense to justify their spots. Brad Ausmus is just a black hole, however. Brad Lidge has been available for a while, but why sell low? Even in the NL Central, there are too many flaws here to think one good trading week would change things.
BP NL winter meetings preview
Hmmmm... BP touts OBP? Go figure!
Post by: austro on December 04, 2006, 03:03:03 pm
Quote:
At $14 million per through 2008, he's pretty much a bargain; heck, he's 90 percent of the hitter that Carlos Lee is, and in any given year could out-hit the Astros' $100 million man.
Pat Burrell a bargain at $14M? I don't think so.
Post by: CarolinaStro on December 04, 2006, 03:26:42 pm
Post by: David in Jackson on December 04, 2006, 03:29:07 pm
I think they're usually right about our weaknesses, but exagerate them and underestimate our strengths.
Post by: JimR on December 04, 2006, 03:38:46 pm
Post by: strosrays on December 04, 2006, 03:43:52 pm
Post by: schlumburger04 on December 04, 2006, 03:46:22 pm
but how could 1 good trading week not change things, thats hammered dogshit. we could be NL favorites with the right moves and pettitte coming back
Post by: JimR on December 04, 2006, 03:50:39 pm
Post by: Foghorn on December 04, 2006, 04:17:17 pm
Quote:
Spend all the money you want, Mr McLane. Until you reduce the number of OBP sinks in the lineup below the four spot, your team isn't going to score enough runs to win. Chris Burke could replace Craig Biggio if the Astros were so inclined, and Adam Everett and Willy Taveras play enough defense to justify their spots. Brad Ausmus is just a black hole, however. Brad Lidge has been available for a while, but why sell low? Even in the NL Central, there are too many flaws here to think one good trading week would change things.
The problem with this is the "your team isn't going to score enough runs to win". How many runs is that? We scored 735, and have replaced Lane/Wilson with Lee, which is about 40 runs better. That gets us to 775. A full year of Luke Scott versus some leftover Lane/Wilson maybe is another 10 runs better. There's 785. If there's an improvement at 3B maybe we sniff 800 runs. Is that enough?
If we still allow 719 runs that get us to 90 wins. 785 runs gets us to 88 wins. Is that enough? What if Pettitte and Clemens come back, Williams is a run per game better than Wandy, and Lidge drops hie ERA by a full run? Thats 32 fewer runs allowed, giving us a 800 runs scored and 687 runs allowed--93 wins. Is that enough?
BP is worthless.
The other thing is for all their self-fellatio they like to do when they are right, they are eerily silent when things go wrong. They've been pimping Jason Lane like crazy, yet when he tanks HARD they don't say a word.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on December 04, 2006, 04:27:21 pm
Quote:
BP is a one trick pony, and anyone who reads it trying to learn something about baseball is wasting time. its sarcasm is funny, but that is all.
I don't even find their writing funny. It's pretty mean-spirited most of the time.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on December 04, 2006, 04:35:16 pm
Quote:
I do find it comforting that the dual obsession with Burke (+++++) and Ausmus (-----) is alive and well. I was afraid after last season it might have been retired.
My bottom line problem with them is their failure to look at the big picture and instead to harp on their pet peeves. They've been grinding an axe over Ausmus for years. Whether the Astros are at .500 or well over it, they bitch, bitch, bitch about Ausmus. Ausmus has been a pretty lackluster hitter for awhile now, but if the biggest complaint about your team -- year in, year out, whether winning the pennant or missing the playoffs -- is how ineffective your catcher and No. 8 hitter is in the line-up, you must be doing something right. The fact that it's the same criticism, whether the team has a good season or a mediocre season, is an example of the lack of depth in their analysis.
Post by: strosrays on December 04, 2006, 05:08:50 pm
Quote:Quote:
I do find it comforting that the dual obsession with Burke (+++++) and Ausmus (-----) is alive and well. I was afraid after last season it might have been retired.
My bottom line problem with them is their failure to look at the big picture and instead to harp on their pet peeves. They've been grinding an axe over Ausmus for years. Whether the Astros are at .500 or well over it, they bitch, bitch, bitch about Ausmus. Ausmus has been a pretty lackluster hitter for awhile now, but if the biggest complaint about your team -- year in, year out, whether winning the pennant or missing the playoffs -- is how ineffective your catcher and No. 8 hitter is in the line-up, you must be doing something right. The fact that it's the same criticism, whether the team has a good season or a mediocre season, is an example of the lack of depth in their analysis.
I don't mind much what they say about things. There is a continuity to it that is comforting, and anyway I'm too cheap to subscribe and read their stuff; so it is not like I get agitated by it.
The only real negative is in a week or so there will be many lemmings, --er bloggers, who will regurgitate the same thoughts, only trying very hard to make it not sound like received wisdom.
Of course, that doesn't really matter either, because I am generally not a reader of blogs. But sure as hell somebody will post one of the more assinine ones here -- Bally's line right now is 7-4 for something Barzilla craps out of his ass and onto the page -- and then I'll have to read it. Dammit.
Post by: strobum on December 04, 2006, 05:31:37 pm
Post by: pravata on December 04, 2006, 05:58:29 pm
Quote:
I wish the Prospectus would come up with a cool acronym for the number of runs Ausmus has prevented by deftly blocking Lidge's 65 foot sliders...or collaring the drama queen's splitfingers...and don't get me started on all of those Pettitte cutters that go astray. How about RPOM (runs prevented over Meluskey)?
What's his plus rating in GCtTSewRoT? (Gives Confidence to Throw Slider even with Runner on Third) Calculate that, in relationship to SFCbPwStTS (Straight Fastballs Crushed because Pitchers was Scared to Throw Slider)
Post by: strosrays on December 04, 2006, 06:25:31 pm
Quote:Quote:
I wish the Prospectus would come up with a cool acronym for the number of runs Ausmus has prevented by deftly blocking Lidge's 65 foot sliders...or collaring the drama queen's splitfingers...and don't get me started on all of those Pettitte cutters that go astray. How about RPOM (runs prevented over Meluskey)?
What's his plus rating in GCtTSewRoT? (Gives Confidence to Throw Slider even with Runner on Third) Calculate that, in relationship to SFCbPwStTS (Straight Fastballs Crushed because Pitchers was Scared to Throw Slider)
All these one way or another fall under the definition of 'intangibles', and therefore are a myth.
Post by: kevinG on December 04, 2006, 07:44:01 pm
Post by: strobum on December 04, 2006, 08:36:56 pm
Can you really assign a statistical value to something like that? I say no.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on December 04, 2006, 08:38:42 pm
Quote:
I don't mind much what they say about things. There is a continuity to it that is comforting, and anyway I'm too cheap to subscribe and read their stuff; so it is not like I get agitated by it.
The only real negative is in a week or so there will be many lemmings, --er bloggers, who will regurgitate the same thoughts, only trying very hard to make it not sound like received wisdom.
Of course, that doesn't really matter either, because I am generally not a reader of blogs. But sure as hell somebody will post one of the more assinine ones here -- Bally's line right now is 7-4 for something Barzilla craps out of his ass and onto the page -- and then I'll have to read it. Dammit.
What's interesting is that in each of the last three seasons, when the Astros have finished second to the Cardinals, they've both fielded two of the worst-hitting catchers in MLB with at least 300 PAs:
Year Catcher Avg OBP Slg OPS RnkThe Cardinals outscored the Astros 781-735 in 2006, 805-693 in 2005 and 855-803 in 2004. But with their starting catchers both hitting dismally -- and with the Astros being furthest away from the Cardinals in the season when the Ausmus was furthest ahead of the Cardinals starter -- there's obviously something other than Ausmus that makes the Astros an inferior offensive team. That being the case, wouldn't spending money in other areas, which BP decries as being ineffectual, actually make a difference?
------------------------------------------
2004 Ausmus .248 .306 .325 .631 24
2004 Matheny .247 .292 .348 .640 25
------------------------------------------
2005 Ausmus .258 .351 .331 .682 21
2005 Molina .252 .295 .358 .654 26
------------------------------------------
2006 Molina .216 .274 .321 .595 28
2006 Ausmus .230 .308 .285 .593 29
Post by: Arky Vaughan on December 04, 2006, 08:40:56 pm
Quote:
Let's not forget Bradly's clutch hitting in the playoffs, specifically his nIgtHR (ninth-inning game tying homeruns), or as I like to call it "The Andruw Jones Facial".
Can you really assign a statistical value to something like that? I say no.
I don't think it's a question of whether or not there's a way to assign a statistical value to Ausmus's hitting. The problem is overestimating the offensive blow to a team arising out of how bad its starting catcher is at the plate. It's not necessary to defend Ausmus as a great hitter, or even to discuss his defensive skills, to undermine this line of reasoning.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on December 04, 2006, 08:53:12 pm
Quote:
The problem with this is the "your team isn't going to score enough runs to win". How many runs is that? We scored 735, and have replaced Lane/Wilson with Lee, which is about 40 runs better. That gets us to 775. A full year of Luke Scott versus some leftover Lane/Wilson maybe is another 10 runs better. There's 785. If there's an improvement at 3B maybe we sniff 800 runs. Is that enough?
If we still allow 719 runs that get us to 90 wins. 785 runs gets us to 88 wins. Is that enough? What if Pettitte and Clemens come back, Williams is a run per game better than Wandy, and Lidge drops hie ERA by a full run? Thats 32 fewer runs allowed, giving us a 800 runs scored and 687 runs allowed--93 wins. Is that enough?
Estimated Runs Created by Houston Astros Catchers and St. Louis Cardinals Catchers, 2002-2006
Team 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006So Cardinals catchers have created an estimated four more runs over that span. I haven't read the BP round-ups on the Cardinals for awhile, but have they beaten the dead horse about Cardinals catching over the same span?
----------------------------------
Hou 67 52 50 53 55
StL 59 60 59 51 52
Post by: NeilT on December 04, 2006, 08:59:53 pm
Post by: Arky Vaughan on December 04, 2006, 09:06:15 pm
Quote:
Did the cardinals overall produce more runs during the period? Maybe they're gripe is with the total runs produce, not the runs produced at catcher.
It is the overall line-up, but the focus of their criticism always zooms in on Ausmus. And the point is if you make other parts of the line-up better, then Ausmus at catcher doesn't matter as much. The Cardinals have shown that you can work around somebody at catcher who bats under .250.
The most recent blurb picks on Taveras, Everett, Ausmus and Biggio. It notes that Taveras and Everett field well enough to justify their starting jobs, that Burke should replace Biggio (which isn't unlikely come H3K), but that Ausmus is a hole.
Of course, if you can get somebody else at the infield and outfield corners besides Berkman to hit worth a lick, you can make up for it that way too. If you made a list of things that need to be fixed in the offense, I think replacing the catcher is probably not the highest-priority use of your attention or efforts.
Post by: NeilT on December 04, 2006, 09:17:52 pm
Post by: Arky Vaughan on December 04, 2006, 09:22:48 pm
Quote:
So either they don't like Ausmus personally, or they think his defensive ability doesn't make up for his offense. I gave up my subscription, but I take it that only those 4 positions are mentioned? Not Lane, not 3d? They like Burke I guess but understand that Biggio is untouchable, they think Taveras and Everett are acceptable, so they land on Ausmus. I guess I know the answer, but is it easy to find more offense at any of those 4 positions? Do they say the problem's easily fixable? What would Ausmus do if he was manager?
If you read back over several years of the annuals, they harp on Ausmus virtually every season, as if it's some great mystery that Ausmus isn't a very good hitter. My only point is that despite how bad Ausmus is at the plate, replacing him with Catcher X is not terribly probable to result in a great leap forward for the offense. Making sure the right pieces are in place at 1B, 3B, LF and RF is likely to be much more effective, in my opinion. Berkman, Huff, Scott and Lee wouldn't be a bad start, also in my opinion.
Post by: Burzmali on December 04, 2006, 09:53:11 pm
Quote:Quote:
So either they don't like Ausmus personally, or they think his defensive ability doesn't make up for his offense. I gave up my subscription, but I take it that only those 4 positions are mentioned? Not Lane, not 3d? They like Burke I guess but understand that Biggio is untouchable, they think Taveras and Everett are acceptable, so they land on Ausmus. I guess I know the answer, but is it easy to find more offense at any of those 4 positions? Do they say the problem's easily fixable? What would Ausmus do if he was manager?
If you read back over several years of the annuals, they harp on Ausmus virtually every season, as if it's some great mystery that Ausmus isn't a very good hitter. My only point is that despite how bad Ausmus is at the plate, replacing him with Catcher X is not terribly probable to result in a great leap forward for the offense. Making sure the right pieces are in place at 1B, 3B, LF and RF is likely to be much more effective, in my opinion. Berkman, Huff, Scott and Lee wouldn't be a bad start, also in my opinion.
I do see your point, but do you think BP gets any of it right? It seems to me that it may not be Ausmus that ruins the lineup, but carrying four "OBP sinks" (rolleyes at their wording) may be too much for the corner positions to overcome. I'm not saying you have to get .900 OPS hitters up the middle, but at least get players that can get on base. Lane in CF, Burke eventually at 2B, Ensberg at third if Huff isn't signed, these are improvements IMO.
Post by: Foghorn on December 05, 2006, 12:50:00 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
So either they don't like Ausmus personally, or they think his defensive ability doesn't make up for his offense. I gave up my subscription, but I take it that only those 4 positions are mentioned? Not Lane, not 3d? They like Burke I guess but understand that Biggio is untouchable, they think Taveras and Everett are acceptable, so they land on Ausmus. I guess I know the answer, but is it easy to find more offense at any of those 4 positions? Do they say the problem's easily fixable? What would Ausmus do if he was manager?
If you read back over several years of the annuals, they harp on Ausmus virtually every season, as if it's some great mystery that Ausmus isn't a very good hitter. My only point is that despite how bad Ausmus is at the plate, replacing him with Catcher X is not terribly probable to result in a great leap forward for the offense. Making sure the right pieces are in place at 1B, 3B, LF and RF is likely to be much more effective, in my opinion. Berkman, Huff, Scott and Lee wouldn't be a bad start, also in my opinion.
I do see your point, but do you think BP gets any of it right? It seems to me that it may not be Ausmus that ruins the lineup, but carrying four "OBP sinks" (rolleyes at their wording) may be too much for the corner positions to overcome. I'm not saying you have to get .900 OPS hitters up the middle, but at least get players that can get on base. Lane in CF, Burke eventually at 2B, Ensberg at third if Huff isn't signed, these are improvements IMO.
Carrying 4 OBP sinks does make it difficult to produce a good offensive club. However, the goal of any major league team is not to be the best offensive club. Rather its to win ballgames. To that extent, you have to look at each of the 4 OBP sinks to see what each player brings to the table.
(1) Everett makes up for any and all offensive shortcomings with his glove. I never did read that book that was published last year on defense but I think it was something like 75 singles that Michael Young (or maybe it was Jeter) allowed Everett would have turned into outs. I'll take that tradeoff any day of the week.
(2) Biggio. Well, I think Biggio presents an interesting case study. I think MMPUS and the short LF porch has ruined his swing in non-MMPUS ballparks. His Home/Road splits the last 3 years are incredible:
Home--293/346/516
Road--232/297/382
I think a 65/35 platoon with Burke at 2B is sometihng we'll see this year from Garner. I think Astros will get above league average production from 2B with such a platoon.
(3) Taveras. Of all players with at least 250 ABs in the NL--21 of them--Willie T was 14th in terms of OBP. Sure, its in the bottom half but its not really dreadful. His lack of extra base hits and the fact he's yet to really become a great base runner despite his speed are of bigger concerns to me than his OBP--333 last year. And considering his age, his salary, and his defense, I'm not sure he is among the top reasons why the Astros aren't winning more games.
(4) Ausmus. He's a poor offensive player. He can't throw out runners like he used to. That said, just about every pitcher on the staff swears by him. Including the guy with all those Cy Youngs. Just because we can't measure his effect on the pitching staff doesn't mean there is no effect. Absince of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Its easier to show what he doesn't bring to the table versus what he does bring to the table. Sure, upgrading to a more offensiveminded catcher would result in greater runs scored. But yet again, OBP isn't Ausmus big problem compared to other catchers...its his SLG. Of the 18 C's with 250 or more ABs, Ausmus ranked 13th. Again not great, but not worst in the NL either (he was worst in SLG).