Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
How does Kent's fielding percentage indicate that he has better footwork and fundamentals when turning a double play?
So Mark Loretta is presumably the opening day 2B, and batting 2nd?
Rubbish. It's how many you score vs how many they score. Otherwise you'd want Berkman pitching.
Because she uses a single season's away splits to predict a player's overall performance?
Because she honestly thinks that opposing teams will routinely walk Lance Berkman to get to the Lee/Tejada/Pence combo?
You're willfully ignoring the fact that managers measure success by wins and losses, not by OBP. It's not fantasy baseball.
Kent was much better on defense than Burke--better arm, better feet, better mechanics and fundamentals. All Burke had was range.
Good point. It was the same idiocy.
When the manager gets fired. Give it a rest. Shit.
if he is the number two maybe the astros should just forfit the seaso
Does that help?
If Burke had been the second coming at 2B, the Astros would have moved Biggio. The simple fact is that Burke couldn't beat out Biggio. So your statement that Burke was better than late career Biggio is just horseshit.
Coach is right. If you're going to bring this crap all year long, then I am rooting for banishment.
You are so full of shit. If he could play the position better than Kent, he would still be in Houston. The folks who watched him play every day moved him to the OF, then into a utility role.
Go away, Burzmali. I cannot take your redundant drivel all year.
He did answer. Why do you keep asking? Don't you read what people say?
Wait... what? That makes absolutely no sense. The Astros didn't already have an incumbent 2B the last three (or 15) years? How is the "shot" Arizona is giving Burke better than the Astros handing him a starting spot in the lineup last year?
This crowing that the Astros never gave him a chance to succeed is complete horseshit. He got chance after chance in Houston and failed to make the most of it.
Like Craig Biggio?
If you read what Melvin said about Burke, you may want to take back this statement. They like Burke's versatility and ability to play *multiple* position. IOW - he's an ubber utility guy in their eyes similar to how the Astros saw him as his career. Burke hated the idea and begged to be traded. He got his wish.
You ever spend any amount of time watching Burke play *every day* at second base? If so, your statement about the D'Backs is incredible.
Me playing games? You're the one insisting on a farcical numerical threshold. Lineups are constructed to score runs. Whether Bourn or Matsui score or Pence or Lee drive them in does not matter.
If you don't know the ultimate purpose of a lineup, not just the second spot in the lineup, then I'm appalled that you have the arrogance to enter into the conversation at all.
Who was it I saw all those years at Round Rock playing second base then? He was less than impressive as a defender, so his role as a ubber utility guy fits him. The D'Backs are going to use him that way, Houston wanted to use him that way. It is no secret to anyone who paid attention to what happened this offseason. Burke's attitude about being a ubber utility guy was in question though. It was going to hurt the club if he did what he typically did with these sort of decisions, because he doesn't take these sort of decisions well. He now gets to tell the D'Backs how wrong they are for making him a utility player.
So are the D'Backs intending to replce Hudson with Burke? If so, there is going to be a ton of teams lining up to acquire Hudson from them if they're that dumb.
Good. Root for him. Do you require assistance in getting to the Snakes' unoffical fan website?
I used to have that Dave Clark V album. First record I ever owned that wasn't cowboy songs. It was pretty good, but for the long run I'll take the cowboy songs.
I'm still curious what Burke's gonna do now that he's out of Houston. It'll be fun to watch. You may disagree, but if it's a choice between your 2d baseman having asshole surgery or hitting .395, I think I'd rather my 2d baseman be hitting .395.
.30742191991919106.... There is no numerical threshold. The lineup works or it doesn't. If Matsui is not getting on but is doing other things to help move the offense, it's not going to show up in the numbers. Matsui's offensive contributions are going to depend mostly on how Bourn does.
Is the use of the word "delusional" metaphorical as well?
I think the frustration is that you're typing just to make yourself happy. You're not getting any agreement for your theories. And no one has suggested that you are a demon. Or are attempting to conjure a demon. Just clueless. And you do seem to be oblivious to facts that do not fit your theory. (The facts are in front of you.)
Get in line. Are you so naive to think that you're the first person to pull this? No one agrees with you therefore we're demonizing you? No, simply we think you're wrong. You forgot the conspiracy theory and the "circle jerk" line.
List for me, if you will, people here who have even come close to embracing your philosophy. Jesus Christ you are not. Insufferable stat-geek, maybe.
The second part of your post was fatuous. I said Wade had a plan.
There are two options here ...
1. You are so incredibly brilliant that the rest of us cannot follow your logic. Given that this is the case, you would be wasting your time (and ours) and should go away.
2. You are so incredibly clueless that you cannot follow any logic presented by anyone else on this board. Given that this is the case, you would be wasting our time (and yours) and should go away.
So ... Whenever the logical options reduce to one action, that's the one you should try first.
Don't be fatuous. Wade obviously acquired Bourn and Matsui with a plan in mind.
No, it shouldn't. But it does matter that the guy charged with putting together a team signed and is paying Matsui specifically for his defense, his bat control and his suitability to bat 2nd in the Astros lineup.
OK then, so we should expect to see all of these guys batting second, right?
ARod
Ortiz
Carlos Pena
Chipper
Magglio
Prince
Holliday
Pujols
Utley
Thome
Teixeira
etc.
In fact, since the statisticians are so fond of OPS, find me one player who led his team in OPS and hit 2nd the majority of the time.
I guess all 30 managers are delusional.
As a manager, there is only one inning in a game where you can send exactly who you want to the plate. Everything else will be out of your control. Why would you not want to plan for executing that inning as well as possible?
Jay Ricker... coming soon to www.firejoemorgan.com.
Burzmali, go fucking away. Anyone who would bat Berkman 2nd is not worthy of any attention whatsoever.
I'd pay more to watch someone ask him if he has. Wanna volunteer, burzmali?
Well I thought I would be nice and point out why whatever you are using is giving you garbage out, but if you are not interested that's ok too.
Based on what?
Well ... As long as you've run the simulations, that should end the discussion, right?
Wow, that pretty much sucks.
I'm sure China will run him out there for the Olympics, 100% healed or no.
Can't or wont? Because the Astros explained it a number of times. Lane is a better fielder, especially in center, and Scott was injured most of the time.
Unfortunately his reputation does not extend into this discussion group. I had no reason to doubt the information, nor any reason to trust it either. Next time I will though.
An internet rumor.. that was TRUE. I think I just saw a pig fly by my window.
Context is sometimes a big factor and sometimes a small one. Its difficult to quantify. You seem to ignore it all together, that's all I'm saying.
Voros McCracken, is that you hiding in Noe's keyboard?
You do realize player's OBP and SLG depend on who hits in front of them and behind them? You can't just move them around and assume that the numbers will be the same. It seems like this is an important piece of information you are missing.
Congrats, that is one of the most ridiculous lineups I've ever seen.
Lets see, Scott was used as a trading chip to acquire Tejada, but you have them batting 5-6. Loretta at leadoff is a wonderful idea, let's clog the bases with cement feet right off the bat. And Berkman in the 2 hole...
Quit Bogarting the peyote.
I hate to take a shit on your innovative idea, but Scott was traded away last week. Back to the drawing board. I can't wait to see what's next.
Oh my God. Are you really following up Berkman batting 2nd with the suggestion that Loretta should lead off? And is that the pitcher batting 8th, Tony?
Pence, Matsui, Tejada, Berkman, Lee, Power RF, Wigginton, Towles, P would add even more offense. Why not if you're going to downgrade starting pitching to the level MM addressed? Then when its 12-10 in the 9th inning put in your defensive replacements.
Hate to see Gutierrez go. If the astros weren't dead last in farm systems before this week, they sure as shit are now.
I would tend to agree if Bourn is hovering around .330 in OBP. You cannot afford Matsui at the #2 at that point because the chances are against you that he'll be putting up an OBP that is any better. But if Bourn is doing a clip of around .360 or better OBP, yowsa... Matsui needs to stay at #2 to make the running game between him and Bourn work for the rest of the lineup, plus his ability with bat control. At that point, Lee-Berkman-Pence-Tejada-Wiggington are even more dangerous hitters.
Matsui won't take that many PA away if Bourn and he play the one-two punch well. They'll be on-base enough to give the others all the PA they need and then some.
Wouldn't walking people be NOT giving in to hitters?
Not knowing much about Lowry, I did a little digging on him. Couple things to note:
-he missed the last month of this season, with elbow trouble that's he apparently recovered from.The Link
-even though he had a great record (14-8) and ERA (3.92), he walked a ton of guys this year, resulting in a 1.55 WHIP. In 2006 he had a better WHIP (1.39) but an unimpressive 7-10 record with a 4.74 ERA. The Link
Not sure if he'd be that much of an upgrade over what the Astros currently have (in my under-informed, admittedly stat-and-news-based opinion).
No-trade clause. (And no Lastings Millege in New York either)
The GM puts a team together that he believes can compete. He has no control over what happens on the field at any time. Not the regular season, not the playoffs. Ask the GMs of the 22 teams that don't make the playoffs if the regular season went the way they planned.
Humanity. Not luck. There are many things we do not yet fully understand.
Was this luck (or chance)? Was it performance? Some of both? Or something else entirely?
Unexpected isn't luck. Luck is what we don't or can't understand. Podsednik did exactly what he'd trained to do. He looked for and saw a fastball in an area he could hit it. He put the very best swing on it he could. The result was an unexpected homer that was the culmination of several different events. But it wasn't luck.
You refer to to actual players playing actual games in terms of sample size, chance and variation. You intimate that there may be times when a GM does have control over what happens on the field, just not during the playoffs. You think that when things happen that are in the statistical minority, they are luck. I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Do you think the Phillies should move Ryan Howard to the #2 hole?
Do you understand that a mid- to upper-90's fastball transfers enough power that even the lightest hitters can homer if they hit it squarely?
And...?
So the better way to look at it was not Podsednik's likelihood of hitting a homer in general, but Lidge's likelihood of serving the fastball up on a platter -- a much higher likelihood indeed.
These things are not luck, they are performance. If isolated performances are luck, then the entire game is luck. In which case, go watch a coin-flipping competition.
ie: You can't steal first base. All agreed upon and in the case of the Houston Astros, Michael Bourn, not Kaz Matsui is the key to making it all work.
Wow. What I don't know about baseball would fill volumes but to ascribe the outcome of the 30 or so games that comprise MLB playoffs each year to mostly pitching and luck seems to disregard the reality of the role that hitting and defense play in the games.
luck? seriously, do you think that actually winning WS championships means nothing?
If Beane had focused a little more on speed & defense the A's would have played in a WS or 3 recently.
more nonsense from Mr. Beane. speed is taking at least two bases on every hit. speed is getting to balls that slow players cannot. speed is scoring big runs when slow players stop a 3rd. it is not just stealing bases or running 90' in a straight line.
I'm not expecting anything one way or the other. Based on his minor-league record and his major-league performance to date, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bourn reach base in the mid-.300s. Only five National League teams broke .350 at the lead-off spot last season, so it's not as if someone like that grows on trees. The Astros were second-to-last in lead-off OBP last year at .309, so I'd expect Bourn to be a significant improvement. And even if Matsui is a disappointment as far as getting on base is concerned, I wouldn't expect him to be a drop-off from the 13th-place .320 OBP that Astros No. 2 hitters put up last year. So you've got a leadoff man likely to be an improvement in getting on base, a No. 2 hitter who shouldn't be any worse at getting on base than last season, both of whom are much faster than anybody else the Astros put at the top of the line-up in 2006. Put Pence, Berkman, Lee and Wigginton behind them and the Astros could very well be more solid at the top six spots in the order than they have been since 2004.
Me.
Are you certain about that?
Somewhere between first and last. Of course, if we knew for certain where it would fall, we'd be working for the Houston Astros. I wonder if anyone can know for sure?
Wow...
eveyone was yelling for trades and remake the team. well the new regume apparently has an idea that is the direct opposite of what the pup had. did anyone excpect this to happen..at this point i cant even tell you who is gone. it also seems to me like a lot of the astros younger players are being shuffled out of the deck. did anyone expect this?
Kaz had a better BA/BIP (Batted Balls In Play) then any Astro except Pence
And the times that Bourne didn't get on.. that's when you'd want Berkman batting #2, essentially leading off with no one on base to bring in?
Let's see. You are looking to do a quick rebuild of the Astros. So you look at the roster and look for your weaknesses. You need a 1 and 2 hitter for the lineup. You have an iffy closer. You need a CF, a 2B, and a bench bat or two. You have a rookie catcher. You also could use a #2 or #3 starting pitcher and some bullpen help.
So Smith/Wade...........
Re-signed one of the best game calling defensive catchers in the league that age has taken a toll on, who will someday be a manager, to help the rookie catcher. Good move.
Trade the iffy closer for not only the CF they need but also the speedy #1 hitter they need and some bullpen help. Not to mention a prospect. Good move.
Looked in the FA market and signed a bench bat that can play several position to give your starters a rest occasionally, and another bullpen arm. Good move.
Then looked in FA market again and signed a defensive 2B who just happened to be a contact hitter with speed that you could put in the 2 slot in the lineup. Yet another good move.
Matsui's job will be to take 2 or 3 pitches and give Bourn a chance to run. Then he will be counted on to put the ball in play somewhere, preferrably on the ground, and advance Bourn for the 3-4-5 hitters. Are honestly saying that instead of asking your speedy, fastball hitting, contact hitter do that, you would rather take your 40 homer power hitting franchise player out of the 3 hole and ask him to do this? That would border on complete insanity.
Finally, and perhaps most important, if you have Berkman batting second and having to do things like taking pitches so Bourn can work the running game and trying to make contact and hit behind the runner, you lose a lot of the benefit that you have from letting a player with Berkman's natural hitting ability work the count and swing away when he wants to. You're not going to bunt with Berkman, so you deprive yourself of that option with him at No. 2. Simply put, Berkman needs to be in a slot in the line-up where he can do what he does best: draw walks, hit for average and hit for power without worrying much about adjusting his approach depending on the situation.
I disagree. The post that sparked the lengthy thread asserted that Matsui would not be a significant improvement over Burke, that Matsui would add another low-OBP player in the line-up at No. 2 and that this could be mitigated by moving Berkman, Pence and Lee up in the order.
Obviously the Astros have tired of Burke, who has done very little to justify a starting job, and obviously the Astros aren't going to bat Berkman No. 2 in a million years, but the main thrust of the post, the idea that Matsui is a weakness at the top of the order based on his record of performance to date doesn't strike me as a particularly outlandish argument.
Bat control. Keep up.
And this whole shit about his OBP is not ignored at all. He has to do better and we've all said so and are willing to wait until the fucking season gets underway to find out how that works out *based on the lineup construction (Bourn/Matsui/Pence/Berkman/Lee)*. See, that is called context and well provided in this thread if people would just bother to fucking read.
This whole thing starts up again because of OBP only (in isolation) and ignores entirely the context of what has been said, what was rebuffed (Berkman batting second... please) and no less by a guy who is well respected around here. It's really looking like it's about just insulting the intelligence of the people who not once have argued that Matsui is a perfect OBP guy. Not. One. Single. Time!
Matsui is a good #2 for Houston only if Bourn is doing what they fully expect him to do. That would then play to the strength of what Matsui does best with his bat control. And then you get the added benefit of his defense superior to anything Houston has had in almost 8 years. THAT makes the pitching so much better. Matsui is a *FIT* for this team because of what he brings, not because of some isolated stat that speaks to a lineup position. In a constructed lineup that they've put together in Houston, Matsui is a good #2. Bourn is the key and Pence is another (avoid sophmore slump at all cost) to *make that position in the lineup work!* Get it? Not OBP in isolation, because if Bourn slumps and is miserable at getting on-base, then Matsui will *NOT* make up for it and he's never going to see a pitch to hit. That is not good for a guy who has problems with OBP. But give him a pitch to hit, and Matsui is damn good. How, pray tell, will he get his pitches to hit? Man at first or second base maybe? Pence hitting behind him having an excellent season?
YES! Bingo, that's it... damn, is that so hard to fucking understand?
It is a simple concept that you don't need a fucking slide rule to figure out nor question the intelligence of this forum nor the acumen of the Houston Astros. It is without a doubt what frustrates the hell out of people from those inclined to look at performance stats. The whole damn "I know better than you" attitude and "you're so fucking stupid" approach to saying it by some prone to this is getting old everywhere else. It is rarely welcomed here.
Arky, you're better than this.
You're wrong, Jim.
This isn't criticizing the Astros for not following sound statistical analysis. It's posing the question whether a player who has trouble getting on base and makes outs frequently should bat No. 2.
Your own article on line-up construction indicates that No. 2 is an on-base slot. Matsui's track record suggests he's not very good at getting on base.
Tell me, Jim, is Matsui a "perfect No. 2?"
Yeah I did see what you were replying to, the counter to your contention that Berkman should bat 2nd. And, I don't need your opinion about when to relax. The Astros, the Rockies, several people here who have proven records of knowing what the fuck they're talking about, think Matsui is a good fit to hit 2nd for the Astros in 08. On what grounds are you disagreeing with that? That you have superior knowledge? That we haven't watched Matsui enough? That you can see something in the statistics that the Astros can not? That you're actually a crawfish in disguise?
Don't act all innocent on us now, did you not type
"What's dumber than that is having somebody with Matsui's obp hitting 2nd."
Who are you saying is dumb? Us? The Astros? Because clearly the Astros are going to have Matsui hit second, as did the Rockies. Then there's the implication that those people who have described why Matsui is a good choice for the 2 don't know what they're talking about because they haven't watched every game Matsui played. And are basing their comments on something that they can not see.
I disagree. I don't see how he could make those comments without possessing the attitude that no one else, either here or in the Astros organization, is either aware of or can properly interpret the numbers as he has. That is clearly a provocation. Does he think we're all stupid?
Who would you like?
So you didn't understand the pitching, speed, defense, and the offense will work itself out thing. Burke isn't good enough defensively for SmithWade and with his giant flop last year, offensively as well.
You should at least watch a guy play before commenting on his skills, or lie about it.
You still haven't told us who you'd prefer at 2b, batting second.
MM covered this, but hitting for average, getting on base, and bat-handling are all different things. Berkman, your number 2 hitter, hits for average/power and gets on base, but doesn't handle the bat for shit. I think pretty much anyone in baseball would define handling the bat well as being able to make contact and get the ball to go more or less where you want it to (e.g. hit a GB to the right side with a runner on 2nd). If you really don't know the difference between that and batting average, I don't know what else to tell you.
How is it that you've managed to arrive at a conclusion about Matsui's proficiency as a top of the order hitter, yet you don't even know if he hit at the top of the order last year?
"Handling the bat" is a skill, not a result.
He hit 1 or 2 in every game during 2007.
(2) "handles the bat well." Me, I don't see that .272/.325/.387 (career figures) qualifies as handling the bat relatively well (particularly for a multi-million dollar veteran FA). Perhaps others disagree.
there are many, many things about baseball that you do not understand.
Amazing. Matsui's defense is outstanding. Perfect number 2 hitter. Proven winner. Hopefully opens the door in Houston for Asian baseball talent. All for less then what we paid Biggio last year. What in the hell has Burke ever proved except that he can whine loudly. I like everything Wade is doing and it continues to be a work in progress.
And just what the fuck is Burke's projection? Regardless of ends?
Borun leading off and Berkman batting second? I can't decide which one is dumber.
According to the Halos skipper, Matthews, Jr. plays some right and left, and Garret Anderson and Vlad Gurrierro play more DH. He said that he is going to try to keep all four bats in the lineup.
I'm not sure you actually understand the game of baseball, and I'm convinced you do not understand the criteria of the MVP award.
Torii Hunter, or so they say
I saw him at MMP, and in games on TBS/WGN when they played the braves/cubs. Also they were on ESPN quite a bit and caught him there also. But of course that means 10-20 times out of 162 games. Still, he did it all this year, and he was the one constant for that team all year. I can't believe someone actually claimed howard was more important. Utley when he wasn't injured I can buy a bit, but not howard this year.
Rollins is what kept that team afloat despite howard's early season slump, and all their injuries. Utley injured. Howard sucked until like june/july. Hamels injured. Myers injured. Victorino injured. Without rollins the phillies don't even get the chance to capitalize on the mets choke job. He was the best player in the league this year, in a year devoid of one guy heads and shoulders above the rest.
It's far from a joke he won MVP.
Rollins was the right choice. He was the reason the phillies won that division. He always made big plays when needed. Holliday was the only other possibility, but they didn't have nearly the injury issues they had to overcome.
Anyone who thinks he wasn't the phillies best or most valuable player in 2007 needs to actually watch a game or two instead of just regurgitating stats. Saying Ryan Howard was better this year proves you never watched that team play. Rollins was the one constant that kept that team winning through howard's slump, utley's injury and hamels/myers injuries.
Oh, I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I was just curious. I probably would have voted for Wright: he seemed to me to have the most consistent season, and .325/.416/.546 is pretty remarkable. I'm not exactly sure how he wound up with "only" 107 RBI with those numbers.
Luke Scott is a fine outfielder and middle of the lineup hitter. But he's not fast and he's got some defensive challenges living out in RF. His best position is LF and eventually it may pan out that he's a DH, sort of like Carlos Lee. But to put Scott in a lineup that features no team speed, not defensive prowess (or limited) and no help to a pitcher other than offense (and that is spotty too) is not the best idea. Does that mean Scott is a bad player?
Far from it, but much like Bourn was "expendable" in Philly (because they had top of the lineup guys in Rollins and Victorino already and speed guys in the outfield like Rowand and Victorino as well), Scott is expendable in Houston. He is the #3 guy behind Lee and Pence in terms of being the same type of guys: LFs playing a little out of position any where else. Pence is the most athletic and to his benefit he can adapt a little easier... but to stretch that to being a legit CF in Minute Maid... well, that's not fair to him nor to the club.
So the aspect of team speed, playing those strengths to the core players (Berkman, Lee and Pence) means you make moves like this and yes, guys like Scott become "expendable". None of which means Scott is a bad player, he's just not the candidate for what they're trying to do beyond acceptance of being a solid 4th outfielder who should work his butt off to show everyone he can play if given the chance and he can also stay healthy. That makes his trade value higher and you never really go through a season when you keep every one of your starters healthy.
Pence missed a huge chunk of time last season in his limited time, so you need a backup for RF just in case. But overall, Scott should be aware of what they're trying to do in terms of team speed and how he doesn't fit that mold for a starters job right now. But he could be valuable as a replacement player if needed.
I doubt he'll want to stick around to do that though and the Astros will be forced to look around for options in that area.
total bullshit.
See, now you're talking... I'm not so out in left field (pun intended) afterall, huh? The heck with Luke Scott and Michael Bourn, neither one is all that any more (yes, even Luke Scott), the Astros could've done much better had they listened to me! I ROOL!
Zone ratings and range factors? I'm disappointed.
If average for a CF is getting horrible reads on a hit ball and running horribly to try and catch a ball in the gaps, then he is average. So was Roger Cedeno. But something tells me that average means something else to you.
But the heck with that, I want Adam Dunn at first, LEE/PENCE/BERKMAN in the outfield!!!!!!
1. Pence
2. Berkman
3. Dunn
4. Lee
5-9... who cares!?!?
Why oh why didn't they trade Lidge to Cincy for Dunn and do this instead? Damn! Oh yeah, I forgot all about that "team speed" and "defense to help the pitcher" and "leadoff" stuff the Astros have been talking about all off-season. Man, I guess they would never do what I suggested no matter how much better my plan was... sans the team speed, lineup construction, defense and team building thingy stuff-a-macallit I'm not really paying attention to.
Oh well, thanks for the stroll down fantasy lane.
I don't remember, but I thought Lamb was the one who was getting key hits after key hits down the stretch and as I remember, he hit some key homeruns against St. Louis in the NLCS. But then again, working from faulty memory here.
Right, they didn't need a slugging middle of the lineup hitter at the trading deadline. They needed a better option for CF than Biggio, who was terrible. And it was for his defense that the Astros acquired Beltran. The offense became a need when Bagwell was hurting a bit and slumping. But that team did become a very nasty one with Beltran/Bagwell/Berkman/Kent and Lamb.
You have defensive stat numbers that show Berkman was "terrible"?!?! Get out of town! Please share... (this should be fun).
Well, the honest true is that many wild ideas are often throw out here (re: Bagwell to third, Biggio to catcher) so the idea of LEE/PENCE/SCOTT reminds me of whether is really *is* a bad idea to stick BERKMAN in CF. So perhaps not CF, would you accept RF? If so, let's go ahead and ask: Why not LEE/PENCE/BERKMAN (like it hasn't been wondered about out loud already in here): downgrade or better than LEE/PENCE/SCOTT?
Oh but you haven't heard who I want for first base, have you? I want LEE/PENCE/BERKMAN in the outfield... is that better than LEE/PENCE/SCOTT?
Too bad, sorry to hear that. Drayton hear some boos surrounding his cubicle one day?
I don't know protocol about talking with friends about stuff. You do know that it is possible (but not reasonable) to *watch* baseball and figure out what it is you're seeing
True. And I loved every minute of it. But he wasn't the best hitter down the stretch... Berkman was and Mike Lamb, Jeff Bagwell did a bit more in my view to help the team win with their hitting in the late months than Beltran. But boy was I very glad Beltran was on the team.
Man, what a good top of the lineup hitter will do for a team, eh?
One was not a legit CF, the other an inexperience one.
I have no idea what you're asking me.
Berkman was not a terrible CF. Neither is Pence. But neither is a CF and like I said, you can't settle for "average" in terms of a Minute Maid CF, it has to be good to great. Josh Anderson was the only legit CF on this team. But really, tell me, is LEE/BERKMAN/PENCE a downgrade from LEE/PENCE/SCOTT? If not and the reverse is true, why didn't the Astros just move Berkman to CF and have an outstanding offensive producing outfield?
It's your own logic, so don't back away from it.
Meaning he doesn't any more?
Except they went out and did what? Contacted Rowand and Hunter and then traded for Bourn... so the actions are in line with what?
"Pence is the likely CF starter as of right now, but he's not a great CF and we'd prefer to have him in right; Josh Anderson is the only other option we have at the moment, and we'd prefer not to start him at all; so let's go get a good CF."
There are also studies that indicate lineup order doesn't matter much one way or another.
And none of those change the fact that the Astros identified their needs as: pitching, speed, defense.
And why they contacted Rowand and Torii Hunter. People should pay attention: Josh Anderson was the only CF option so *THAT* is why they went shopping.
Oh gee, I thought we were talking baseball, not math. My bad. Best regards Cyril!
OPS, right? Cool, good for Beltran. Guess that's why he got over 100 million dollars the following off-season too.
Then keep up, m'kay. The Astros are executing a plan here and you may be missing it.
Not if you keep insisting that Scott vs Bourn is on the table. Scott is not a CF nor a leadoff.
You said this: "Bourn/Pence is a downgrade from Pence/Scott...
Because Hunter Pence is not a CF, he's a RF (actually, he's a LF at best, but we've discussed this ad nasueum already as well). Anyone with any attention span that can look up from a stat book for more than two minutes and watch Hunter play could see this. If Hunter Pence is an option for CF, then so is Lance Berkman (and neither one is). Shades of the days of "Bagwell should be moved to third" or "Biggio should be moved back to catcher!". Reality man, reality! This is Minute Maid Park we're talking about here too, so any team playing here for a majority of it's time has to have a good to great CF in the mix.
Look, it's really easy though: If Luke Scott is to play everyday, he has to beat out Carlos Lee or Hunter Pence for a corner outfield position, those are the two men that are in direct competition with him for a defensive and offensive position on the team. Both are corner men like Scott, both are middle of the lineup hitters like Scott (with Pence the fastest of the bunch regardless, so he can hit #2 just as easily too).
The supposed downgrade comes from where Scott will hit in the lineup once he either beats out those men or not. If he doesn't beat out either Lee or Pence, then whoever is hitting in his spot in the lineup better be a better option or else the Astros are making a huge mistake.
I happen to think Pence and Lee are better offensive producers than Scott. Heck, I can even forgive Lee for his really shaky defense in LF because of it. Do you like Scott more than Pence and Lee?
What is evident is that (following the logic of Cyril here) lineup construction as most baseball teams employs mean zero to you. You believe in a different mindset of lineup construction so you cherry pick just a whole bunch of guys who fit a certain OPS mold and go from there. Throw out three guys who are outfielders and place them out there because heck, it doesn't matter what CF or LF or RF means... OPS baby, that's the best TLA (Three Letter Acronym). The regard for lineup construction based on a really relaxed view of what is an outfielder that you have leads you to believe in unconventional views as to what the real *needs* are, but it's all fantasy man... fun with numbers type of stuff and not based on any reality whatsoever. Heck, CF means nothing. Three guys say they're outfielders... their OPS say so, so dangit, put 'em out there!
And then you expect us living in the real world to follow along as if it makes sense to us too.
*DING, DING, DING*. Eggszactly what he/she does *NOT* want to admit. He/she has a greater understanding of the needs on this team than the Astros (arrogance?), so he/she is just balking at the needs, not the trade per se. To ignore that Josh Anderson was the only other choice for leadoff/CF or a trade for Castillo and have that be your leadoff/2nd base... is to totally ignore the reality all around them and keep talking fanta-crap.
Cyril Morong? Is that the president of the local fantasy baseball league? (BTW - Beltran struggled during the season at the #2 spot, he didn't hit much... it was during the playoff run that he took off. And Beltran at #2 was a speed guy, so he's comparable to having Pence at #2, not Berkman).
Coach and Noe are spot on correct. The Astros are trying to build defensively up the middle. CF play is critical. Bourn can do things that Scott can't. Would you prefer Scott to Pence, because that is the real choice. I prefer Pence.
Can you explain this statement? (without using the letters O, P, & S sequentially)
Berkman at #2.
mind-boggling.
When backed into a corner with more logic then they can refute... try to distract them... I see my kids try it all the time... doesn't work for them either.
I'm not so sure it's a downgrade in offense. If he even posts a .350 OBP, that's better than a majority of major-league center fielders over the last several seasons.
Torii Hunter makes a gazillion dollars with a .324 career OBP.
In a word... bullshit.
In the imaginary world you have set up... who would have hit leadoff?
They needed a CF. They needed a leadoff hitter. Scott was neither of these things.
Lee was set in LF. They want Pence in RF. Therefore, unless the Astros are moving to the AL, Scott had no place in the lineup.
So how is his production "lost"?
Bourn will save more runs than Scott likely will.
How is the trade downgrading the offense at all? Lidge couldn't hit for shit and Bruntlett didn't play. The team didn't have a leadoff hitter and now it has someone who could fill that role. Where is the offensive downgrade?
.340 in limited playing time in the majors, .377 in the minors.
Lidge wasn't one the Top 10 closers in the National League last year.
http://www.rolaidsreliefman.com/
But unless you think the butterfly effect has wings, all of our discussions won't impact the Astros' decisions one whit.
Only if it means those "resources" can't be used for other purposes.
Yes, you would be right to say that "I think" because that is not what we've been talking about. It's what the Astros think that is important here and hence why they are doing what they're doing. They've said what they think are the deficiencies, they are now in a plan of action to fix it.
What you or I think matters very little because we don't own the club nor are the GM hired to make these decisions.
Pence, Lance, Lee are locks and not needing upgrade. There is nothing in the SS market better than everett that they can afford, and they have decided their catcher plan.
That means you can upgrade at SP(nothing good in this market), RP(linebrink would be great) 2B(as I said one of iguchi, loretta or castillo will be the OD starter), 3B(A-Rod ain't happening, and lowell is going to get huge money, plus wigginton was traded for to start at 3b) and one OF spot(tons of good CF options available in rowand, hunter, jones, crisp, cameron)
Also consider this is your rotation:
Roy and a combo of sampson, backe, wandy, gutierrez albers, patton, paulino, woody. After roy it's all about average at best. Also consider you have a thin farm system and no assets you can spare to upgrade the rotation via trade, plus how many stud SP's will ever see FA, not many. Santana won't see it next year, just like zambrano, etc.
If you want to win, and the astros do, you can't go into 08 with this pitching and that defensive outfield. You will see mediocre pitching results and the offense isn't good enough to overcome it. Now replace scott with hunter, rowand, cameron, jones, and perhaps crisp(he seemed to improve defensively in boston) and you lose nothing offensively if not potentially gaining a more consistent middle of the order guy(other than crisp who would fill the leadoff/number 2 hitter moving pence to 5th) but your outfield defense goes from below average overall to very good in one move.
Add a good defensive 2b like castillo or iguchi and your defense suddenly is in the elite, and can mask your average pitching, turning a blah team into a good one in one fell swoop. Not to mention it frees up scott as an attractive trade chip for the pitching help you need.
You can say it's not worth 10 mil to go from scott to one of the good CF's on the market because scott's OPS and theirs are similar, but that's foolish and not looking at the big picture. Your pitching isn't getting better anytime soon as the astros don't have the next Roy in their system right now, so eventually you will have to fix that OF alignment if you want to consistently win. And scott will go at that time as pence and lee are cornerstones of the franchise.
To get the complete OF they desperately need will cost 10 mil in any market, you might as well spend it now and make scott tradeable when he has good value, instead of waiting and potentially watching his value decline. Plus, you better your odds of winning and making your franchise an attractive free agent destination in the future. If you leave that outfield as is right now, with this staff, another losing season occurs, and free agents don't like playing for bottom dwellers.
I disagree. You have the immovable object in LF, and scott in RF is not very good either. Your CF on this team has to be able to not only cover the expansive CF in MMP, but help your corner outfielders with balls in the gap(protecting their shortcomings). Pence is not that kind of defender. Hunter/Rowand are, and Jones has been in the past. By replacing scott with hunter/rowand, you lose nothing offensively and possibly gain consistency, but you upgrade the range factor in CF/RF greatly. Not to mention you can then use scott as trade bait for the pitching you need as this year's pitching class sucks in the free agent pool.
Right now you have nothing you can afford to move for the pitching you need as scott is not expendable currently. Plus, if you roll with this staff as is, you can kiss a winning season goodbye with a defensive outfield of lee/pence/scott. This team needs to take a page out of the cardinals book the last few years, as they took average pitching and made it look above average with great defense. Sometimes spending the money is better than keeping the cheaper alternative depending on your roster makeup. This is one of those times.
I'm thinking the same thing. It's hard to explain "approach" to someone who is primarily interest is in "performance results". NTAWWT, but performance results oriented views tend to work backwards from that to an approach. Approach views work from that to the performance results. It's subtle, but it is what it is.
And again, there is no approach to hitting that I personally know of that says be selective on pitches down the middle of the plate. Except maybe in Bad News Bears and Mr. Buttermaker is asking you to don't swing and instead step into one.
Ensberg wasn't selective, he was tentative.
Orv Franchuk is the Astros minor league hitting coordinator, he used to be with Boston, here's what he's trying to teach,
"If they get the pitch they're looking for, they are going to put a good swing on it and if they do not get the pitch, they will remain selective and try to wait for it."
"…When players first start with us, it's almost like they think the philosophy means you need to take pitches and you need to walk …that is just a byproduct of our system. … "
"....the whole thing boils down to the batter being aggressive and the batter getting on base....Expand the strike zone some but do not concede the at-bat. …"
Link
The other thing is that Magadan is talking about Youkilis, Ortiz, and especially Ramirez. Those guys (maybe not so much Youkilis) don't let hittable balls go by. But on top of that they have Mike Lowell hitting behind them. He doesn't walk a lot, he hits .320. Who did Ensberg have hitting behind him? Nobody, except when he hit 2nd. And the Astros couldn't afford that. They also couldn't afford to have one of their better (potential) hitters looking at belt high fastballs just because they were an inch off the plate.
No. As Noe implied, Morgan was not ready to hit on every pitch. Morgan let a lot of pitches in the middle of the plate go by. Pitches that guys like Berkman, Lee, and Bagwell would have been swinging at. That's the big difference.
I love what Dave Magadan said in terms of the approach to hitting by the Boston Red Sox:
Magadan was a very good hitter with the Houston Astros (and New York Mets, but who is counting that part of his career? Not me, no.). The Houston Astros are said to have begun to teach their hitters in the minors the value of "patience" or "looking at pitches". The difference between what Morgan Ensberg did with that and what the Red Sox are doing is being ready to hit on every pitch, not necessarily working the count, but patiently letting pitches go that are not what they're looking for.
Jennings was awful when he was healthy, one of the worst pitchers in all of baseball last year.
Absolutely, you need a good center fielder in Minute Maid. Taveras is also a good base stealer. By trading him it left the team with no base stealer, no lead off man, and no center fielder. It weakened the team.
Mclane didn't hire the GM, Smith did. Smith has forgotten more statistical analysis than the candidates you're talking about.
Disagreeing is not "vitriol". Your opinions are lazy. Why would you think that the Astros were not aware of these candidates? Why did they chose who they choose? Because they're not as informed as you are?
You'd probably get a better reception if you did send your thoughts to Mclane. He seems more receptive to sloppy and lazy opinions. This may be just a "fan message board", but it's a fan message board that does not allow these types of posts to pass uncontested. Many appreciate this, some don't. Your opinion of the Wade hiring overlooks many carefully calculated aspects of the Astros position. The Astros management is not in the same position as are the Cardinals. We've discussed why in many other places. Some have been referenced in this thread.
"from the information available"
"uninspiring choice"
next time they'll check with you first
"from reading about"
and that makes you a fucking expert on GMs
why? what if they were looking for an established GM type, not some "rising star."
bitch, bitch, bitch
Wish in one hand, crap in the other...
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.
Huh?
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.
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.
No, that's what I have you for. I'm just the idea man.
BTW, what stats are we talking about here?
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. . .
He would be instantly better in CF than Pence, regardless of what zone ratings say.
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.
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, 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
My apologies if this is a big long... I think it might be.
Looking at the 2008 roster, and assuming no major trades of people like Berkman, Lee, Pence or Oswalt:
C:see below
1B: Berkman
2B:see below
SS: Everett (No I don't think A-Rod is even a remote possibility)
3B: Wigginton (as much as people like Lamb, he is probably better overall)
LF: Lee
CF: Pence/Addition
RF: Scott/Pence
So from a position player outlook there are a couple of things that need to be addressed. First and foremost is can they get a Lead-off/#2 type hitter. While this doesn't specifically address the defensive holes, it is the first question that needs to be answered for this team. You have to have stability in the top of your line-up to be a successful offense. Pence is OK at leadoff this year, but I think he would be a better #2 hitter if they can find another good option at lead-off... sounds like the same issues this team always had with Biggio leading off, but I digress. To me, the team needs to check in on Philly again. They have a couple of guys who could fill the bill as lead-off guys, but this would push Scott out of the line-up. I support the people who would like to see Scott be given a full season, and not have the rug pulled out after a bad month or so. He is pretty capable at batting in the 5/6/7 slot, not great, but doesn't suck either. But if it means getting a real CFer (not that Pence isn't trying), one who can lead-off... well I think that would be the reason to bump Scott to the bench. Barring that addition, there is ZERO reason to not give Scott 500-600 ABs in 07 in RF.
OK, now moving on to the holes I mentioned above. At Catcher, I just see the club re-signing Ausmus. I think there was a chance this would not be needed had Gimenez not gotten hurt this year and had a year to learn from Ausmus. But he did and he wasn't able to. So Ausmus is probably the best thing they could add at Catcher, even if he is moved to a back-up type role. Then comes down the choices to be the regular/split catcher with Ausmus: Gimenez, Munson, Quintero, Towles. I am going to throw out Towles just on the principle that he SHOULD get some more time at AA/AAA before being thrown into the fire. Munson is probably the best hitter of the bunch, and has improved behind the plate. I think the club has come to the conclusion that Quintero is a AAA/AAAA player. So I expect the battle for the other catching spot to be between Gimenez and Munson. Personally I think there is less than a 1% chance the team keeps a 3rd "catcher" type. So take your pick on who you think fills that role.
2B is more a question. The team would LOVE Burke to take that job. So far we have all witnessed him pissing that away. Even so, I think unless something falls in their lap (I think Loretta is leaving via FA), he is probably the opening day starter. Conrad in AAA was the primary 2B, IIRC, and he was not impressive. Ransom will likely be on the bench, but I am not sure his talent for 2B. And Bruntlett seems the only other candidate who would be likely to win the job (in house). So barring a trade for a 2B, which would be really nice if they could get one who could lead-off, I see Burke starting at 2B. No this doesn't make me happy, just seems the most reasonable.
I see Lamb and Loretta both being offered arbitration, but I think both leave via FA. I love both players for the roles they play, which to me is Lefty bench hitter and solid 3rd Middle Infielder who has a contact approach at the plate. I just think they will get better offers elsewhere. If I could keep only one of them, I would make a play for Loretta, whom I think should be batting #2 not #5 in the line-up when he plays. He would be a better fit at 2B, but eventually the team needs to either find out what Burke can do as an everyday player, or get rid of him.
So I see a final line-up like this:
C: Munson/Gimenez & Ausmus
1B: Berkman
2B: Burke (maybe Loretta)
SS: Everett
3B: Wigginton
LF: Lee
CF: Pence/Bourn?
RF: Scott/Pence
Bench: Ransom, Bruntlett, Lane, Anderson/Scott/FA
This gives you 13 position players. Which would allow for 12 pitchers, since so many seem to be going this way. If Loretta is kept along with Burke, I could see 14, or having Burke fill that last bench slot. I will write another really long post about the pitching staff later.
And just for laughs, if this is the line-up here is where I think they should bat (not that any one cares):
Burke
Pence
Berkman
Lee
Wigginton
Scott
Everett
Catcher
I don't know if it will take years to rebuild the farm or that it's a rebuild at the major league level either, just better play from these major leaguers to allow the Pattons and Towles and yes even the Pences to come up when ready and not rushed like they are right now. I can't really say if this is a bad team or a team playing badly per se. It is a team that has been hindered quite a bit with injuries most of the year (Oswalt, Jennings, Lidge, Everett, Scott) and under performance by those who were counted on to provide important performance (Ensberg/Lane/Burke/Berkman early on). In 2000, the performance of the team was very similarily affected (injuries: Wagner, Biggio, Alou, Reynolds, Powell and performance: Lima, Holt, Melusky). In 2001, the team got healthier and got better performances from different players. And they won the NL Central that year after the last place finish in 2000. The significant acquisition via free agent that offseason? Brad Ausmus. Jeff Bagwell called him the Messiah because he was supposed to be the reason the Astros turned it around... and they did.
Can the same thing happen again?
Yes, but it's not about entirely shipping out everyone and also about bringing in a ton of superstars either. It's about identifying where you got less performance than should be expected and where health really affected your team. Once you do that, then react to it and make the changes properly. Don't just go out and buy a brand new A-Rod because the fans say so.
Not what I meant to imply at all. The decision would come from observations by the pitching coach, Manager, and catcher.
Do you think the decision would have been the rookie pitchers?
You draw the line when he's tired and (a) not effective or (b) his mechanics are compromised, or (c) both...(b) usually begets (a).
JD said during the game that Francona called up to Epstein in the 8th or 9th to ask about a pitch limit. Theo said pull him at 120 pitches, no matter what.
He ended up at 115.
JD thought it was nuts... how could anyone think that 121 pitches is damaging but 115 is still OK.
He'd be walking in with his eyes wide shut then.
And McLane who has openly said that any organization that doesn't make changes for the sake of change is going to fail. Basically, I will fire people in order to keep things lively around here. Garner, Purpura, Dierker, Hunsicker, Hooton, Spillman, Gaetti, Hickey, Alan Ashby, David Lakey might think it's not so lively. Still tempting?
I asked about Forst's desire to be a GM over his own integrity now that it's all over the MLB that McLane and his cronies are hard people to work with. So do you think Forst is a person with such a desire to get such a job over his own personal integrity that he's stepping into a possible... *POSSIBLE*... losing proposition for himself?
Is he desperate or hungry and want to work with Pam Gardner.... errrr.... Drayton McLane. Wait, not work with... work *FOR* them. If this guy is good, he'll want no part of this circus. You'll have to wait and see, but they're going to go internally and promote from within.
"Moneyball" is an actual, coherent plan. A flawed plan, but a plan nonetheless.
I'd happily take that over what Drayton is preparing us for, which is pretty much the Bad News Bears, only sponsored by Successories instead of Chico's bail bonds...
you know, don't you, that scouts do not care one iota about a prospects numbers? they look at how he does things and how he approaches the game. they project that forward into MLB. they do not care one whit about his production in Bum Fuck Egypt.
approach is everything. without a solid approach, mixed in with talent, there will not be much chance at production.
You don't understand the point at all if this is what you've gotten out of this 10 page thread. Not one iota of understanding. Now move along.
you know, this is just crazy. have you ever coached your son or anyone? have you ever been coached what to do on the first pitch or 2-0 or 3-1 or down in the count with 2 strikes?
Cool. We'll mark you down for that and now, stop trying to confuse things or even change the opinion of those who do value "approach". We've done this a million times in here and I will say it yet again for the what 20 or 30 time in this thread... we'll end up at the same point every fucking time.
Nowhere.
This year, Lee's without question.
No. Now let it die because you obviously do not understand it. It's okay, you don't have to understand it either.
injury is a nice excuse for no plate discipline. sliders in the dirt are slowing him down. will he adjust?
It has nothing to do with the point that was made?
And you want both guys on your team and no one said otherwise.
Okay, here is your answer. What the fuck? Who said anything about choosing one over the other? Damn!
If it has to be said again and again and again about how good Berkman is with his ungodly talent to make you guys fucking read and understand one more time, I'm going to explode!!!!
Wandy is a better pitcher than Lance, but that doesnt mean anyone prefers Wandy on the team over Lance.
Relevance? Wouldn't you prefer Berkman looking to mimic the approach and apply it along with his significant talent to produce an even more effective hitter?
Hunter Pence was not hurt by a month in AAA. He still is a free swinger who needs to work heavily on plate discipline. He also takes some really bad hacks at the plate that make you scratch your head, and he like the entire team sans lee and loretta struggles with the idea of situational hitting.
The one thing saving him from a prolonged slump is his short quick stroke/bat speed.
because they've committed to putting burke at 2B to see how he does with a exntended period at his "natural" position.
The whole point of Pence being her ein the first place was because Burke could not in fact play CF with any modicum of success. So why wouldyou be putting him back there again?
really? burke can play both CF and 2B at the same time? brilliant fucking idea.
and i wont even come close to trying to explain the roster problems that might arise with calling up the others, since i have no idea how anyone understands that kind of arcana.
and that is a load of horseshit, the one thing lane has done consistently is be able to play D well.
What is wrong with Wiggy?
because injuries to both AE and Pence had nothing to do with Lane in CF in stupid ass make believe world, so why worry about finding solutions to them?
i'm sure he appreciates this and helps him sleep better at night.
Have a look at Chris Carpenter's career stats before he signed with the Cards. Some players need time before everything clicks.
Given what we've seen of Jennings last year and his performance in limited action this season, I think he's a potential gem-in-the-making.
Pitch counts aren't remotely the issue, breaking up the routine and going on short rest is the issue. Obviously, Garner and Roy are perfectly well informed in the decision making. It's just that the decision seems unorthodox, and no explanation has yet been offered, or even apparantly sought. The best I can guess is Garner (1) wanted to give Sampson another day for his calf to heal, (2) didn't want anyone to weaken the bullpen by giving Moehler or Borkowski a spot start (3) Purpura and Garner didn't want to make a roster move to bring someone up for the start, (which seems odd considering a roster move has to be made anyway due to Jennings trip to the DL) and (4) starting Roy on three days rest is not particularly risky, however unorthodox it might seem. That all might very well be the case, I would just like to see someone more informed than me give the explanation.
Quote:Quote:
Or the news that Derek Jeter and A-Rod have lost some of their ardor for one another?
I think Jeter is just toying with A-Rod at this point.
"I don't have a rift with Alex."
The story ends on this brilliant backhanded compliment:Quote:
"From Day One I've said I support Alex," he said. "The only thing I'm not going to do is tell the fans what to do. ... I don't think it's my job to tell fans to boo or not to do."
Well played, Derek. You twist that knife.
Quote:
Atlanta
Florida
NY Mets
Philadelphia
Milwaukee
Chicago Cubs
Arizona
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Francisco
San Diego
You're not helping him.
Quote:
That's what Chip Caray said on the air during a broadcast in 2003.
It was just as stupid as what Purpura said about Jennings today.
Before the trade, I thought we all agreed in here that Jennings would be nice as a servicable #3 or #4. Now, I'm to believe he's a #1 or #2 on any team in the league? C'mon Tim, that's just silly.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Get there early and sit at the bar in centerfield. You'll be right by the bullpen and will have better beer selection anyway.
I always thought the stools were reserved...
Would an hour early give us a reasonable shot at seats?
Tables are reserved, stools are wide open (at least they always have been in the past). One hour might do the trick, but on opening day nothing is guaranteed. Worth a shot though. If nothing else, you always have your regular seat guaranteed.
Quote:
Get there early and sit at the bar in centerfield. You'll be right by the bullpen and will have better beer selection anyway.
Quote:
I believe it's Feb 9. I called the other day about redeeming a gift pack I got for Christmas, and they mentioned Feb 9 as the day I could start redeeming them.
Quote:Quote:
Why can't somebody understand baseball and statistics at the same time?
"talk" baseball. Not "understand" baseball. Had a "what the fuck?!?!" moment reading that, eh?
Quote:Quote:
It would be fun watching the awkwardness on ESPN if the Yankees lost.
Stuart Scott and co. wouldn't know what to do with themselves. They would probably just re-run old Duke-UNC basketball games for a few weeks.
You're missing the point. If the Sox and Twins contest the ALCS, the Yanks have already lost. Egregiously. And before it can be a heroic loss. They would be simply one of MLB's also-rans who never made it.
Quote:Quote:
Man if Clemens goes back I'm going to be praying for an Astros-Yankees WS.
Why? I'd like to see a Red Sox-Twins ALCS.
Quote:
I just watched the Jennings press conference from today. He seems like a good guy. Apparantly he roomed with Everett during summer ball once, knew Berkman from playing against him in college. He grew up in Dallas idolizing The Old Man.
Jennings described himself as a "laid-back, hard worker, competitve, but nothing flashy." Purpura described his pitching approach consistent with the organization's overall philosophy: competitive, good mound presence, pounding the ball low, not giving in, staying with a plan, etc...
They haven't talked about an extension, yet, of course.
Quote:
Jennings pitched 212 innings last year - lets say 106 home and 106 away. A change of .5 in ERA over 106 innings is a difference of ~6 runs. That's what you're wringing your hands over?
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Jennings, 2004-2006:
Split ERA H/9 BB/9 HR/9 SO/9
-----------------------------------
Home 4.93 10.6 4.8 1.03 5.5
Road 4.50 8.9 3.5 0.83 6.3
Jennings, 2006:
Split ERA H/9 BB/9 HR/9 SO/9
-----------------------------------
Home 3.56 8.8 4.0 0.80 5.8
Road 3.97 8.7 3.2 0.65 6.2
In 2004, the Rockies and their opponents scored 41 percent more runs at Coors Field than elsewhere, and in 2005 they scored 29 percent more runs at Coors Field than elsewhere. That changed drastically in 2006, when they scored just 15 percent more runs at Coors Field than elsewhere. Coors Field used to play something like the Moon. Last season, it played more like Cincinnati, Kansas City or Phoenix.
Those 2006 numbers look awfully weird. H/9, BB/9, and HR/9 all went down and the S0/9 went up. Yet his ERA is .41 higher? Something doesn't compute for me (though I'm nowhere close to a stat freak).
His ERA was DOWN almost half a run
Huh? 3.97 > 3.56 last time I checked...
I don't think I was clear. I was talking about the home/road numbers in 2006. His road numbers were all better than his home numbers and yet his road ERA was .41 GREATER than home.
More K's, less walks, less homers, but higher ERA.
Means that when the ball was in play, he was hit harder away from Coors.
Maybe he's adjusted his game to fit into Coors?
Or that he had a very erratic defense behind him. Example: Derek Jeter will make a pitcher look like he gets hit harder than he does simply because he isn't a very good shortstop. Put a different shortstop behind the same pitcher, guess what!
He doesn't look the same statistically. Go figure.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Jennings, 2004-2006:
Split ERA H/9 BB/9 HR/9 SO/9
-----------------------------------
Home 4.93 10.6 4.8 1.03 5.5
Road 4.50 8.9 3.5 0.83 6.3
Jennings, 2006:
Split ERA H/9 BB/9 HR/9 SO/9
-----------------------------------
Home 3.56 8.8 4.0 0.80 5.8
Road 3.97 8.7 3.2 0.65 6.2
In 2004, the Rockies and their opponents scored 41 percent more runs at Coors Field than elsewhere, and in 2005 they scored 29 percent more runs at Coors Field than elsewhere. That changed drastically in 2006, when they scored just 15 percent more runs at Coors Field than elsewhere. Coors Field used to play something like the Moon. Last season, it played more like Cincinnati, Kansas City or Phoenix.
Those 2006 numbers look awfully weird. H/9, BB/9, and HR/9 all went down and the S0/9 went up. Yet his ERA is .41 higher? Something doesn't compute for me (though I'm nowhere close to a stat freak).
His ERA was DOWN almost half a run
Huh? 3.97 > 3.56 last time I checked...
I don't think I was clear. I was talking about the home/road numbers in 2006. His road numbers were all better than his home numbers and yet his road ERA was .41 GREATER than home.
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
I don't think you'll find anyone in the world who considers Buchholz anywhere close to an A level pitching prospect.
For what it's worth, Jennings was the 11th ranked VORP pitcher in all of baseball last season. Yes, it's just one season. But, the fact that his peripherals were good is encouraging because it appears this was more than being lucky (i.e. a lot of balls hit right at a fielder). Instead, his stuff became more effective.
Doesn't mean it's going to last, but it's a good sign.
The Link
If I knew what the fuck VORP was that would be a lot more comforting.
for pitchers (if i'm not mistaken) VORP is analagous to park-adjusted ERA, and does not consider peripherals or differentiate roles (like positions for hitter's VORP), so it's not as wholistic as the name might insinuate. for VORP, "value" is all about runs created and runs allowed. having trouble finding a good link for pitcher's VORP, but maybe somebody else can.
My head hurts.
But if you see a list that has Johann Santana at the top followed by Roy Oswalt, then keep looking at that list... it probably means something. That Jason Jennings is in there with the likes of Carpenter and Zambrano probably means something.
What? I don't know, it's like hyroglyphics (sp?) to me. But it's a list and his name is on it! Hooray List!
Quote:
This is about the 20th time I have heard that Lane may be platooned in RF with Luke Scott. I cannot think of a dumber idea than having a guy with a .247 lifetime average against lefties be a platoon player who mostly faces lefties. If somebody can think of something that makes less sense than that, I want to know about it. Lane hit .198 against lefties last season!
Quote:
Rosenthal's article says Hirsh is rumored to be included in the deal as well. Link
Deal breaker?
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
One issue I think is getting Jennings for 1 year versus Garland for 2 years, barring extensions.
(Do I have that right?)
But my sense is that Garland has a better track record, and has been more consistent.
Garland's park-adjusted ERAs have been better than league-average four of the last five years, Jennings in just two of the last five years.
Do you like his stats?
Low strikeouts, moderate walks and homers given up. His one "good" season came when his hits allowed took a dip, but then went back up last season as did his ERA.
Of course, factor in the league and the park and he could pitch great for Houston.
Check out his BB/K ratio over the last couple years. Looks pretty solid to me.
Quote:Quote:
One issue I think is getting Jennings for 1 year versus Garland for 2 years, barring extensions.
(Do I have that right?)
But my sense is that Garland has a better track record, and has been more consistent.
Garland's park-adjusted ERAs have been better than league-average four of the last five years, Jennings in just two of the last five years.
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.
Quote:Quote:
If you believe in the whole DIPS argument, pitchers don't really have much control over hits allowed. The main things to look at are strikeouts, walks, home runs allowed, and extra base hits allowed.
This is an overstatement. The argument is that pitchers don't have much control over the number of balls in play that are turned into outs.
Quote:
Well two major issues stand out with Westbrook.
1) He reaches FA 1 year prior to Lidge
2) His Hits/IP have been going in the wrong direction at a rapid rate the last couple of years.
No thanks!
Quote:Quote:
Yeah, Lane hit .201 last season. But it was an interesting .201. Look at the breakdown by month:
April .232 .394 .476 .870
May .154 .247 .295 .542
June .250 .379 .458 .838
July .211 .211 .263 .474
August .241 .361 .586 .947
September .129 .194 .226 .420
Bizarre. I'm not saying he's going to get it together next season, but if we get something good for Willy he's worth a shot in CF. I'd also like him in a platoon with Scott in RF.
If you ever bitch and moan about Ausmus or Everett hitting below .250, I'm going to hunt you down and beat your ass. Why is a corner outfielder not expected to hit the ball and score runs? How is Lane's lack of accomplishment acceptable? If the Astros get something good for Willy, which I'd like to say I want Willy to stay, then I would play Burke in CF before I would play Lane.
Quote:
Lane hit .198 last year against lefties.
Care to revise your statement?
Quote:Quote:
In Scott's lifetime experience in outfield, I imagine he's played outfield in parks that have left and right field roughly equal. I don't think his defence in right will be a very big problem.
And do you really think, regardless of your own opinions of the guy, that the Astros will give up on Ensberg at this point?
Do you know what my opinions are of Ensberg?
I think Lee's signing decreases the chances that the Astros will spend big money on Huff, which increases the chances that Ensberg will be playing third base for the Astros next season?
Quote:
If Clemens cared about "winning" instead of "money" he'd have signed with the Yanks or RedSox this June.
It's never about playing for a winner. It's about money. Sometimes its about your wife not leaving you.
Quote:
Explain how.
Quote:
Alright, I hope all you "offense first!" people are happy.
6 years and $100m for Carlos Lee is absolutely insane. IN sane.
Great. Now we're a team that will lose 8-6 instead of 8-4.
Now that you all got your wish.....who the fuck is going to pitch for us?
Quote:Quote:
As far as the Astros are concerned, if Huff is resigned I think Carlos Lee would be a better fit in the lineup. With Ensberg's power decrease, the lineup needs a right handed power hitter. Besides the lefty issue, the home/away splits are a concern.
I agree which is another reason I'd prefer Ensberg to Huff. A middle of the order of Berkman, Huff, Scott figures to struggle mightily against LHP and be susceptible to the opposing manager just bringing in a lefty reliever when those 3 come up.
A lineup with Ensberg, Berkman, Lee, Scott, Burke/Biggio 2-6 would seem to provide more balance.
Quote:
"BA is not useful." "RBI are not useful."
how do you YOU determine a hitter's value, Mr. Just
Registered Genius?
Dunn is anything but "an excellent hitter." power, walks and a K machine.
why has the TZ become trolls on parade?
Quote:Quote:
Come on man, I was just making a point. Just because baseball is a team game doesn't negate the fact that RBI's aren't a great way to determine ability. For the record, I think Dunn's H/R splits are a bit troubling. Still wouldn't mind having him on the team.
The ability to produce RBI, other than the RBI that accumulate from the intersection of SLG and team OBP, comes from the hitters approach to an atbat. Walking with a runner on second or taking the biggest cut possible isn't always helpful. The Astros had a problem with RBI, Garner thought it was because they took the wrong approach. He explained this here, The Link
Quote:
For a 4 hitter? I like the guy who hits the ball. The homeruns are good, especially if Ensberg is on base in front of him...But with all the Ks, the best thing you could say about him is at least he didnt dp. There is the theory that RBI is team dependent. Of course it is, baseball is a team game. When is that going to change?
Quote:Quote:
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but what are yall's thoughts on Patton's chances on pitching in the majors next year?
Is it the right place to ask it? Yes, but you should read through the rest of the discussions first to see if that question (or others you might have of) hasn't already been addressed recently. To wit:
The Link
