So I get in the car and Pence hits a bomb

[WulawHorn]

CP's show is now made for him


There really isn't a sport for him on the team in the OF that I can see.  Luke deserves his shot, you don't want him to be a bench guy, and Burke has deserved his shot imo.

I think a year of Triple A (or depth for this season) is good for him in his new position. I'm going to be excited/interested to see him when he does make his arrival.

Great spring so far for the kid.

[ASTROCREEP]

I think if he was a TRUE CFer he would make the team. But he needs to see some AAA pitching.

[No? in Austin]

Assume he's ready, assume the Astros think they can handle just going with the risk of letting him learn on the job while hoping for the great upside that will eventually be there with this kid.  Assume all that, throw abandon to the wind and assume away.

What do you do with Burke, Scott or Lane if one of them or two of them is now out of a job?  Trade?  Release?  What?  I haven't heard anything remotely making sense with those three players (forget Hidalgo for now).  No one tells me anything of any worth when it comes to what you would do with those three or two out of those three or even just the one who is on the outside looking in now if the assumption is that Pence has made the big club.  (Which is what I'm asked to assume now by many).

So tell me anyone, what is the reasonable thing to do with Burke, Scott or Lane?  It has been said over and over in here that the OWA *hates* Chris Burke.  That we want him collectively and as a charter of this site for him to fail and be gone for good!  Well, why is there not a hue and cry to replace Burke with Pence right now, right here and just release Mr. Peepers then?  And if we, as a site, also had such low standards as to want to play GM and just release Lane for the arrogance we have of knowing more than the actual GM, where is the hue and cry of wanting to insert Pence now and jettisoning Lane?  Where indeed!  Same with Scott.

In fact, what I've read in here is that it is prudent to give Lane, Scott and Burke their shot, so the options for Pence are almost non-existent.  But that is now translated as if we do not like Pence!  We, as a fansite, cannot win for losing (or something like that).  We obviously cannot fight the good fight of common sense because it gets twisted as our fansite charter to hate certain players.

So let the OWA bashing begin, we obviously hate Pence... right?

[WulawHorn]

I agree that he probably needs to see AAA pitching, but what does that have to do with him being a true CF or not.

I'm saying he needs to learn to play the postion as well down in the minors. Maybe I'm just slow and you didn't post a non-sequiter and I'm just not getting what you are saying....

[MusicMan]

Quote:
So let the OWA bashing begin, we obviously hate Pence... right?

We hate everybody.  All we want to do is piss in people's Cheerios, and their Wheaties if necessary.

Reality bites - ignore it and talk to the voices in your head!

[Bench]

I thought it was settled that Scott was moving to short.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
I thought it was settled that Scott was moving to short.

Nope.  He doesn;t strike out enough for a good-field/no-hit position.  I hear they are auditioning Jimerson there and plan to trade AE for a back-up catcher.

[Fredia]

also heard they where converting biggio back into a catcher.what is going on in here with the nasties?

[pravata]

Quote:
...Burke, Scott or Lane ... we obviously hate Pence... right?

You left out the guy we really hate, Craig Biggio.  Pence in CF, Scott RF, Burke 2B.  But no, Astros hate winning so they're playing Biggio just so he can chase a number.  A publicity stunt, winning is secondary.  Never mind that in 06, last game of the season, a playoff with St Loo on the line, must win situation, who plays 2b?  Chris Burke.  We're bastard covered bastards with a bastard filling.

[ASTROCREEP]

The Astros do not have 1 CFer close to the majors. Josh Anderson, Jimerson? Anyone else?

It would ne nice to have a back up to Burke, not that I like him in CF, he's just the best they got now. But what I've "heard" Pence is more of RFer.

Why I don't like Burke has nothing to do with the fact  that I played CF in high school and I consider it an insult that you can throw any speedy guy out there and espect him to be a pro-CFer.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
The Astros do not have 1 CFer close to the majors. Josh Anderson, Jimerson? Anyone else?

On the 40-man? Mike Rodriguez.

[Craig]

Quote:
We're bastard covered bastards with a bastard filling.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

[pravata]

Quote:
The Astros do not have 1 CFer close to the majors. Josh Anderson, Jimerson? Anyone else?

It would ne nice to have a back up to Burke, not that I like him in CF, he's just the best they got now. But what I've "heard" Pence is more of RFer.

Why I don't like Burke has nothing to do with the fact  that I played CF in high school and I consider it an insult that you can throw any speedy guy out there and espect him to be a pro-CFer.

Minor Opinions reports Pence played mostly RF for Corpus last season. The Link

[ASTROCREEP]

Quote:

Quote:
The Astros do not have 1 CFer close to the majors. Josh Anderson, Jimerson? Anyone else?

On the 40-man? Mike Rodriguez.

Rodriguez? Tell me more, Tell me more!

[WulawHorn]

Noe- I assume you are speaking generally about other's and not actually about what I wrote- correct?


If you were referring to me I must have been way more vague then I meant to be. I agree completely- Burke and Scott need their chance, Lane I'm fine with giving another chance, and Pence is not some guy you want on the bench right now, he needs seasoning playing a new position and seeing more/better pitchers.

I can't see a spot for him unless you are going to trade Burke- but then what do you do if Bidge craters/retires?  I guess Loretta is that much more valuable now, and maybe extend him or sign someone else next year.  I could be talked into this way of thinking, and I'd be ok with Burke getting traded if we can find something of value- but hot spring or not I'm not (if I were GM) ready to make that move at this point in  time based upon 13 spring trianing AB's.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
The Astros do not have 1 CFer close to the majors. Josh Anderson, Jimerson? Anyone else?

On the 40-man? Mike Rodriguez.

Rodriguez? Tell me more, Tell me more!

Calm down.  MRod isn't likely to ever be a major league starter.  What he can do is play all the outfield positions well.  He's got very good speed and is a good defender.  He's a light hitter who hit .276 with Round Rock last year. He impressed enough in 2006 to get a spot on the 40-man in the fall.  He could be a fourth or fifth outfielder one day.  Right now he's a fall back for outfielder injuries in Houston.  He'll likely play left field this year for Round Rock.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
The Astros do not have 1 CFer close to the majors. Josh Anderson, Jimerson? Anyone else?

On the 40-man? Mike Rodriguez.

Rodriguez? Tell me more, Tell me more!

3-for-9 with a dinger this spring.  Plays a decent CF and very fast (but does not have the arm of a Willy T or Jimerson; as such, he found himself in LF a lot at RR).  Doesn't have a lot of power or plate discipline, but is a decent contact hitter.  On the 40-man, but I would not expect him to be a long-term solution at the major league level (but then no team has actually approached me about taking over talent evaluation, either).

ETA:  What Jacksonian said ...

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Noe- I assume you are speaking generally about other's and not actually about what I wrote- correct?

Si. (Yes, and not about others, but about nobody in particular.  Sorry, I'm in mythbusting mode today, carry on)

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
The Astros do not have 1 CFer close to the majors. Josh Anderson, Jimerson? Anyone else?

On the 40-man? Mike Rodriguez.

Rodriguez? Tell me more, Tell me more!

3-for-9 with a dinger this spring.  Plays a decent CF and very fast (but does not have the arm of a Willy T or Jimerson; as such, he found himself in LF a lot at RR).  Doesn't have a lot of power or plate discipline, but is a decent contact hitter.  On the 40-man, but I would not expect him to be a long-term solution at the major league level (but then no team has actually approached me about taking over talent evaluation, either).

ETA:  What Jacksonian said ...

And is a very good top of the lineup hitter.  Can bat leadoff or second (perferrably second).  Can also hit at the bottom of the lineup.  He is a left handed hitter too, so he moves a runner over well if said leadoff guy is getting on base effectively.

Some things to like about M-Rod's game.  I do, talking strictly as a role player who can actually help this team if there was a place for him.

[Bench]

Quote:

Some things to like about M-Rod's game.  I do, talking strictly as a role player who can actually help this team if there was a place for him.

Speaking of which, it pains me to see Bruntlett squeezed out of a roster spot.

ETA: This is not to say that I am not ecstatic about Loretta. He has long been one of my favorite players and he is a perfect fit for this team. I will just miss watching Bruntlett.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Some things to like about M-Rod's game.  I do, talking strictly as a role player who can actually help this team if there was a place for him.

Speaking of which, it pains me to see Bruntlett squeezed out of a roster spot.

ETA: This is not to say that I am not ecstatic about Loretta. He has long been one of my favorite players and he is a perfect fit for this team. I will just miss watching Bruntlett.

Bruntlett's not happy either, John P. Lopez lets him talk The Link

"It doesn't really look like there's a spot for me," Bruntlett said. "I don't know how I can fit in with this team we have here." ..."They have an opportunity, they think, to get better. And if they think I'm not a part of that, then that's what they're going to do. Right now I'm totally in the dark."

..."They talk about defense," Bruntlett said. "In baseball in general, I think it's a lot of talk. We'll see by the end of the month how important it is."

..."It's going to come down to a dogfight for that one spot, whether it's an outfielder or whether we keep another pitcher," Garner said. "If we keep 11 pitchers (instead of 12), it makes it less problematic. We may not even make that roster move until the night before (opening day)."

[coop]

Quote:

..."It's going to come down to a dogfight for that one spot, whether it's an outfielder or whether we keep another pitcher," Garner said. "If we keep 11 pitchers (instead of 12), it makes it less problematic. We may not even make that roster move until the night before (opening day)."

When I read that quote, I believe that Bruntlett will still find himself with a spot on the roster.  I think the big question will be whether only one of Scott and Lane make the opening day roster or if both do, and that will come down to how many pitchers Garner decides to carry come OD.

[No? in Austin]

You don't need 12 pitchers on Opening Day.  You can get away with carrying 11 for a couple weeks, maybe three.  It has been somewhat a standard practice to send the #5 starter to the minors to get a turn in the rotation for a couple weeks before he's brought up.

I think they did this with Wandy Rodriquez last year if I'm not mistaken.  So when Scraps says an "extra" outfielder, I'm sure he means Bruntlett moreso than Lane.  I count five outfielders right now: Lee, Burke, Scott, Palmiero and Lane.  Bruntlett would, IMHO, constitute an extra outfielder because Loretta, Lamb and Quintero make up for the three infielders you carry.

Bruntlett is right though, if you want extra defense on the team, you keep him for the long haul.  If you want a power right handed bat off the bench, you keep Lane.

I see them carrying Bruntlett for a couple weeks before they have to make a decision on him.  He would need to pass through waivers if I remember correctly and he might not make it back to AAA if they tried to send him down at mid-April.

What may also happen is Garner changes his mind and believes that carrying the extra position player far outweighs the need for the extra reliever.  I figure it all depends on the makeup of the pen.  If you got guys who can pitch two to three innings each coming out of the pen (see: Borkowski and Sampson, maybe White), then you don't need to carry that many relievers.  But then you have this: Lidge, Wheeler, Qualls, Miller as one innings guys, Borkowski, Sampson and White as two inning guys.  That is seven, so if you carry five starters, you're at twelve guys.  It may mean either White doesn't make the club for the long term or Bruntlett has to worry because they will indeed carry twelve guys.  Sampson as a spot starter/spot reliever could change all that and cut down the need for a #5 and a long man all in one fail swoop.

I think this is what Garner wants to see if it works out that way.

[WulawHorn]

Noe- this post is directed at you only in the sense that you said it, not that you are incorrect, if that makes sense....

You said we could maybe get by with "only" 11 pitchers. I understand exactly what you are talking about, but I have to shake my head.  I'm only 28, but I remember in the good old days 10 pitchers was the norm, and it was wacky to carry an 11th.  That isn't all that long ago.

Now, the norm is 12 and if you carry "only" 11 it is different then the norm.

I liked the old way better. I consider having a pinch runner type more fun to the game situationally then a LOOGY.

Differnet strokes for different folks, but I hope the astros can get by on "only" 11 pitchers.

[No? in Austin]

The fact that starters are now monitored by pitch counts and are a very high investment made the old days of 10 relievers long gone.

Not long ago, it was not uncommon to get a four man rotation, have them all go well over 200 IPs for a season and also have  your relievers log well over 80 IPs themselves.  Now the norm is five starters, only a few log right at or near 200 IPs and relievers are kept at around 70 IPs.

So if you get less out of a pitcher, then you need more pitchers.  That is my fuzzy math on that one.

[WulawHorn]

Generally agree re the reasons behind going to a bigger bullpen.  

Though I can't say that I particularly remember the four man rotation- I only really followed the Giants when I was young (from 4 or 5 years old living in SF) and that was 83/84 or so.  Even still teams went with 10 or 11 in the 80's, but it wasn't as offensive a game, I think pitchers had more automatic outs and could cruise a bit more.

I'm almost positive that we had "only" 11 pitchers in most of the Dierk era- but could be wrong. He did, of course, believe in more innings out of his starters than is in vogue in much of MLB right now, so that made it doable.

Disrregard completely if we had 12 throughout his time, but I feel we did not.  Anyone remember for sure?

[Bench]

Quote:
You don't need 12 pitchers on Opening Day.  You can get away with carrying 11 for a couple weeks, maybe three.  It has been somewhat a standard practice to send the #5 starter to the minors to get a turn in the rotation for a couple weeks before he's brought up.

I think they did this with Wandy Rodriquez last year if I'm not mistaken.  

Last year, the April schedule worked out so there was an off day each week, and for the first three weeks the team could go with a four man rotation with each pitcher getting his regular rest. The team had the luxury of leaving Wandy to get more work done in extended camp/Round Rock as the season began.

This season, there as an off day week one, but they'll need a fifth starter the second time through the rotation. That won't be much of a reprieve for the odd position-player out.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
This season, there as an off day week one, but they'll need a fifth starter the second time through the rotation. That won't be much of a reprieve for the odd position-player out.

That is why Sampson is valuable as the fifth starter (or even Albers).  The fifth starter has to be someone who can start when needed or be a long man for a stretch when needed.  I think Scraps wants to have that flexibility with his #5 in order to avoid using two men for what could be a one man job.  If Sampson proves that he can jump from starter to long reliever and back again, he will win the #5 and Houston will only need 11, not 12 pitchers.  Sampson will count for two in Garner's scheme.

If Sampson can't, then you'll need a long reliever (or middle man) and a fifth starter.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

While acknowledging that everything posted before is reasonable and logical about team needs etc... I have to say, if I were Bruntlett, I'd be pissed.  He's done everything they've asked of him.   He's an outstanding utility player who has, when given regular at bats, hit reasonably well, or at least done what he is supposed to do.  

On the other side, you have Lane who, other than being an MVP at every minor league level he's been at, hasn't really produced consistantly at the major league level.  Does he have greater "potential" as an impact player?  Maybe, but what good does it do if he can't make the adjustments to succeed.  He can call and apologize all he wants.  It's not about liking someone more.  It's about who helps you win more games and I think that person is Bruntlett.

I'm generally reluctant to question or challenge the decisions of Purpura and Garner, and I am certain they'll have amply reason for whatever decision they make.  Simply put, I would hate to see them lose Bruntlett so they can give Lane yet another opportunity.  And yes, I realize I am professing my man-love for Bruntlett.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
This season, there as an off day week one, but they'll need a fifth starter the second time through the rotation. That won't be much of a reprieve for the odd position-player out.

That is why Sampson is valuable as the fifth starter (or even Albers).  The fifth starter has to be someone who can start when needed or be a long man for a stretch when needed.  I think Scraps wants to have that flexibility with his #5 in order to avoid using two men for what could be a one man job.  If Sampson proves that he can jump from starter to long reliever and back again, he will win the #5 and Houston will only need 11, not 12 pitchers.  Sampson will count for two in Garner's scheme.

If Sampson can't, then you'll need a long reliever (or middle man) and a fifth starter.

Definately. Sampson can fill that role perfectly. Let's hope he does.

Garner gave an interview a month or so ago where he said the most important spot to be determined by the 4th/5th starter competition was the long relief/swingman spot, given the fact that the tail-end of the rotation, and Woody, aren't likely to pitch deep into games on a regular basis. He said the best pitcher in the competition might just go there if he can handle that task well. Again, Noe, you are spot on.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
While acknowledging that everything posted before is reasonable and logical about team needs etc... I have to say, if I were Bruntlett, I'd be pissed.  He's done everything they've asked of him.   He's an outstanding utility player who has, when given regular at bats, hit reasonably well, or at least done what he is supposed to do.  

On the other side, you have Lane who, other than being an MVP at every minor league level he's been at, hasn't really produced consistantly at the major league level.  Does he have greater "potential" as an impact player?  Maybe, but what good does it do if he can't make the adjustments to succeed.  He can call and apologize all he wants.  It's not about liking someone more.  It's about who helps you win more games and I think that person is Bruntlett.

I'm generally reluctant to question or challenge the decisions of Purpura and Garner, and I am certain they'll have amply reason for whatever decision they make.  Simply put, I would hate to see them lose Bruntlett so they can give Lane yet another opportunity.  And yes, I realize I am professing my man-love for Bruntlett.

Well said.  Which brings me to my ardent hope for this spring.  I hope lane continues to tear up ST pitching and Scott demonstrates that he is ready to be the #1 guy in RF.  With Pence hovering just off-stage in RR, that makes somebidy expendable.  Bruntlett?  I suggest not ... he is just too versatile and too scrappy to let go.  However, the same teams who would not let Lane slip through waivers when he stunk may be willing to trade somethig of value for him when he is on a hot streak.  Maybe even a solid "cather of the future".  Or at least a "backup catcher of the present".

[Froback]

Just running over the roster possibilities in my head, I think Bruntlett is the odd-man out because of Loretta's addition and the 12-man pitching staff issues.

That being said, it is possible for Bruntlett to make the 25-man roster still, but it would require some form of trade(s).

This is how I broke down the roster (position players):

No questions:
Biggio
Berkman
Lee
Ausmus (but his shoulder scares me)
Everett

Almost locks:
Ensberg (only not if traded/injured)
Lamb (see Ensberg)
Quintero (best back-up C option)
Burke (Probably could be in above group)
Palmeiro (under contract all indicators he is safe)
Loretta (just signed, seems ideal Biggio back-up)

Border line:
Scott (Club trying to hand him the starting RF job)
Lane (I think Club would love to see him as 4th OFer)
Bruntlett (so versitle, that is his biggest strength)

Doubtful:
Pence (he has risen from no chance to doubtful this spring)
Munson (just not good enough behind plate, and with Ausmus shoulder...)
Hidalgo (would have been nice story, but bat speed is putrid)

I am sure I might have left off a couple of guys, but if you go with a 12-man pitching staff, as has been explained as to why by others here... Bruntlett looks to be odd-man out.  BUT it is possible that if Lane or Scott is traded (most likely for prospects, along with a RP or 2 that isn't going to make the 25-man) he could have a spot still.

But I just don't think the Astros are going to carry 14 position players, so either the club tries to float him through waivers to RR, or they work a trade to get "SOMETHING" for someone that they don't have room for this year.

Honestly it is a nice problem to have too many players you want and not enough spots for them, right?

[coop]

One thing about Scott is that if he continues to "struggle" in March, he might very well play himself out of not only a starting position but also out of the 25-man OD roster.  And I believe that he does have options left whereby he wouldn't have to clear waivers.  I really don't see it happening but it's very much another possibility.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
Just running over the roster possibilities in my head, I think Bruntlett is the odd-man out because of Loretta's addition and the 12-man pitching staff issues.

That being said, it is possible for Bruntlett to make the 25-man roster still, but it would require some form of trade(s).

This is how I broke down the roster (position players):

No questions:
Biggio
Berkman
Lee
Ausmus (but his shoulder scares me)
Everett

Almost locks:
Ensberg (only not if traded/injured)
Lamb (see Ensberg)
Quintero (best back-up C option)
Burke (Probably could be in above group)
Palmeiro (under contract all indicators he is safe)
Loretta (just signed, seems ideal Biggio back-up)

Border line:
Scott (Club trying to hand him the starting RF job)
Lane (I think Club would love to see him as 4th OFer)
Bruntlett (so versitle, that is his biggest strength)

Doubtful:
Pence (he has risen from no chance to doubtful this spring)
Munson (just not good enough behind plate, and with Ausmus shoulder...)
Hidalgo (would have been nice story, but bat speed is putrid)

I am sure I might have left off a couple of guys, but if you go with a 12-man pitching staff, as has been explained as to why by others here... Bruntlett looks to be odd-man out.  BUT it is possible that if Lane or Scott is traded (most likely for prospects, along with a RP or 2 that isn't going to make the 25-man) he could have a spot still.

But I just don't think the Astros are going to carry 14 position players, so either the club tries to float him through waivers to RR, or they work a trade to get "SOMETHING" for someone that they don't have room for this year.

Honestly it is a nice problem to have too many players you want and not enough spots for them, right?

I doubt that Bruntlett would clear waivers.  He may not have a high ceiling, but he has established both versatility and consistency.  Defensively, he is probably on par with Lane in the OF and an upgrade on Loretta in the middle infield role.  He can steal a base and has great plate discipline with line-drive ability.  He bunts well and is a savvy base-runner.  And he would probably be willing to be the 3rd catcher if asked.  No ... I'm not suggesting he should be asked ... only commenting on his attitude.

Lane on a hot streak would certainly be a better option ... especially with the IF covered by Loretta.  But Lane's cold streaks can be frigid!  I'd really like to see him succeed, but if I had to choose between Lane & Bruntlett for the last roster spot, I'd sure be shopping Lane hard right now.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Just running over the roster possibilities in my head, I think Bruntlett is the odd-man out because of Loretta's addition and the 12-man pitching staff issues.

That being said, it is possible for Bruntlett to make the 25-man roster still, but it would require some form of trade(s).

This is how I broke down the roster (position players):

No questions:
Biggio
Berkman
Lee
Ausmus (but his shoulder scares me)
Everett

Almost locks:
Ensberg (only not if traded/injured)
Lamb (see Ensberg)
Quintero (best back-up C option)
Burke (Probably could be in above group)
Palmeiro (under contract all indicators he is safe)
Loretta (just signed, seems ideal Biggio back-up)

Border line:
Scott (Club trying to hand him the starting RF job)
Lane (I think Club would love to see him as 4th OFer)
Bruntlett (so versitle, that is his biggest strength)

Doubtful:
Pence (he has risen from no chance to doubtful this spring)
Munson (just not good enough behind plate, and with Ausmus shoulder...)
Hidalgo (would have been nice story, but bat speed is putrid)

I am sure I might have left off a couple of guys, but if you go with a 12-man pitching staff, as has been explained as to why by others here... Bruntlett looks to be odd-man out.  BUT it is possible that if Lane or Scott is traded (most likely for prospects, along with a RP or 2 that isn't going to make the 25-man) he could have a spot still.

But I just don't think the Astros are going to carry 14 position players, so either the club tries to float him through waivers to RR, or they work a trade to get "SOMETHING" for someone that they don't have room for this year.

Honestly it is a nice problem to have too many players you want and not enough spots for them, right?

I doubt that Bruntlett would clear waivers.  He may not have a high ceiling, but he has established both versatility and consistency.  Defensively, he is probably on par with Lane in the OF and an upgrade on Loretta in the middle infield role.  He can steal a base and has great plate discipline with line-drive ability.  He bunts well and is a savvy base-runner.  And he would probably be willing to be the 3rd catcher if asked.  No ... I'm not suggesting he should be asked ... only commenting on his attitude.

Lane on a hot streak would certainly be a better option ... especially with the IF covered by Loretta.  But Lane's cold streaks can be frigid!  I'd really like to see him succeed, but if I had to choose between Lane & Bruntlett for the last roster spot, I'd sure be shopping Lane hard right now.

Not only would Bruntlett not clear waivers, he'd likely be easy to trade.  With "not shabby" players getting $100 million, as Noe pointed out a while back, these versatile, effective, cheap, utility players are going to be a hot commodity to fill in the gaps. (by the way, I think Bruntlett is the emergency catcher.)

[homer]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just running over the roster possibilities in my head, I think Bruntlett is the odd-man out because of Loretta's addition and the 12-man pitching staff issues.

That being said, it is possible for Bruntlett to make the 25-man roster still, but it would require some form of trade(s).

This is how I broke down the roster (position players):

No questions:
Biggio
Berkman
Lee
Ausmus (but his shoulder scares me)
Everett

Almost locks:
Ensberg (only not if traded/injured)
Lamb (see Ensberg)
Quintero (best back-up C option)
Burke (Probably could be in above group)
Palmeiro (under contract all indicators he is safe)
Loretta (just signed, seems ideal Biggio back-up)

Border line:
Scott (Club trying to hand him the starting RF job)
Lane (I think Club would love to see him as 4th OFer)
Bruntlett (so versitle, that is his biggest strength)

Doubtful:
Pence (he has risen from no chance to doubtful this spring)
Munson (just not good enough behind plate, and with Ausmus shoulder...)
Hidalgo (would have been nice story, but bat speed is putrid)

I am sure I might have left off a couple of guys, but if you go with a 12-man pitching staff, as has been explained as to why by others here... Bruntlett looks to be odd-man out.  BUT it is possible that if Lane or Scott is traded (most likely for prospects, along with a RP or 2 that isn't going to make the 25-man) he could have a spot still.

But I just don't think the Astros are going to carry 14 position players, so either the club tries to float him through waivers to RR, or they work a trade to get "SOMETHING" for someone that they don't have room for this year.

Honestly it is a nice problem to have too many players you want and not enough spots for them, right?

I doubt that Bruntlett would clear waivers.  He may not have a high ceiling, but he has established both versatility and consistency.  Defensively, he is probably on par with Lane in the OF and an upgrade on Loretta in the middle infield role.  He can steal a base and has great plate discipline with line-drive ability.  He bunts well and is a savvy base-runner.  And he would probably be willing to be the 3rd catcher if asked.  No ... I'm not suggesting he should be asked ... only commenting on his attitude.

Lane on a hot streak would certainly be a better option ... especially with the IF covered by Loretta.  But Lane's cold streaks can be frigid!  I'd really like to see him succeed, but if I had to choose between Lane & Bruntlett for the last roster spot, I'd sure be shopping Lane hard right now.

Not only would Bruntlett not clear waivers, he'd likely be easy to trade.  With "not shabby" players getting $100 million, as Noe pointed out a while back, these versatile, effective, cheap, utility players are going to be a hot commodity to fill in the gaps. (by the way, I think Bruntlett is the emergency catcher.)

 I thought Burke was the emergency catcher.

[Lefty]

The Chin cleared waivers last year, no?

Something I learned about Lane recently:

Career as a PH

~.300 BA, .900 OPS in over 80 PA's.

That surprised me a bit.

[pravata]

Quote:
The Chin cleared waivers last year, no?

...

he did, in August.

08/02/2006   Bruntlett has one option left on his contract, but because he has more than three years of Major League service time, he had to first clear waivers before the club could demote him. When no other club claimed Bruntlett, the Astros had clearance to send him to Round Rock.
The Link

I think he might be more attractive to a team beginning a season.

[Lefty]

Quote:
I think he might be more attractive to a team beginning a season.

True.

I guess Burke would be a good fit in a quasi-Bruntlett/4th OF role if the Stros roll the dice with Pence in CF.  I would just hope that the fan uproar plays as little into the decision as possible.

Seeing the current flavor of the month take a job from last year's flavor of the month (Scott) or the '05 flavor of the month (Burke) or the '04 flavor of the month (Lane) would be kinda funny to see.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Seeing the current flavor of the month take a job from last year's flavor of the month (Scott) or the '05 flavor of the month (Burke) or the '04 flavor of the month (Lane) would be kinda funny to see.

Out-Freaking-Standing!  Verrah nice.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I think he might be more attractive to a team beginning a season.

True.

I guess Burke would be a good fit in a quasi-Bruntlett/4th OF role if the Stros roll the dice with Pence in CF.  I would just hope that the fan uproar plays as little into the decision as possible.

Seeing the current flavor of the month take a job from last year's flavor of the month (Scott) or the '05 flavor of the month (Burke) or the '04 flavor of the month (Lane) would be kinda funny to see.

Do you think any sports talk personality  in Houston (I'm avoiding the word reporter here, AF excluded) realizes that this is what they are doing?

[Lefty]

Quote:
Do you think any sports talk personality  in Houston (I'm avoiding the word reporter here, AF excluded) realizes that this is what they are doing?

I don't think they remember what was said last month, much less last year & beyond.

If they didn't shape public opinion, I wouldn't give 2 shits what they thought.  As it is, I have to put up with their crap at games, at bars & elsewhere.  I enjoy talking baseball, the preponderance of idiots kinda puts a damper on that.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Something I learned about Lane recently:

Career as a PH

~.300 BA, .900 OPS in over 80 PA's.

That surprised me a bit.

Kind of reminds me of Daryle Ward in a sense.  Ward once hit 20 homeruns as a pinch hitter for the Houston Astros, so the thinking was if he was given a full time gig in left field, he would hit 40 homeruns.  So opening day comes around the following season and Ward is now the everyday left fielder for the BallPark at Union Station Nine.  He summarily hits a massive homerun for the Astros that day and the crowd is going hog-wild!  I was riding home to Austin after the game in the Nashmobile with the Raups and Andyzipp.  I kid you not, we are listening to the post-game show and someone calls and says the following (paraphrased):

"Hoooooooooo-we! (must of been from Arkansas)... what'd I tell ya Tom!  (Tom Franklin was the guy handling the calls).  WHAT DID I TELL YA!  That Daryle Ward is going to be a superstar and hit a ton of homeruns this year.   If the Astros were smart, they'd get rid of that Lance Berkman kid and get some relievers or even a bucket of balls... he's no good.  Stop trying to platoon Ward and Berkman, get rid of Lance... he ain't no good!"  *click*

We were left speechless for a moment and then all we could hear was Andyzipp dialing his cell phone to call Franklin to let him know that guy was a freaking moron!  But by the time Andy got on, there were already about ten others saying the same thing the previous caller said: Ward = superstar, Berkman = so-so major leaguer, can't run, can't play defense, never amount to a hill of beans.

And Franklin listened to them too instead of telling them all they were just FOS!  I was amazed and saddened by it all.  The point is, Daryle Ward has his niche as a hitter if he is used correctly.  He isn't a starter, he's a hitter.  But his limitations are that the more he's exposed as a full time player, the less productive he is.  Lance Berkman is just a player, plain and simple.

Where Lane seems to be heading is to the role of the power right handed bat off the bench who can start on occasion... and help this team win.  Gunther Pence may be like Lance and a flat out player, we shall see in the future (near or distant, but we shall see).  But for now, I'd pencil in Lane as the fifth outfielder, power right handed bat off the bench and that is a very good thing.

[pravata]

Quote:
...And Franklin listened to them too instead of telling them all they were just FOS!  ...

No one will learn unless someone cares enough to tell them they are wrong.

[strosrays]

Quote:
I'm only 28, but I remember in the good old days 10 pitchers was the norm, and it was wacky to carry an 11th.  That isn't all that long ago.

Now, the norm is 12 and if you carry "only" 11 it is different then the norm.

The change was gradual, and started sometime in the mid- 1980's I think, in the NL anyway.  By the early 1990's, the "five-man rotation" was firmly entrenched.  And the 11-, 12-, even 13-man staff was soon to follow.

Quote:
I liked the old way better. I consider having a pinch runner type more fun to the game situationally then a LOOGY.

Not only pinch-runner types, but late-inning defensive replacements and more straight platoons.  You'd think owners and GMs would catch on that trying to get back to an 11- or 10-man staff might even drive down payroll (if you have to hit them between the eyes with something they all understand.)  Ditch one or two overpaid "situational" relievers, and replace them with role players off the bench.  That gives the manager a little more leeway late in games, plus if you take two potentially full-time but flawed players, for instance Lane and Scott, and glue them together as your RF, you 1.) potentially save money, using my theory that salary for two part-time OFs < salary for each one individually as a potential full-time starter; and 2.) get a pretty good RF by starting Lane against LHPs and Scott against RHPs.  Lane could get additional ABs resting the other regular OFs against RHPs, as his platoon differential isn't all that great, and Scott would be able to do his thing against RHPs, who he hits far better than lefties.  On days LHPs start, he could be your left-handed PH off the bench.

Those two may not be the best example, but you get the idea.  If you go with the theory that there are alot more available inexpensive role players out there than there are expensive guys who can "do it all', platooning often can be a more efficient way to deploy your resources, including salary.

There is less platooning today because of the bullpen's hegemony on roster spots mean less guys on the bench; but it is kind of a chicken-and-egg thing.  Another reason there is less platooning is because there is less need to.  In the 1960s-1980s, left-handed pitchers started roughly 30-35% of games.  I'd be very surprised if today the percentage isn't significantly less.  

I am not sure why that is.  Off the top of my head, I would think the emphasis on hard-throwing, high K starters might have something to do with it.  Purely subjectively, it seems to me there are alot fewer what used to be called "crafty left-handers" around than there used to be.  In the old 4-man rotation days (which is a misnomer, BTW - see below), for every Koufax or Carlton, there were 10 Tommy Johns or Wilbur Woods (or Bob Kneppers.)  Since there are less lefties overall in the population, there are going to be a lot less LH flamethrowers to choose from anyway, and add to that some of those portsiders who can 'bring it' are siphoned off to specialty roles in the bullpen.  

Most teams used to have at least one lefty starter, and some teams had three or even four.  For awhile in the late 70s, the Pirates had Jerry Reuss, John Candelaria, and Jim Rooker in their rotation; the Phillies had Carlton and Randy Lersch and Jim Kaat; and Montreal had Ross Grimsley, Rudy May, Dan Schatzeder, and Woodie Fryman starting for them.  The Astros would go on an Eastern swing, and you might not see a LH hitting platoon guy like Denny Walling for a week or more.

BTW, the term 'four-man rotation' is kind of misleading, at least as far as I recall.  There were wide variations on the model, but most teams had maybe two or three top starters - at least one guy who could go on three days rest all season long, and maybe one or two others who could get by okay alternating between three and four days off.  So if you go back and look, you will often find teams with two or three guys with 30+ starts, and then a couple with 15-18, maybe a couple of other guys with 7-10 each.  The manager wanted to get his best pitchers out there as often as possible, of course, so of the top three, as an example, anytime one of those guys had the proper rest, he got the start.  The 4th and 5th starters got bumped all the time.  The 4th guy might be a gifted younger pitcher who was being eased into the MLB workload, and I don't think a fifth starter was even a recognized concept.  That pitcher was your 'swing-man', a guy who could occasionally give you long relief (one thing they did differently back then was pull a starter a lot quicker than now if he was getting shelled - they didn't leave him out there until he got his 100 pitches in), or 'spot start' when needed.  A difficult role to fill, and those were valuable guys, even though they might only pitch in 25-30 games a season, combined.  

The guys with 7-10 starts were usually primarily relievers who started in doubleheaders.  Teams used to have 10-12 doubleheaders a year on the schedule, and then many rainouts were also made up as unscheduled twin bills.  The most I ever saw were one of the Brewer teams from the early 1970's that had something like 25 doubleheaders.  Think about that.  The strategy was to use one "good" starter in one of the games, and then roll the dice with a reliever in the other.  Using two of your prime starters in one day would screw you twice on days rest down the line.  The equivalent today would be starting Oswalt in game 1, and Qualls or Wheeler or someone like that in Game 2.

Then there were the early to mid-1970's Dodgers, who some years only had 5 or 6 different guys start games all year.  They could probably have got by with an eight-man staff for limited stretches.  The Orioles staffs with McNally, Cuellar, Palmer and a rotating 4th guy used to pitch so many innings Earl Weaver had trouble getting the Orioles relievers enough work.  The Orioles often went with a nine-man staff; and Weaver was one of the first managers to use his bullpen guys in short 1 or 1 2/3 inning stints almost exlusively; because with starters like that, he could afford to, and it helped keep his pen from getting too rusty.

If a starter got "knocked out of the box", he might start again the day after next.  Or, if he was a lefty, he might be used as the early prototype of a LOOGY in a game prior to his next turn in the rotation.  Guys like "Sudden" Sam McDowell or Kaat might have 7 or 8 relief appearances in a season, in addition to 35+ starts.  A lot of those relief appearances were of the 1/3 or 2/3 inning variety, though, on days the pitcher would be throwing between starts anyway, so there was logic behind it, and it didn't seem to bother the pitcher all that much.

When I think back, it is amazing to me how much the strategy and makeup of an MLB staff has changed in the last 30-40 years.

[strosrays]

Quote:
Kind of reminds me of Daryle Ward in a sense.  Ward once hit 20 homeruns as a pinch hitter for the Houston Astros, so the thinking was if he was given a full time gig in left field, he would hit 40 homeruns.  So opening day comes around the following season and Ward is now the everyday left fielder for the BallPark at Union Station Nine.  He summarily hits a massive homerun for the Astros that day and the crowd is going hog-wild!  I was riding home to Austin after the game in the Nashmobile with the Raups and Andyzipp.  I kid you not, we are listening to the post-game show and someone calls and says the following (paraphrased):

"Hoooooooooo-we! (must of been from Arkansas)... what'd I tell ya Tom!  (Tom Franklin was the guy handling the calls).  WHAT DID I TELL YA!  That Daryle Ward is going to be a superstar and hit a ton of homeruns this year.   If the Astros were smart, they'd get rid of that Lance Berkman kid and get some relievers or even a bucket of balls... he's no good.  Stop trying to platoon Ward and Berkman, get rid of Lance... he ain't no good!"  *click*

Arkansas, or maybe Beaumont.  After his big season, I was one who thought Ward, playing full-time, at Enron, would hit 35 HRs easy, maybe be a .280/.350/.550 guy on a consistent basis.  Nowadays I blame this on the fact the transmission got garbled passing through my tinfoil hat, and it was Richard Hidalgo I should've been bestowing those projections upon.

In my defense, I never thought getting rid of Berkman was a good idea, but I remember those sort of either-or arguments going around, with Berkman often getting the short end of the stick.  All I can say is, THANK GOD the front office pays no attention to us.  Praise Jah, or Haile Selassie, or somebody.  

Gerry, maybe.

[Lurch]

Strosrays,
Good read, thank you.  The closer role plays into this as well, correct?  Hasn't it changed dramatically in the last 20 years, basically creating a "need" where there wasnt one previously?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Strosrays,
Good read, thank you.  The closer role plays into this as well, correct?  Hasn't it changed dramatically in the last 20 years, basically creating a "need" where there wasnt one previously?

Me no stros-rays (and he is very happy about that too!), but yes, the closer role is a fairly recent development in the MLB.  Goose Gossage, for instance and Dennis Eckersley, are considered the forerunners of what became the closer role.  However, they were not true closers in what we would today consider closers.  Maybe Eck was close to what we call a closer, but certain Goosage had much difference from the modern day closer.  He pitched more innings, went out there longer, took on 7th and 8th inning responsibility more than what a closer would do nowadays, and so on.

So even when we talk of "closers" in the MLB, we're going to have to qualify the version(s) of each that has finally settled into the one inning, get three guys out in the ninth variety we have today.

[strosrays]

Quote:

Quote:
Strosrays,
Good read, thank you.  The closer role plays into this as well, correct?  Hasn't it changed dramatically in the last 20 years, basically creating a "need" where there wasnt one previously?

Me no stros-rays (and he is very happy about that too!), but yes, the closer role is a fairly recent development in the MLB.  Goose Gossage, for instance and Dennis Eckersley, are considered the forerunners of what became the closer role.  However, they were not true closers in what we would today consider closers.  Maybe Eck was close to what we call a closer, but certain Goosage had much difference from the modern day closer.  He pitched more innings, went out there longer, took on 7th and 8th inning responsibility more than what a closer would do nowadays, and so on.

So even when we talk of "closers" in the MLB, we're going to have to qualify the version(s) of each that has finally settled into the one inning, get three guys out in the ninth variety we have today.

All true.  The "early" closers like Gossage and Rollie Fingers did pitch more innings per appearance.  Probably wrongly, but I sometimes think of the modern day closer as a sort of hothouse flower, who can only thrive with a two- or three-run lead, bases empty, and three outs to get.  It drives me crazy when one of these guys is run out there with a ten-run lead, just to get some work in, and gets rocked for three or four runs in an inning-and-a-third.  Very often the pitcher and/or the press intimate this guy is a specialist, he can't pitch in a situation like that.  They seem to blame the manager for putting him in.  Crazy.

Lidge is a pretty good comp for Gossage in one way - he was a guy with alot of heat who was a starter but couldn't cut it because of injuries (Lidge) or wildness or ineffectiveness (Gossage) and was put in the bullpen.  Only Lidge doesn't often go 2 to 3 innings at a stretch, unless it is the playoffs.  Both Gossage and equally hard-throwing lefty Terry Forster, who thanks to David Letterman is mostly remmebered now as a "fat tub of goo", came up with the White Sox as starters.  So did Rollie Fingers with the A's.  It was only after a few years of exasperation were these guys moved to the pen.

One way to look at it is that in Gossage's day, a top reliever (they were called "firemen" more than "closers") would be brought into a tight situation as early as the 6th or 7th inning.  He was expected to put out the "fire", and then preserve the lead to the end of the game.  Now a guy is brought in according to the parameters of the save rule.  How many times have you seen a team going into the ninth, with a three-run lead and their closer heating it up in the bullpen, score an insurance run to make the lead four, and then sit down the closer and bring in some other guy to finish it out?  The only reason to do that is if you are paying more attention to whether your guy will qualify for a save than just getting the game closed out.  That's crazy, to me.  But it is the norm.

The bullpen used to be the refuge of failed starters, mostly.  Now they groom these guys to go 1 inning an appearance, from the low minors.  Its just a different approach.  BTW, I think Eckersley under LaRussa in Oakland was probably the first true modern closer (brief appearances, high save totals); except I don't remember him being babied much.  But even he wasn't moved to the pen until it was a last resort - his career as a starter was washed up, and the A's had lost their top fireman mid-season of 1987(?) and needed a quick replacement.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[Lefty]

Quote:
But for now, I'd pencil in Lane as the fifth outfielder, power right handed bat off the bench and that is a very good thing.

This was exactly my thinking, which led me to look up his splits vs R/L & as a PH.

If any one of Burke/Scott/Lane get hurt or falter by around late May, you've hopefully got the Great White Hype tearing it up in AAA & ready to go.  But then again, maybe I'm just not "serious about competing in Major League Baseball".

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:
But for now, I'd pencil in Lane as the fifth outfielder, power right handed bat off the bench and that is a very good thing.

This was exactly my thinking, which led me to look up his splits vs R/L & as a PH.

If any one of Burke/Scott/Lane get hurt or falter by around late May, you've hopefully got the Great White Hype tearing it up in AAA & ready to go.  But then again, maybe I'm just not "serious about competing in Major League Baseball".

If Lane is coming off the bench, I'm curious as to what the benchmark for him "struggling" is going to be since he'll have less ABs to judge his performance on.

[Reuben]

I imagine it would be as simple as whether he is having good ABs and hitting the ball hard. If he can duplicate what he did coming off the bench from 2002-04, I think they'll be quite happy.

[Reuben]

 

Quote:
All true. The "early" closers like Gossage and Rollie Fingers did pitch more innings per appearance. Probably wrongly, but I sometimes think of the modern day closer as a sort of hothouse flower, who can only thrive with a two- or three-run lead, bases empty, and three outs to get. It drives me crazy when one of these guys is run out there with a ten-run lead, just to get some work in, and gets rocked for three or four runs in an inning-and-a-third. Very often the pitcher and/or the press intimate this guy is a specialist, he can't pitch in a situation like that. They seem to blame the manager for putting him in. Crazy.
__

Exactly, let alone a tie game or god forbid if the closer's team is  losing by a run or two. If you're not already familiar with it, there's a great bit in Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract where he dissects the "evolution" of the closer, defining the characteristics of the "Hoyt Wilhelm era" or the Gossage, Sutter, Robb Nen eras, and tries to asses which type actually got the best value out of their closer (I forget which, but it was definitely not the modern-day type). When the Red Sox had Keith Foulke in 2004 you saw them employ a lot of that logic- especially in the playoffs, he had several extended appearances in "non-save" situations, and was brilliant, maybe their playoff MVP. (then again, you could argue that he was overused, and thenceforth ruined.)

[Rebel Jew]

Strosrays (and Noe too)-- this is tremendous reading.  I've read too many articles on similar topics over the web in recent years ruined or just hard to take seriously because of their overly stats-based approach to historical interpretation.  You've mixed anecdotes with facts, and added a keen analytical approach that all adds up to a deep insight into this issue, and a valid modern comparison.

Anyway, sorry if I sound like a teacher giving you a good grade on a research paper, but I really enjoyed reading all this.

Thanks.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Strosrays,
Good read, thank you.  The closer role plays into this as well, correct?  Hasn't it changed dramatically in the last 20 years, basically creating a "need" where there wasnt one previously?

Me no stros-rays (and he is very happy about that too!), but yes, the closer role is a fairly recent development in the MLB.  Goose Gossage, for instance and Dennis Eckersley, are considered the forerunners of what became the closer role.  However, they were not true closers in what we would today consider closers.  Maybe Eck was close to what we call a closer, but certain Goosage had much difference from the modern day closer.  He pitched more innings, went out there longer, took on 7th and 8th inning responsibility more than what a closer would do nowadays, and so on.

So even when we talk of "closers" in the MLB, we're going to have to qualify the version(s) of each that has finally settled into the one inning, get three guys out in the ninth variety we have today.

All true.  The "early" closers like Gossage and Rollie Fingers did pitch more innings per appearance.  Probably wrongly, but I sometimes think of the modern day closer as a sort of hothouse flower, who can only thrive with a two- or three-run lead, bases empty, and three outs to get.  It drives me crazy when one of these guys is run out there with a ten-run lead, just to get some work in, and gets rocked for three or four runs in an inning-and-a-third.  Very often the pitcher and/or the press intimate this guy is a specialist, he can't pitch in a situation like that.  They seem to blame the manager for putting him in.  Crazy.

Lidge is a pretty good comp for Gossage in one way - he was a guy with alot of heat who was a starter but couldn't cut it because of injuries (Lidge) or wildness or ineffectiveness (Gossage) and was put in the bullpen.  Only Lidge doesn't often go 2 to 3 innings at a stretch, unless it is the playoffs.  Both Gossage and equally hard-throwing lefty Terry Forster, who thanks to David Letterman is mostly remmebered now as a "fat tub of goo", came up with the White Sox as starters.  So did Rollie Fingers with the A's.  It was only after a few years of exasperation were these guys moved to the pen.

One way to look at it is that in Gossage's day, a top reliever (they were called "firemen" more than "closers") would be brought into a tight situation as early as the 6th or 7th inning.  He was expected to put out the "fire", and then preserve the lead to the end of the game.  Now a guy is brought in according to the parameters of the save rule.  How many times have you seen a team going into the ninth, with a three-run lead and their closer heating it up in the bullpen, score an insurance run to make the lead four, and then sit down the closer and bring in some other guy to finish it out?  The only reason to do that is if you are paying more attention to whether your guy will qualify for a save than just getting the game closed out.  That's crazy, to me.  But it is the norm.

The bullpen used to be the refuge of failed starters, mostly.  Now they groom these guys to go 1 inning an appearance, from the low minors.  Its just a different approach.  BTW, I think Eckersley under LaRussa in Oakland was probably the first true modern closer (brief appearances, high save totals); except I don't remember him being babied much.  But even he wasn't moved to the pen until it was a last resort - his career as a starter was washed up, and the A's had lost their top fireman mid-season of 1987(?) and needed a quick replacement.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[mihoba]

Quote:

Exactly, let alone a tie game or god forbid if the closer's team is  losing by a run or two. If you're not already familiar with it, there's a great bit in Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract where he dissects the "evolution" of the closer, defining the characteristics of the "Hoyt Wilhelm era" or the Gossage, Sutter, Robb Nen eras, and tries to asses which type actually got the best value out of their closer (I forget which, but it was definitely not the modern-day type).  

As I'm sure Jim (and Spack) would remember, it all began with Texas born Frederick Marberry, a rookie with the World Series Champion Washington Senators in 1924.

The first great relief pitcher, Fred Marberry's teammates saw an uncanny resemblance in their newly appointed fireman to Luis Firpo, "the Wild Bull of the Pampas," the Argentine boxer who knocked Jack Dempsey into the expensive seats in a 1923 heavyweight match. The similar physique and dark, scowling look coined the nickname "Firpo."

In Marberry's first three years, he led the American League in appearances, games finished, and the then-unofficial categories of saves and relief points. Up until then, relief was an undefined profession. Most men who performed in these substitute roles were starters by trade, and many were older, mature, seasoned veterans, men who had little or no taste for the new specialty.

The fireballing Marberry got the ball a record fifty times in 1924 for player-manager Bucky Harris, then came back with a league-leading fifty-five appearances, all in relief, in 1925 to help nail down another flag.

The heat and humidity in Washington DC were always the worst in baseball and in the years the Senators were winning pennants they had great depth. Teams had to have some players to fill in because of the intense heat. And of course, they played all the games in the daytime then. It was one of the reasons why at the time the Senators used pitchers in relief more than any other team.

Marberry also started a few games along the way, often in the second game of a doubleheader. He was even more successful when he started, winning 94 games in that role for a .644 percentage. His 53 relief wins yielded a .589 percentage. He finished his career with a would-be record of 101 saves. A true pioneer in his role.

[strosrays]

Quote:
Strosrays (and Noe too)-- this is tremendous reading.  I've read too many articles on similar topics over the web in recent years ruined or just hard to take seriously because of their overly stats-based approach to historical interpretation.  You've mixed anecdotes with facts, and added a keen analytical approach that all adds up to a deep insight into this issue, and a valid modern comparison.

Anyway, sorry if I sound like a teacher giving you a good grade on a research paper, but I really enjoyed reading all this.

Thanks.

Well, first of all, thank you.  Sometimes when I am talking about this stuff, I notice people politely edging away.  I am never too sure whether any of it is pertinent to anyone but myself.

To be clear, I've always been a "stat guy."  I remember asking my father to teach me how to figure batting average when I was 8 or 9, and he did, too (I wanted to know how I was doing in the neighborhood wiffle ball games.)  A couple of years later when my elementary teacher excitedly introduced us to "long" division, like every other kid in the class I had no idea what she was talking about; but when we started working our first problem, I blurted out, "Hey, this isn't division, this is how you figure batting average."  I'd been doing it for a couple of years already.  But growing up with a fairly limited number of ways to figure things, it became apparent that statistics were a tool, a means to an end, but not a be-all and end-all.

I bought my first Bill James Abstract in 1982, and devoured it.  I bought every one after that, too, and then his yearly Baseball Books, and a lot of his other stuff.  James manages to mix fairly esoteric stats with (I think) his very accomplished skills as a writer, so there is a balance there, something in it for everyone.  Some of his followers just get lost in the stats part, and forget the other.  In the 2007 BPro analysis, one of their writers in discussing the A's actually says that fans and the press get "hung up" on results, while Billy Beane understands it is the process that really counts.  Now, I am probably misreading him, but it almost sounds like he is saying it is more important to build one's team according to whatever the writer's principles are than it is to get positive (winning) results.  Still, I think some guys believe this.  Go spend some time at Baseball Primer (BTF now) if you want to drive yourself to distraction.  There is some good and sometimes brilliant stuff there, but also a lot of idiots and stat Nazis, and guys who feel they are part of a movement of some sort.  That I'll never understand.

Not to imply I am just babbling my personal memories when it comes to this stuff.  I know my memory is faulty anyway, and then I've done stuff over the years that hasn't helped it any.  I spend way too much time at Retrosheet and Baseball Reference and the Baseball Almanac, trying to meld what I think I remember to what actually happened.  It is a non-productive way to spend one's time online, but I figure (rationalize?) it is better than reading blogs, or looking at porn.

Thanks again.

[das]

 

Quote:
I imagine it would be as simple as whether he is having good ABs and hitting the ball hard. If he can duplicate what he did coming off the bench from 2002-04, I think they'll be quite happy.  

Exactly.  A well-trained eye can easily tell the difference between good and bad at-bats despite the quantity of AB's or the end results.

[pravata]

Quote:
...guys who feel they are part of a movement of some sort.  That I'll never understand....

Relax, I've been assured that no one believes this and I'm being paranoid.  But then, that's what we should expect them to say.

[geezerdonk]

Quote:
Texas born Frederick Marberry, a rookie with the World Series Champion Washington Senators in 1924.The first great relief pitcher

His role as a pioneering relief pitcher is overshadowed by his role as a protagonist in the landmark Supreme Court judicial review decision.

[Lurch]

"Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you? - Kurt Cobain

[mihoba]

Quote:

Quote:
Texas born Frederick Marberry, a rookie with the World Series Champion Washington Senators in 1924.The first great relief pitcher

His role as a pioneering relief pitcher is overshadowed by his role as a protagonist in the landmark Supreme Court judicial review decision.

Was this the Texas Supreme Court? I cannot find any info. Source?

[Reuben]

Quote:
As I'm sure Jim (and Spack) would remember, it all began with Texas born Frederick Marberry, a rookie with the World Series Champion Washington Senators in 1924.

The first great relief pitcher, Fred Marberry's teammates saw an uncanny resemblance in their newly appointed fireman to Luis Firpo, "the Wild Bull of the Pampas," the Argentine boxer who knocked Jack Dempsey into the expensive seats in a 1923 heavyweight match. The similar physique and dark, scowling look coined the nickname "Firpo."

In Marberry's first three years, he led the American League in appearances, games finished, and the then-unofficial categories of saves and relief points. Up until then, relief was an undefined profession. Most men who performed in these substitute roles were starters by trade, and many were older, mature, seasoned veterans, men who had little or no taste for the new specialty.

The fireballing Marberry got the ball a record fifty times in 1924 for player-manager Bucky Harris, then came back with a league-leading fifty-five appearances, all in relief, in 1925 to help nail down another flag.

The heat and humidity in Washington DC were always the worst in baseball and in the years the Senators were winning pennants they had great depth. Teams had to have some players to fill in because of the intense heat. And of course, they played all the games in the daytime then. It was one of the reasons why at the time the Senators used pitchers in relief more than any other team.

Marberry also started a few games along the way, often in the second game of a doubleheader. He was even more successful when he started, winning 94 games in that role for a .644 percentage. His 53 relief wins yielded a .589 percentage. He finished his career with a would-be record of 101 saves. A true pioneer in his role.

Very cool to know about, thanks. I just looked him up- one year he had 19 wins, 16 complete games, and 11 (would-be) saves in 250 innings. That's pretty amazing.

[BizidyDizidy]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Texas born Frederick Marberry, a rookie with the World Series Champion Washington Senators in 1924.The first great relief pitcher

His role as a pioneering relief pitcher is overshadowed by his role as a protagonist in the landmark Supreme Court judicial review decision.

Was this the Texas Supreme Court? I cannot find any info. Source?

Look under Marberry v. Maduson.

[mihoba]

Quote:

Look under Marberry v. Maduson.

Or Marbury v. Madison, no doubt.

Firpo ruled.