Early Astros Observations

[MadMax]

1. Still have a hard time leaving runners on base

2. Still strike out way to much -- sorry, haven!! :) Put the damn ball in play!!! STOP SWINGING FOR THE FENCES AT EVERY AB!!

3. Ensberg is incapable of picking up on a bunt down the third base line...I think we've seen around 4 bunt base hits down the third base line in the first 5 games.

4. Berkman is NOT a centerfielder..particularly not in the biggest CF in all of baseball -- but God bless him..he's trying!

5. Biggio is off to a slow start at the plate

6. Everett appears to me to be the real deal...his bat, so far, isn't as bad as i feared

7. Jeff Bagwell is just an amazing hitter

8. Darryl Ward hits the ball REAL hard! :)

9. When Shane Reynolds bunted home a run the other day, I think it was the first squeeze bunt I've seen in 5 years from the Astros -- I love you, Jimy!! :)

10. The new day uniforms worn last Wednesday look good

11. Why do I get the feeling Hidalgo will NEVER be the player we were told he would become?

12. I absolutely despise the St. Louis Cardinals...put them on the list with the Cowboys and the Jazz of my least favorite franchises in pro sports

13. Man, Drayton has good seats!!

14. Nothing new, but concessions are overpriced. My wife and I split a coke the other night...she had nachos..i had a hotdog...we paid $15 for those crap cakes!

15. Astros Field is amazing...what a great place to watch the game. So if you're bitching like I just did in #14..stop it!! Once you're in, the park is just great!

[BobFinn*]

Did someone forget to tell Biggio the season has started? Biggio is no leadoff hitter. He swings at anything in the same area code as home plate. He has left a ton of guys on base. Bring up Ginter...Please!

[haven]

Bobfinn: Biggio hasn't been taking pitches, eh? That's strange for him... I wonder if his physical eye is going...

http://www.astrosconnection.com/html/crunchtime.cfm?id=248


I don't think I've posted this one before in relation...

let me put it this way: some things are unresolved about baseball. Others, one can make a case that they can't be proven statistically... but there's no way in hell that a case can even be made for the position that high-team-strikeouts are bad. It's like insisting that the world is flat at this point.

You may not like watching them... but this is one that's settled.

[MadMax]

haven -- this team has a propensity to leave lots of runners on by striking out in key situations. again...if you put the ball in play something good MIGHT happen. When you strike out, nothing good happens. It's simply the opportunity...make the other team field the ball cleanly..make them make a sharp throw to get you out...but don't give them an out by swinging for the fences when a base hit would score a run. Post all the numbers you want...I'll never disagree with the assertion above.

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by MadMax
1. Still have a hard time leaving runners on base

I would say they have a pretty easy time leaving runners on base. ;)

15. Astros Field is amazing...what a great place to watch the game. So if you're bitching like I just did in #14..stop it!! Once you're in, the park is just great!

I have only been to Astros field twice now, but I have to agree. The whole look of the field gives you this historic vibe that makes you feel like you are watching a team that has been around a lot longer than the Stros. I wish I still lived in Houston, I would go to more games.

[Timing]

There's a difference in swinging for the fences on every swing against scrub trash like Ruben Quevedo and doing so against Matt Morris. You need to make contact against Morris or he's going to make you look stupid. Morris doesn't give up home runs so trying to get them on every swing just plays right into his hands. Put that into your Bill James calculator. :)

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Timing
There's a difference in swinging for the fences on every swing against scrub trash like Ruben Quevedo and doing so against Matt Morris. You need to make contact against Morris or he's going to make you look stupid. Morris doesn't give up home runs so trying to get them on every swing just plays right into his hands. Put that into your Bill James calculator. :)

Timing, I couldn't have said it better. The Astros face great pitcing the playoffs, and that's why they look like an entirely different team than the one we see in the regular season. At some point you just have to shorten up your swing and make contact. Again, I think Bagwell finally realized that...thus, he hit safely (all singles) in the playoffs.

Berkman is killing me right now...don't get me wrong, I'm a big Berkman fan...but you should NOT swing at the first pitch in EVERY at bat!!! That seems to be a growing trend for him...one of the marks he had last year that really impressed me was his patience at the plate. In a very limited sample size so far this year, I don't see that patience.

[Timing]

Oh those mighty Brewers. 17k's and 1 hit off of Curt Schilling today. So who got the hit? Was it slugger Sexson? Mighty Geoff Jenkins? Jose "the whopper" Hernandez? Nope, try light hitting catcher Raul Casanova. Of course they'll beat up on some crap pitcher soon to "average" those numbers out.

[DieHard Rocket]

Adam Everett is awesome. As much as I like Carl Everett while he was here (not now though), that trade is working for us. Adam makes me realize how badly Julio Lugo <b>sucks</b>. Thinking of all the games Lugo screwed up last year just sickens me now that I see Everett playing such great defense out there. Can anyone tell me why defense is so underrated in baseball?

About the outfield, I believe Jason Lane is primarily a CF, so maybe once he's ready one of our OF's will be traded. My guess would be Hidalgo, since Hunsicker would be killed if he traded Berkman and they have waited so long on Ward. Problem is, we really have no major weaknesses to trade for...which isn't really a problem. Looks like Jason Lane will just have to wait his turn like Ward did, and Berkman will have to stay in CF.

And I MUST add one more number to your list...

16. The umpires thus far have been absolutely terrible. I am not one to ridicule umps a lot, but I am seeing a lot more this year than in years past. Just watching the game today, I've seen Kile's curveball getting called for a strike as it goes across the "Astros" lettering on the uniform, and Lance Berkman just got robbed on a DP when he clearly beat Pujols to the bag at 3rd. Also, Wade Miller didn't touch the plate at home earlier and got called safe, but that helps us of course.

[red]

alou who?....aahahahhhahah ward walk off homerun...sweet...

[kidrock8]

Stros must find a way to put the ball in play.

The situational hitting was horrible. Anytime you have a runner on 3rd, with 1 out or less, you must must must drive him in. Too many DPs and strikeouts kill our scoring chances. Need more sac flys.

[PhiSlammaJamma]

Truby threw one into the stands yesterday. Thank god that's over.

[bobrek]

Lane is NOT a CF. He is a converted outfielder. His defense is probably akin to Ward's right now.

[Timing]

Did anyone see the execution on the bases in the 2nd or 3rd inning? Ensberg dumps a single into center, steals second, goes to third on a sac fly, and comes in on a Vizcaino double. That was beautiful!

[NewRoxFan]

But gee, blowing not one but TWO sacrifice opportunities in extra innings. Williams will probably have them bunting all night after that!

[Buck Turgidson]

The Astros have the 12th most K's out of 30 MLB teams. This is not a problem - they lead the majors w/ a .401 team OBP.

Bullpen is only concern of mine right now.

STL threw their 1-2-3 starters against our 4-5-1; they were supposed to win 2 outta 3.

There are 156 games left.

[PhiSlammaJamma]

I'm not that worried either. Things are starting to shake out. We are trailing Pittsburgh so what does that tell you. The Bullpen looks shaky, but the worst case scenario is that we are forced to find a one inning pitcher for the stretch run. That's not very difficult to do these days.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
The Astros have the 12th most K's out of 30 MLB teams. This is not a problem - they lead the majors w/ a .401 team OBP.

Bullpen is only concern of mine right now.

STL threw their 1-2-3 starters against our 4-5-1; they were supposed to win 2 outta 3.

There are 156 games left.

this is what i've tried to explain to haven before...it's not the sheer number of strikeouts that concern me...it's when they strike out that concerns me. their situational hitting sucks. keep in mind, they may only be 12th right now in sheer numbers...but they've only faced the Cards (not a high strikeout rotation) and the Brewers so far.

I'm with you...these are just early observations...way too early to make a real judgment call on the team's chances this year based on what we've seen.

[Major]

let me put it this way: some things are unresolved about baseball. Others, one can make a case that they can't be proven statistically... but there's no way in hell that a case can even be made for the position that high-team-strikeouts are bad.

I disagree with this. It may work out this way statistically because of the fact that, on average, high-strikeout hitters tend to be power-hitters as well, but if you had a choice between two 0.300, 30HR, 0.400 OBP hitters, and one strikes out 100 times a year, and the other 20 times a year, you'd be crazy to pick the former. A high-strikeout team vs. low-strikeout team may generate the same number of runs, but I'm betting the low-strikeout team is far more consistent (because it is also more likely a low-power / high-average team). Consistently scoring 5 runs a game will win you more games than scoring 12 then 0 then 12 then 0, etc, even though the latter averaged more runs.

We look at a pitcher's "dominance" partially with strikeouts -- and rightfully so, because it eliminates the need for fielders. The opposite then has to be true as well. If a batter strikes out a lot, he's being dominated a lot. A player who strikes out less has better bat control, and better ability to put the bat on the ball. This has a number of advantages.

For one, it means the batter can force pitchers to throw more pitches by fouling things off. Second, it makes the batter more versatile. When necessary, he will be more likely to be able to execute a hit-and-run, bunt, squeeze, sac fly, etc. You also can't force an error unless you can put the ball in play. In yesterday's game, there were two plays the defense messed up -- those don't happen as much if your team strikes out instead of shooting the ball into the infield or whatever.

The downside to this is the double-play, but I don't believe the risk of a double play negates all the positives. When striking out often, you put less pressure on the defense. When constantly putting the ball in play, you force the issue and put the pressure on the defense to make the plays. That's ALWAYS a plus for the offensive team, in my mind.

[Buck Turgidson]

Regarding the Great Strikeout Debate, I'm not sure if anyone's posted this yet, but if they have I apologize. Stat-geek Neyer did a very good analysis of the effects of K's on an offense. I don't always agree with the pure sabermetric analysis of baseball, but in this case he's pretty much dead on.

Both of these articles are in his February Archive here:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/0206/1323868.html

===========================================
I've been thinking about strikeouts quite a lot lately.

A few days ago, I talked to Brewers GM Dean Taylor about Eric Young. It was a pleasant conversation, significantly more fun than my recent chat with another famous Milwaukeean. We spent most of our time discussing what Young brings to the Brewers. He'll bring some speed to the lineup, of course, and by all accounts he'll also be a positive influence in the clubhouse. And if he can get his on-base percentage back above .350 ... well, all the better.

Eric Young brings something else to the table, though: contact. The Brewers struck out 1,399 times last year, absolutely destroying the single-season record previously held by the 1996 Tigers (1,268). Jeromy Burnitz contributed 150 of those strikeouts, which is one of the reasons he's no longer a Brewer. Meanwhile, Eric Young is one of the most difficult players in the league to strike out; last year, only 45 times in 603 at-bats. The Brewers also picked up Lenny Harris, who can't really hit but does have the virtue of a low strikeout rate.

I pointed out to Taylor that strikeouts really aren't a big deal, and he agreed with me ... to a point. He agreed that for most teams they're not that important, but that an immense number of strikeouts affects run production in a fundamentally different way. And never having studied the issue, I had to allow for the possibility that he's right.

But if Dean Taylor is right, if massive strikeouts have some sort of multiplicative (my word, not his) effect, wouldn't that show up somewhere?

I made two lists: one list contained high-strikeout teams, and the other contained low-strikeout teams. The list of high-strikeout teams includes the last 12 major-league teams that struck out more than 1,175 times in a single season. The list of low-strikeout teams contains the last 10 major-league teams that struck out between 800 and 850 teams in a 162-game season.

The high-strikeout teams averaged 1,202 strikeouts.
The low-strikeouts teams averaged 832 strikeouts.

Clearly, there's a big difference between the teams in the two groups.

Next, I plugged the stats for all of those teams into the Runs Created formula. For those of you who don't know, Runs Created is a method with which we can closely estimate the number of runs that a team will score, given its hitting statistics. The original formula was quite simple and accurate, even though it didn't consider strikeouts at all. The inventor of Runs Created, Bill James, did eventually incorporate strikeouts, but the formula only works with strikeouts if strikeouts are given a very small negative value; so small, in fact, that it's really not worth the trouble of including them in the equation.

Nevertheless, if we assume that Runs Created is generally accurate -- and I can assure you that the method works -- but that for some reason it doesn't work for high-strikeout teams, then we would expect to see high-strikeout teams score fewer runs than predicted by the formula, right?

Further, we might expect to see a difference in the formula's accuracy when predicting the runs scored by the high-strikeout teams and the low-strikeout teams.

Runs
K's Expected Actual
Low-K 832 779 764
High-K 1207 772 773


In a study of 13 high-strikeout teams, the Runs Created formula predicted the group's run production almost perfectly. And as you can see, for all practical purposes the formula worked equally well for groups of teams at both ends of the strikeout spectrum. There simply isn't any evidence, at least not here, to think that there's some subtle interactive effect of multiple strikeouts.

One thing I didn't mention earlier: I left the 2001 Brewers out of the study, because they were so far off the charts. So it's possible that Taylor is right, and that the Brewers are simply the first team in history that's racked up enough strikeouts to actually make them important.

Well, the Runs Created formula looks at the Brewers' statistics and, using the same (tiny) value for strikeouts that it uses for every other team, predicts that the Brewers would score 732 runs.

They scored 740.

And they scored only 740 runs not because they struck out too often; they scored only 740 runs because they didn't walk often enough. The Brewers finished 12th in the National League in walks ... and 11th in the National League in runs scored. And if you don't think there's a relationship between walks and runs, you're probably reading the wrong column.

So why are strikeouts such a boogieman in the minds of baseball men (and broadcasters, and fans)?

The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings, because they're memorable. I remember very few specific things about my unspectacular career as a Little Leaguer, but one thing I do remember is striking out to end my team's season. If Tony Lazzeri had flied to right field with the bases loaded in Game 7 of the 1926 World Series, nobody would remember. But he struck out, so we do remember.

A general manager will watch nearly all of his team's games, either at the ballpark or on TV (the manager, of course, sees all of them). You see enough strikeouts, they'll make you crazy, and Dean Taylor saw nearly 1400 strikeouts last year. If he hadn't witnessed the strikeouts, but instead simply saw the 1399 in a line of type on a stat sheet, he probably wouldn't be worried nearly so much about them.

The Brewers traded Jeromy Burnitz, who walked 80 times last year. That's not good. But they did sign Matt Stairs, who walked 52 times in a part-time role. That's good. Unfortunately, the Brewers have also added Eric Young and Alex Ochoa and Lenny Harris, none of whom walk much. But those guys don't strike out often, either. And sometimes I wonder if baseball men would be better off if they didn't watch so much baseball.


This week, a number of readers have commented, "Rob, I understand that strikeouts for hitters aren't really so bad. But if they're not bad for hitters, then why are they so good for pitchers?" Next Monday, I'll attempt to answer that question.

AND:

As you might remember, last time I left you with the following fake (though representative) missive:


"Rob, I understand that strikeouts for hitters aren't really so bad. But if they're not bad for hitters, then why are they so good for pitchers?"


Well, as it turned out, a number of readers weren't actually convinced that strikeouts aren't really so bad. The following is just one of many I received in the same vein ...


"Rob,

Reading your column on strikeouts and the Milwaukee Brewers got me thinking ... I agree with you that strikeouts probably aren't as important as many general managers think they are. But I can't help thinking that they're a little more important than you think they are. You say the Brewers didn't score many runs because they had very few walks. This may be naivete on my part, but doesn't a large number of strikeouts suggest a lack of strike-zone judgement? And further, doesn't a lack of strike-zone judgement result in very few walks? And if so, are these not just two sides of the same coin?"

Jonathon Jongsma


There are days, I must admit, when I wonder if I've done all I can do, that anyone who wants to know the basics already knows them, and anyone who doesn't isn't ever going to.

And then I read a bunch of e-mails like this one, and I realize that there are still plenty of fans with open minds out there, but somehow they just haven't gotten the word yet.

What I'm getting at here is that strikeouts don't result in few walks, and in fact one can make the case that strikeouts are a necessary evil.

There are three basic hitting skills: making contact, hitting for power, plate discipline. Very few hitters in the history of the game have been able to combine great degrees of all three skills. Just off the top of my head, Ted Williams is the only name that comes to mind. Mantle at his best. Babe Ruth hit for great power and drew a ton of walks, but he did strike out a lot (for his time). Ditto for Barry Bonds. Joe DiMaggio hardly ever struck out and had great power, but generally drew "only" 60 or 70 walks per season.

I'm probably missing an exception or three, but it's generally true that hitters, even the great hitters, have to make compromises. Tony Gwynn probably could have hit 25 or 30 homers per season (rather than seven or eight), maybe drawn 75 walks per season (rather than 50 or 60) ... but then he probably wouldn't have won eight batting titles, would he?

Last season, Sammy Sosa struck out 153 times. That was actually a good year for him, as he'd averaged 172 strikeouts per season from 1998 through 2000.

And you know what? Only a lunatic would have told Sosa to stop striking out so damn often. He's turned into a superstar who hits 60 home runs and draws 100 walks per season, which makes him one of the great hitters of our time.

Let's see, who else ... Jim Thome led the American League with 185 strikeouts last season ... and he also hit 49 homers and drew 111 walks. Most managers can live with the K's. Other hitters among the 2001 strikeout leaders were Troy Glaus, Mike Cameron, Jeromy Burnitz, and Richie Sexson; productive hitters, all.

My point -- in case I haven't already hammered the thing to death -- is that while strikeouts certainly aren't good in themselves, they often come with the territory if you're going to be a good hitter. As hard as pitchers throw these days, and as much as the game is geared toward power, most productive hitters are going to 1) take pitches until they see one that looks good, and then they're going to 2) swing real hard. And so you get your walks (good), your home runs (better), and yes, your strikeouts (not nearly as bad as some people think).

In response to last Friday's column, Dean Taylor -- who's been more civil to me lately than I deserve -- stressed to me that his biggest problem wasn't the strikeouts per se; he was concerned because the Brewers had four consecutive hitters -- Geoff Jenkins, Richie Sexson, Jeromy Burnitz, and Jose Hernandez -- who accounted for so many of the strikeouts.

Here's the basic lineup the Brewers featured last season, with a relevant numbers:


OBP Slug K/162
White .343 .459 122
Loretta .346 .352 73
Jenkins .334 .474 185
Sexson .342 .547 182
Burnitz .347 .504 157
Hernandez .300 .443 197
Belliard .335 .453 104
Blanco .290 .334 112


This isn't perfect, because Belliard actually batted in the No. 1 and No. 2 slots more than anything else. But it's the best we can do. Anyway, what's striking here is how similar the Brewers were. No, I don't mean the strikeouts. I mean the on-base percentages, as six of the eight regulars finished with virtually identical OBP's. I still maintain that the problem wasn't strikeouts, but OBP. Because while it's true that only two Brewers had horrible OBP's, it's also true that no Brewer had an outstanding OBP. You can live with players in the middle, but you've got to have a couple of guys with great ones to bring up the average. And as I hope I demonstrated earlier, there are players who combine high strikeouts and high OBP.

Also, if having those four high-strikeout guys batting consecutively made a difference, statistically, the Runs Created formula wouldn't work for the Brewers. But it did work. It worked almost perfectly.

I should note, too, that since batting order isn't particularly important, the high-strikeout guys didn't have to bat consecutively; if all those strikeouts in a row were a problem, then manager Davey Lopes should have broken them up.

And finally, it's been suggested -- not by Dean Taylor, but by readers -- that while a huge number of strikeouts might not have much discernible statistical impact, it might have a negative impact on the team's morale. Well, maybe. But in 1927, one free-swinging (or was it patient?) team led the American League with 605 strikeouts. They were the New York Yankees, and morale was probably pretty good as they won 110 games and swept the World Series.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by MadMax


this is what i've tried to explain to haven before...it's not the sheer number of strikeouts that concern me...it's when they strike out that concerns me. their situational hitting sucks. keep in mind, they may only be 12th right now in sheer numbers...but they've only faced the Cards (not a high strikeout rotation) and the Brewers so far.

I'm with you...these are just early observations...way too early to make a real judgment call on the team's chances this year based on what we've seen.

Regarding the "situational hitting" argument, I think we're looking at a tremendously small sample size here; the good-ol' Law of Averages will even things out over the course of the season. In some cases, we haven't executed well (esp. sac bunts & sac flies); in others it's just luck (Ensberg's 2 DP's on Sunday). The Astros' .321 BA w/ runners in scoring postition (3rd in the NL) is pretty much the same as their .310 team average (tops in MLB). They've struck out 17 times w/ RISP (2nd most in NL), but also drawn 17 BB's (most in NL), keep in mind that their 81 AB's w/ RISP are tops in the NL. So, they're averaging 1 K per every 5.74 plate appearances w/ RISP (& a .464 OBP), very good #s if you ask me.

You can look at the NL RISP stats here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/statistics?stat=teambat&league=nl&sortColumn=avg&season=2&year=2002&split=39

One aspect of "situational hitting" that I'll agree is a problem is driving in the runner from 3rd w/ less than 2 outs; the Stros have only 1 sac fly so far, but this trend won't continue.

Also, in 3 of the 1st 6 games, we faced Morris, Kile & Sheets; you can't tell me that these aren't "high-strikeout" guys. They're not Schilling or The Unit, but their stuff is as nasty as anyone else's.

[Joe Joe]

On the strikeout argument, I'd like to see a slugging^2/K ratio done. I expect the low strike out teams still have a lower slugging^2/K ratio, but this would separate the power teams that strikeout too much for the power numbers they generate.

I squared the slugging because I'd say its more important than not striking out, but strikeouts are a side effect of many slugging teams. This would be my reason in why I think the statistical analysis done has the numbers it does.

[Major]

Buck: I understand the statistical argument, and I can't really refute with numbers. However, if I watch 100 games and watch for these situations:

(a) How often I would have preferred a groundout over a strikeout

(b) How often I would have preferred a strikeout over a groundout

In 90 of the 100 games, I'll see more of Situation A than Situation B. That tells me that strikeouts are worse than groundouts. Why it doesn't show up in the stats, I don't know. But there are lots of things that don't show up in the stats.

For simplicity, I'm going to use a 100 game season in this example. Take Team A -- they score 500 runs in a season, scoring 5 every game. They give up 400 runs in the season, giving up 4 every game. Team B, on the other hand, scores 600 runs in a season, but scores 0 then 12, then 0 then 12, etc. They give up only 200 runs, 2 every game.

Team A outscored people 500-400, but went 100-0. Team B outscored people 600-200, but went 50-50. Put that in any of those runs-created formulas and they'll be confounded -- because none of them take into account the importance of consistency. People always say the power game vs small-ball / speed / defense is the same, but I argue that the latter produces far more consistency. I think the same is true in the strikeout situation, because you're able to get more "small innings" (groundout RBI's, sac flies, etc), but fewer big innings (due to double plays).

That's only way I can think of it in statistical terms, and I have no idea if that's reasonable.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Major
Buck: I understand the statistical argument, and I can't really refute with numbers. However, if I watch 100 games and watch for these situations:

(a) How often I would have preferred a groundout over a strikeout

(b) How often I would have preferred a strikeout over a groundout

In 90 of the 100 games, I'll see more of Situation A than Situation B. That tells me that strikeouts are worse than groundouts. Why it doesn't show up in the stats, I don't know. But there are lots of things that don't show up in the stats.

I think it depends on what kind of groundout you're talking about, and you also have to factor in the # of outs in an inning.

There are 8 possible baserunner situations (what I don't know is the % of total plate appearances each situation constitutes):

bases empty
1st
2nd
3rd
1st & 2nd
1st, 2nd & 3rd
1st & 3rd
2nd & 3rd

In 4 of those 8 situations, a ground ball gives the distinct possibility of a double play. What % of ground balls are of the double play variety? I don't know, 50% maybe? What about ground balls that produce only 1 out but don't advance a baserunner? What about fly balls? I'm not sure there's any statistical way to gauge the desirability of K's vs. groundballs, given all the variables & unknowns.

For simplicity, I'm going to use a 100 game season in this example. Take Team A -- they score 500 runs in a season, scoring 5 every game. They give up 400 runs in the season, giving up 4 every game. Team B, on the other hand, scores 600 runs in a season, but scores 0 then 12, then 0 then 12, etc. They give up only 200 runs, 2 every game.

Team A outscored people 500-400, but went 100-0. Team B outscored people 600-200, but went 50-50. Put that in any of those runs-created formulas and they'll be confounded -- because none of them take into account the importance of consistency. People always say the power game vs small-ball / speed / defense is the same, but I argue that the latter produces far more consistency. I think the same is true in the strikeout situation, because you're able to get more "small innings" (groundout RBI's, sac flies, etc), but fewer big innings (due to double plays).

True, except neither of those situations occur. All teams are inconsistent offensively, we're just concerned with the patterns. What team epitomizes the concept of "smallball" to you? It may be a gargantuan task, but it would be interesting to analyze their offensive production over the course of a year vs. a "slugging" team & see how close both are to the theoretical examples you gave.

That's only way I can think of it in statistical terms, and I have no idea if that's reasonable.

I don't either, but it sure makes for an interesting discussion though. The more I think about it, the less sure I am that you can make a blanket statement like "high strikeout totals aren't that important", or vice-versa. To me, high K totals are acceptable, as long as they take a comparable # of walks (i.e Thome, Bagwell, Giambi etc...).

[Milos]

For a team which will only be considered a success if they finally win in the playoffs, I am confused about some of their moves:

1) The outfield...I understand the reason behind playing Ward, Berkman, and Hidalgo at the same time(all three are capable of .300+/30/100). But in the playoffs, pitching and defense take center stage, and Berkman in CF with Ward in LF is a nightmare.

Just last year we saw this: Lugo's crucial errors may very well have cost us the series. To correct this problem, we've given SS to Everett, and I agree with this move. It seems contradicting, however, to give up offense for defense at short, while sacrificing D in the outfield.

Together, those three are probably the slowest outfield in the majors, and a misplay in the outfield can be much more disastrous than one in the infield. Lugo gave Atlanta a couple of extra outs last year, but when I see Ward dive for a ball that rolls past him to the wall, that's an extra out plus 2 or 3 bases.

2) The bullpen...to me, the resurgence of the bullpen was the single most important element in our making the playoffs last year. Yet for some reason, management has decided to roll the dice with castoffs like Matthews and Pichardo this year. The only reliable lefty we have is Wagner, and unless Brocail comes back with a great year(which I highly doubt), all we have on the right side is Dotel.

Can someone please explain to me why we let Villone, Mike Jackson, and Williams walk right out the door? At the very least, we should have kept Villone. He saved our asses countles times with his long relief, and would have given us a versatile lefty in the middle innings ahead of Dotel and Wagner.

And don't use the excuse we couldn't afford him...if the Pirates can afford to sign him, surely we can come up with enough $ to keep him.

BTW, what ever happened to Wilfredo Rodriguez? I know he was hurt last year, but he was our top pitching prospect 2 years ago and now I never even hear his name mentioned. It would be a great lift to the entire staff to have a power-lefty in the pen.

Linebrink and Cruz have been horrible, while Stone has pitched surprisingly well, but overall the pen seems much weaker than last year.

3) Third base...while I do think Ensberg is capable of being adequate, he seems like a clone of Truby. They both tear up AAA, but neither looks like a future stud in the bigs. And unlike last year, there's no Vinny Castilla to save the day. Hopefully the Astros have a plan B at third, because I just don't think Ensberg can be the starter on a championship club.

IMO, the only way we improve from last year is to:

-Find a rangy, fast CF to hit second and play great D in the OF. This would allow Berkman to go to left, where he is above average, and give us some speed ahead of Bags, Berkman, etc.
-Get at least one reliable lefthander in the bullpen, either through a trade or a promotion.
-Find a solid 3B to take over for Ensberg and protect Hidalgo.

We have A LOT of valuable prospects to use as trade bait, including: Ward, Redding, Lidge, Ensberg, Lane, Buck, Pluta, Rosario, etc.

While trading them would deplete the excellent depth we have in the minors, I think management owes it to Bagwell and Biggio to put together a team with the best chance to win NOW, not 3 years from now.

Surely from the stock above, Hunsicker can find a CF, LHRP, and 3B to make this team a true playoff-contender, not first-round fodder.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Milos

Can someone please explain to me why we let Villone, Mike Jackson, and Williams walk right out the door? At the very least, we should have kept Villone. He saved our asses countles times with his long relief, and would have given us a versatile lefty in the middle innings ahead of Dotel and Wagner.

Jackson sucked & Williams didn't want to be a setup man - the Pirates gave him low-end closer $$$. Not sure about the decision making process on Villone; he was descent last year out of the pen & made a couple of great emergency starts, but let's not get carried away. He was 5-7 w/ a 5.56 ERA for the 'Stros last year. There's a reason he's pitched for 7 teams in the last 7 seasons. Remember what the 'Stros pen looked like at the beginning of last year? Now THAT was a crappy pen; there's plenty of time for Gerry to make changes.

BTW, what ever happened to Wilfredo Rodriguez? I know he was hurt last year, but he was our top pitching prospect 2 years ago and now I never even hear his name mentioned. It would be a great lift to the entire staff to have a power-lefty in the pen.

He had arm problems, attitude problems & getting-guys-out problems. He's not close to being ready to contribute in the bigs; I'm hoping he gets it together, but it doesn't look good.

3) Third base...while I do think Ensberg is capable of being adequate, he seems like a clone of Truby. They both tear up AAA, but neither looks like a future stud in the bigs. And unlike last year, there's no Vinny Castilla to save the day. Hopefully the Astros have a plan B at third, because I just don't think Ensberg can be the starter on a championship club.

You mean a championship club like the Yankees or D-Backs, who've started the very impressive offensively inept Scott Brosius & over-the hill Matt Williams & Robin Ventura? Ensberg & Truby are 180 deg. opposites offensively. Ensberg's shown nothing but good things so far at the plate; don't worry, the power will show once he gets more comfortable. His plate discipline has been amazing so far (something Truby was truly horrible at), & he's vastly superior to Truby in the field also. If he struggles (which I'm not that concerned about), we'll make a move (July Rolen-rental anyone?).

-Find a rangy, fast CF to hit second and play great D in the OF. This would allow Berkman to go to left, where he is above average, and give us some speed ahead of Bags, Berkman, etc.
-Find a solid 3B to take over for Ensberg and protect Hidalgo.


What CF'er? The Royals want to keep Beltran, the Rockies won't trade Pierre, the A's won't trade Terrence Long...so where is this young fast 2-slot hitting CF'er everyone's carping for? Cheito would be nice, but his career .332 OBP & 2:1 K:BB ratio don't exactly look like 2-hole material.

Ensberg's had a whopping total of 18 at-bats so far...can we at least wait a month before we bury the kid?

[MadMax]

I've never read that the Rockies said they wouldn't trade Pierre...just that they wouldn't trade him for Hidalgo. How about for Hidalgo and a minor league pitching prospect?? That might open it up. I'd do that in a heartbeat!

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson

He had arm problems, attitude problems & getting-guys-out problems. He's not close to being ready to contribute in the bigs; I'm hoping he gets it together, but it doesn't look good.


I have read on www.astrosconnection.com where Michael N said Wilfredo is going to have surgery this season and he will be out most of the year.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by MadMax
I've never read that the Rockies said they wouldn't trade Pierre...just that they wouldn't trade him for Hidalgo. How about for Hidalgo and a minor league pitching prospect?? That might open it up. I'd do that in a heartbeat!

The Rockies LOVE Pierre. You know how huge that OF at Coors Canaveral is, Pierre is invaluable to them; in addition he's a young speedy leadoff guy (something in extremely short supply in today's MLB) to set the table for Helton & Walker et al. I can't find the quote in the Denver papers, but this offseason Dan O'Dowd said something to the effect of Pierre being "untouchable, unless someone really blows us away".

[SamCassell]

Ensberg & Truby are 180 deg. opposites offensively. Ensberg's shown nothing but good things so far at the plate; don't worry, the power will show once he gets more comfortable. His plate discipline has been amazing so far (something Truby was truly horrible at), & he's vastly superior to Truby in the field also. If he struggles (which I'm not that concerned about), we'll make a move (July Rolen-rental anyone?).

It's way too early to pass judgment on Ensberg. Through 7 games last season, Truby was slugging .750 with an OPS over 1.100. He still had an OPS over .900 as late as April 28 last season (then fell off the map). Check back with me in June.

As for Rolen, I'd love to see him land on the Stros. But I wouldn't give up prospects to take him as a rental. If we could get him to sign long-term with us as part of a trade, great, otherwise I'd rather just bid for his services in free agency.

Ensberg's defense hasn't impressed me so far, but his bat has been solid. I'd be happy with our 3B position if he could continue this level of production throughout the season.

[Milos]

Buck-

I'm not saying the Astros will be able to do all or any of the moves I proposed. My point was that the team, as it is presently constructed, does not seem superior to the team we ended last year with. I do not know of any viable solution to the CF problem, but can you honestly say you are comfortable with our outfield the way it is now?

Still, if I had to pick one scenario which I think could be possible, it would be the logjam in Toronto. They have Stewart, Cruz Jr., and Vernon Wells; all rangy outfielders with speed who can play CF. I do not know which, if any, of these players they would be willing to part with, but I think some package involving Ward and a pitching prospect would be enough to pry at least one of them away. Ward would, IMO, be a perfect fit for them at DH, where I think they are currently using Stewart. Which lineup would you rather have:
CF-Cruz/LF-Wells/DH-Stewart
or
CF-Cruz/LF-Wells/DH-Ward (who could hit 40+ HR batting between Delgado and Mondesi in the AL)

As for Ensberg, I think the obvious solution, as mentioned earlier, would be Rolen. Of course, I also realize Drayton would be hesitant to acquire a player who could command $100 mil after this year.

So other than Rolen, maybe a guy like Mark Texiera from the Rangers. Although he is one of the best hitting prospects in all of baseball, with Blalock and Lamb in front of him, its unlikely Texas would value him over a starter with the potential of Redding or one of our other young pitching studs. I'm not sure of his progress so far, but I remember reading a scouting report that said while his defense needs work, he is ready to hit ML pitching right now. Besides, with Everett there to help him out, the left side of the infield would still be solid defensively, and Ensberg isn't exactly a gold-glover.

[Buck Turgidson]

I know what you're saying, Milos, but I think it's way too early to make judgements regarding what changes need to be made.

You're right about Toronto, that's the only team I can think of that has CF-types to spare. I like Stewart (offensively) better than Cruz; Stewart's played 5 times as many innings in LF than CF, so I'm not sure that he can play CF on a regular basis (there's a lot more to being a good defensive CF'er than speed, remember how bad Roger Cedeno was?). Overall, I'm not sure that the OF defense is considerably worse than last year. Alou, despite the fact that he made a few highlight-reel catches, was a very poor defensive RF'er. Ward isn't a butcher, he just doesn't have much range - from what I've seen he reads the ball well & gets good jumps, making up for his lack of speed (his positioning is important too, but that's up to the coaches). Berkman is adequite in CF, range-wise not really much of a drop-off from Hidalgo last year. Would I rather have a "true" CF'er that hits 1st or 2nd, gets on, steals bases & plays Gold-Glove caliber defense? Sure, but so would every other MLB team; there just aren't that many of them around.

I also think it's way too early to say that we need a new 3rd sacker. I also think there's no way that Texas trades Teixeira or Blaylock anytime soon; they'll need a 1B pretty soon (Palmeiro can't play forever), and either could easily move to LF. Regarding Rolen, I doubt Philly will trade him until the deadline (if at all) because they think they can compete for the playoffs. I also wouldn't give up much for him, because there's no way he's worth the $15-20M per year Scott Boras has said they're expecting.

[Nomar]

I wouldn't be surprised if Rolen ended up in Boston...

[haven]

1) The outfield...I understand the reason behind playing Ward, Berkman, and Hidalgo at the same time(all three are capable of .300+/30/100). But in the playoffs, pitching and defense take center stage, and Berkman in CF with Ward in LF is a nightmare.

Only a nightmare if you think that offense is less important than fielding. Which it isn't. Defense is just as important as offense: but there's about a 35/15 split between pitching and fielding. Hence, if a player has significant offensive advantages, but is a defensive liablity... then it's still usually a good idea to use him.

Just last year we saw this: Lugo's crucial errors may very well have cost us the series. To correct this problem, we've given SS to Everett, and I agree with this move. It seems contradicting, however, to give up offense for defense at short, while sacrificing D in the outfield.

So, you'd rather give up offense all-round? This argument is non-sensical for two reasons:

1. Even bad defensive SS seldom have melt-downs like Lugo did. Yeah, he really screwed us. But then, even truly bad defensive players only give up errors once every few games.

2. SS is by far the most important defensive position. While I think that high-defense, low-offense players are blackholes... well, I can at least semi-understand the argument at SS. In the OF, you need sluggers.

Together, those three are probably the slowest outfield in the majors, and a misplay in the outfield can be much more disastrous than one in the infield. Lugo gave Atlanta a couple of extra outs last year, but when I see Ward dive for a ball that rolls past him to the wall, that's an extra out plus 2 or 3 bases.

It's also the most best outfield in the bigs offensively.

2) The bullpen...to me, the resurgence of the bullpen was the single most important element in our making the playoffs last year. Yet for some reason, management has decided to roll the dice with castoffs like Matthews and Pichardo this year. The only reliable lefty we have is Wagner, and unless Brocail comes back with a great year(which I highly doubt), all we have on the right side is Dotel.

Agreed. Our bullpen is attrocious.

Can someone please explain to me why we let Villone, Mike Jackson, and Williams walk right out the door? At the very least, we should have kept Villone. He saved our asses countles times with his long relief, and would have given us a versatile lefty in the middle innings ahead of Dotel and Wagner.

I think you overvalue Villone, but I think we should have kept Jackson in a reduced role and acquired someone else as well. We do need a long-reliever, though I think Villone was ill-suited for this.

Linebrink and Cruz have been horrible, while Stone has pitched surprisingly well, but overall the pen seems much weaker than last year.

Give Cruz some time. He was fine last year, which means there's a decent chance he'll be fine this year. It's very early to give up on someone.

3) Third base...while I do think Ensberg is capable of being adequate, he seems like a clone of Truby. They both tear up AAA, but neither looks like a future stud in the bigs. And unlike last year, there's no Vinny Castilla to save the day. Hopefully the Astros have a plan B at third, because I just don't think Ensberg can be the starter on a championship club.

Very poor assertion. Castilla was a very mediocre 3b. His OBP, even with the Astros, was very poor. He slugged decently, but didn't know the difference between a ball and a strike. Ensberg does.

As of yet, Ensberg has shown very little power, but does have a .417 OBP. That's a very auspicious sign. If nothing else, Ensberg can undergo strength training.

-Find a rangy, fast CF to hit second and play great D in the OF. This would allow Berkman to go to left, where he is above average, and give us some speed ahead of Bags, Berkman, etc.
-Get at least one reliable lefthander in the bullpen, either through a trade or a promotion.
-Find a solid 3B to take over for Ensberg and protect Hidalgo.

More foolishness. While speed is a nice attribute, it's not worth sacrificing much power for when you've got power hitters behind him.

We do need the middle reliever.

And Ensberg is probably better than anybody we could acquire at 3b. That .417 OBP makes my head-spin.

pquote]We have A LOT of valuable prospects to use as trade bait, including: Ward, Redding, Lidge, Ensberg, Lane, Buck, Pluta, Rosario, etc.[/quote]

Holy ****! You want a mid-market team to trade it's prospects in the beginning of the year. That's a terrible idea! The Astros have enough money to generally keep the home-grown guys and acquire decent relief help, what you suggest is suicide.

While trading them would deplete the excellent depth we have in the minors, I think management owes it to Bagwell and Biggio to put together a team with the best chance to win NOW, not 3 years from now.

And guarantees that 3 years from now, the astros would be terrible. What you suggest works in basketball, perhaps... but in baseball, rebuilding is a long, arduous prospect for teams without tons of money. The steady stream of quality prospects will keep the Astros in the winning column. Empty it out, like the Red Sox... and you're going back to the Lastros.

Surely from the stock above, Hunsicker can find a CF, LHRP, and 3B to make this team a true playoff-contender, not first-round fodder.

The '98 team wasn't first round fodder. It was arguably the best team in the majors. But it lost anyway. The 99 team was actually very good as well. The first playoff team and the most recent ones were probably doomed. The 99 team really wasn't that good, and the 2001 team had too many injuries.

I think that, generally speaking, the post-season is largely a matter of luck. Certainly, some teams are far more likely to win than others, but... Atlanta certainly fielded more than 1 "true playoff contender"s... but they don't have much to show for it. And the boring, tired formula that some people are so proud of, "pitching and defense," was Atlanta's trade-mark. They got out-hit, plain and simple.

I was in favor of the RJ trade. Because, undeniably, it made the Astros, on paper, the best team in baseball. But trading prospects for veterans is a losing business unless you're the Yankees. And I'd rather the Astros make the playoffs more often, than gamble it all for one shot. Especially when all they'd need is a little bit of luck, anyway, once they get to the post season.

Baseball, more than any other sport, is all about making the post-season. In basketball.. .it's nothing special. In football... nobody truly expects the wild card to win much. But in baseball, if you're in... you've got a chance. Out of all the teams... only 8 make it. And they're all pretty good. And if you get hot... you can win the World Series like the D'backs did last year.

In summation: The OF is fine. Stewart would probably be a good solution in CF. But you can't give up more than Ward for him, and even that is pushing it. Ensberg is perfectly fine at 3b. We do need a LHRP. And a RHRP for that matter as well.

[Hey Now!]

Just last year we saw this: Lugo's crucial errors may very well have cost us the series. To correct this problem, we've given SS to Everett, and I agree with this move. It seems contradicting, however, to give up offense for defense at short, while sacrificing D in the outfield.

but lugo's nowhere near capable of making up the difference at the plate to the degree ward, berkman and hidalgo are.

each will drive in 75-100 runs, easily, and each will likely score that many as well. there's simply no way, no matter how slow or out of place they are in the field, that they'll cost houston more runs than they'll produce. not by a long shot.

The bullpen...to me, the resurgence of the bullpen was the single most important element in our making the playoffs last year. Yet for some reason, management has decided to roll the dice with castoffs like Matthews and Pichardo this year.

as opposed to the all-stars they employed last year? most of those guys were cast-offs.

And don't use the excuse we couldn't afford him...if the Pirates can afford to sign him, surely we can come up with enough $ to keep him.

yeah, but the pirates also aren't paying bagwell, biggio, hidalgo and wagner, all of whom, iirc, have larger yearly salaries than any single pirate.

Linebrink and Cruz have been horrible, while Stone has pitched surprisingly well, but overall the pen seems much weaker than last year.

i wouldn't fret; last year's pen was built on the fly. if the team stays in contention and the pen remains a problem, hunsicker will patch things up.

-Find a rangy, fast CF to hit second and play great D in the OF. This would allow Berkman to go to left, where he is above average, and give us some speed ahead of Bags, Berkman, etc.

and what bat do you take out of the lineup? i find it hard to believe there's a CF available who'd be more productive than ward, berkman or hidalgo. did not having a CF hurt them last year? and didn't they have a "true" CF in '98 and '99 with everett? and how many more playoff series did they win those years?

-Get at least one reliable lefthander in the bullpen, either through a trade or a promotion.

why would a team trade a reliable lefty? it's not like they grow on trees (witness: greg swindell still draws a paycheck for the dbacks.) these first two suggestions fall into the "much easier said than done" category.

-Find a solid 3B to take over for Ensberg and protect Hidalgo.

lineup protection is overrated -- wasn't castilla hitting behind hidalgo most of last year? let's give ensberg more than a week before giving up on him...

We have A LOT of valuable prospects to use as trade bait, including: Ward, Redding, Lidge, Ensberg, Lane, Buck, Pluta, Rosario, etc.

wait -- now ensberg's a vaulable prospect? then why trade him?

While trading them would deplete the excellent depth we have in the minors, I think management owes it to Bagwell and Biggio to put together a team with the best chance to win NOW, not 3 years from now.

they are winning NOW -- four division titles in five years.

Surely from the stock above, Hunsicker can find a CF, LHRP, and 3B to make this team a true playoff-contender, not first-round fodder.

if they're in the first round of the playoffs, then they're playoff contenders.

but anyway, since you mentioned it, please list available players that fill your perceived holes and guarantee playoff success...

[Rocketman95]

Ric, did you see my post about your site???

[Hey Now!]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
Ric, did you see my post about your site???
uhm.... i don't think so...

[haven]

Man, Ric... you and I might disagree about David Carr. But we seem to think very much alike on baseball!

[Rocketman95]

When I try to go to the site from my home computers, I got to www.rotojunkie.com. The mixup happened when I was trying to activate my registration to the BBS.

[Hey Now!]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
When I try to go to the site from my home computers, I got to www.rotojunkie.com. The mixup happened when I was trying to activate my registration to the BBS.
its likely your ISP; it just hasn't propogated the URL change to it yet (we swiched servers last week).

you could also try clearing out your cache -- might work. if not, it's the ISP -- should be cool in a day or two. or three. maybe four. in the meantime, you can access us here: http://209.197.233.173

[Rocketman95]

Cool. Thank God for second job, you're site's starting to become addictive. :)

[Milos]

Fellas, calm down. Yes, I understand we do not live in the Yankees' perfect world where money grows on trees and whatever THE BOSS thinks he needs is immediately signed or traded for.

The topic of the thread was "early observations", and these are mine.

1) A speedy centerfielder, while certainly not as powerful as Ward, could still be just as vital to the offense while vastly improving the defense. A player like Stewart, for instance, hitting second could easily score 130+ runs between Biggio and Bagwell. While Ward could conceivably drive in that many, I can't see him possibly scoring more than 80 or so himself hitting that low in the order. So, as long as Stewart drives in about 80 himself (which is how many Biggio usually gets from the top of the order), we lose absolutely nothing in terms of total production from that spot in the outfield, while at the same time strengthening two postions defensively.

2) Everyone seems to agree the bullpen is a mess; no need to elaborate on that since I fully expect help to come from within or outside the organization at some point this season (ala last year).

3) About Ensberg, you are right, it is way too early to give up on him. For whatever reason though, I just cannot see him as an impact player. I know teams have won before without studs at 3B, and if a young player with a higher ceiling cannot be acquired, I would be fine with hanging on to Ensberg, provided he doesn't fall flat on his face like Truby did last year after his hot start at the plate.

4) Finally, your points about us giving up prospects would ruin the team later on does not hold up for several reasons.

a. I'm not talking about giving them up for trading-deadline vets like Fred McGriff. I'm suggesting young players like Rolen, Stewart, and Beltran...young guys who for whatever reason are no longer valued by their current teams. These players are just entering there primes and can still be part of the foundation of this team 5 or 6 years down the road.

b. Also, that's what the luxury of having a deep, talented farm system is for; to keep the major league team stocked with talent. I'm not saying get rid of everyone to load the team for one last run at a title, but use some of them to bring in guys who can help our team now.

Obviously, with only 25 roster spots, all of the talented players in a farm system cannot play for the team that originally signs them. This is especially true for the Astros, who have a ton of young guys who should be the center of this team for a long time (Oswalt, Miller, Hernandez, Berkman, Hidalgo, Everett...).

For example, the rotation is already set at three spots for at least 3 years, assuming the three all fulfill their vast potential, at least until all three are ushered out the free agency door (like all of our star pitchers) by tightwad McClane. That leaves two spots available for guys like Redding, Qualls, Rosario, Pluta, and several others. Are we supposed to hoard all of these guys in AAA, worrying about the future?

No, of course not. We follow the path of the model mid-market team of the 90's, the Indians. They have traded away tons of top prospects for established big-leaguers, yet remained competitive for the better part of a decade.

Guys like Burnitz, Sexson, and Giles have gone on to thrive with other teams, but the team was content to let them go because they knew with an outfield stacked with guys like Lofton, Belle, and Ramirez, the redundant prospects were better used as trade bait to bring in help at a weak position.

Realistically, of the postion players, the only three we will have to replace any time soon already have guys coming up behind them. When Biggio retires, Chris Burke should be ready to take over 2B. Soon after Bagwell and Ausmus will move on as well, and Berkman and John Buck should be able to take over for them respectively. I never suggested trading these three, because they are too valuable to the future of our team. I do think that with the surplus of young arms and outfielders, however, we can afford to make them expendable if it means adding help to the pen, CF, or 3B.

[gr8-1]

It's also the most best outfield in the bigs offensively.

I think St. Louis, any OF with Bonds, and a healthy Texas OF would have something to say about that.

[bobrek]

Originally posted by Milos
...For example, the rotation is already set at three spots for at least 3 years, assuming the three all fulfill their vast potential, at least until all three are ushered out the free agency door (like all of our star pitchers) by tightwad McClane...

Would you please explain what you mean here? You did write "all our star pitchers". I assume that you are talking about Johnson, Kile and Hampton. Oh wait, you couldn't be talking about Hampton because the Astros traded him and got a pretty good return.

Perhaps you are also talking about the Astros star reliever - Wagner? Oh wait, he was signed to a long term contract (which some people criticize as being too much money - but how can that be with a tightwad for an owner?)

Do you honestly believe the Astros had a shot in hell of signing Johnson? There was no loyalty on Johnson's part. Had they offered the same contract as the D'backs, he still would have signed with Arizona.

The same with Kile. He took the money and ran to Colorado where he did little for them.

Perhaps you are still thinking about Nolan Ryan. If so, that wasn't McLane's decision.

[haven]

1) A speedy centerfielder, while certainly not as powerful as Ward, could still be just as vital to the offense while vastly improving the defense. A player like Stewart, for instance, hitting second could easily score 130+ runs between Biggio and Bagwell. While Ward could conceivably drive in that many, I can't see him possibly scoring more than 80 or so himself hitting that low in the order. So, as long as Stewart drives in about 80 himself (which is how many Biggio usually gets from the top of the order), we lose absolutely nothing in terms of total production from that spot in the outfield, while at the same time strengthening two postions defensively.

Hmmm... you lost a great deal of credibility by just mentioning the term "runs" as a good criteria for evaluating players. Runs and RBI are contingent upon the other players in the squad, even more than the player himself. For offensive production, refer to OPS. If you want to evaluate speed, look at things like doubles, triples, and stolen bases (and SB %).

Production is a function of getting on base, and hitting for power. As I said previously... I'd consider a trade of Ward for Stewart straight-up. Someone like Juan Pierre... hell no.


4) Finally, your points about us giving up prospects would ruin the team later on does not hold up for several reasons.

a. I'm not talking about giving them up for trading-deadline vets like Fred McGriff. I'm suggesting young players like Rolen, Stewart, and Beltran...young guys who for whatever reason are no longer valued by their current teams. These players are just entering there primes and can still be part of the foundation of this team 5 or 6 years down the road.

b. Also, that's what the luxury of having a deep, talented farm system is for; to keep the major league team stocked with talent. I'm not saying get rid of everyone to load the team for one last run at a title, but use some of them to bring in guys who can help our team now.

Obviously, with only 25 roster spots, all of the talented players in a farm system cannot play for the team that originally signs them. This is especially true for the Astros, who have a ton of young guys who should be the center of this team for a long time (Oswalt, Miller, Hernandez, Berkman, Hidalgo, Everett...).

This is absurd. You're once again committing the fallacy of assuming that every prospect works out. The point of having a good farm system is not to acquire other players... think about the implications if you universalized this claim to all teams. The results would be non-sensical.

The point of having depth in a farm system, is that not all youngsters are going to work out. In fact, the majority do not. The odds are against any particular guys. So only fools keep only one talented youngster at each position in the minors.

If Biggio were 26... maybe one could consider trading a 2b prospect. He's not. He's 36. Ginter, Burke, Whiteman. One will probably work out. But the odds are against even two of them working out.