I completely disagree. Astros are 13-12 in Framber's games and 18-7 in Javiers. Who is better? Who has played better? A better player is a better player. Better play impacts the chances to win. 162 g season is a grind but gives plenty of chances for that chance to happen. Julks has played 93 games. Let's say that playing Chas, Meyers, or Diaz (whoever is on the bench) instead adds a 1% chance per game of the Astros winning. The math says eventually that 1% hits and the Astros have 1 more win. That ties them with Seattle and a game over Texas. Then we can do Dubon. We can do Maldy. Eventually over 162 games Dusty's bad lineups costs the Astros 2-5 wins.
They've won 62% of the games Julks has started. *That's* the math. It is not, "Here, let me randomly pull a favorable % that supports my argument..." Julks starting has not impacted their win total in the way you so desperately hope it does. That's not to suggest they're better with Julks - it's just to underscore that so many other, more important things are happening around Julks that it's silly to be this wrapped around the axel with him. He's margin.
It a club option that converts to a player option based on an inning theshold (that he’s passed) and passing a year-end physical. So assuming he’s healthy at the end of the season, it will be a player option.
Fangraphs and baseball reference both says Julks 93g and 293 PA are worth 0.3 wins above replacement. Fangraphs Chas 2.89 more wins in 293 PA Diaz 1.65 more wins in 293 PA Jake 1.70 more wins in 293 PA Baseball Reference Chas 2.73 more wins in 293 PA Diaz 2.39 more wins in 293 PA Jake 1.40 more wins in 293 PA In every case, the math says any combination of those players playing those 93 games instead of Julks ends up at least 1 additional win. I realize it is JUST the math, but if you play better players game after game eventually you will win more games.
You left out one of the most important parts of the core, and I suspect you are very aware and did it on purpose. I agree re: Julks - playing him too often is a 1-win decision (of course, we are only behind by 1 win … but still, it’s small). But if you don’t have Diaz as part of the “core that matters” you are being intentionally obtuse. You are talking about swapping someone who has performed at the level of one of the top 3-4 catchers in the game for literally the worst performing catcher in the game. That is a core positional upgrade if I’ve ever seen one. And, no, playing Diaz at DH doesn’t make it better. Throwing away a massive positional advantage is a fireable offense, period. I know this recent convo is about Julks, but the fact that you don’t even list Diaz as part of the top tier that matters shows more than a bit of intent to avoid criticizing Dusty.
Yep as you mentioned it's now a player option. I think it all depends on how he looks down the stretch and the playoffs (if we make the playoffs). It's for 8.5 mil next season. If he opts out he'll definitely be looking to get a two yr deal (he'll be 35 next season). Don't think anyone would give him a 3 yr deal taking him through age 37 but who knows. If he finishes strong this yr I would say he'd get a 2yr deal from someone. Would you be willing to add on one more year at the same 8.5 mil (so 2 yr 17 mil)? Up until two weeks ago he was our most consistent arm in the pen.
[cut to: Bregman and Joe Joe outside the Stros clubhouse 2 hours ago] Alex, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps popups away? Uh-huh, and how does it work? It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. I see. But you haven't hit any popups today, have you? Joe Joe, I would like to buy your rock.
This… is developed Dubon…? He got hot for one month and has been avg/below avg since. He relies so heavily on his ability to make contact that he swings at everything. Dusty kept putting him at the top of the lineup because “that’s where 2B bats always” apparently, and he repeatedly sees like 2 pitches. If playing Julks more than Chas gets us Dubon-level production…. I’d rather have Chas.
