Maybe... I just think his "negatives" that all the experts here are pointing out are well-known issues seen by everybody. His value is directly tied to him continuing to hit well... which I can see the Astros hanging on to him if they believe its reproducible. If they don't think it is.... whether you use BABIP, LD%, or whatever metric du jour... don't you think other GM's/front offices know that too, thus hindering his trade value? As it is, his contract makes him both keepable and tradeable at the same time... so there's not really a lot of pressure to make a move either way.
I just think that in beisbol in 1893 or in the future when bots are the GMs, there will always be a place for .300 hitters who can steal bases and play a great infield. His ability to get singles becomes more valuable with the addition of Lowerie. And with the great eye altuve has, it's asinine to think he can't become a little more disciplined at the plate in the next couple of years. ok that's my last post on jose don't want to go the bobbythegreat route. promise.
Oh I think the Astros are very much aware that, after subjecting their fan base to three years of historic losing, they need to tread lightly. Altuve is far and away their highest profile player. Springer and Correa are nipping at his heels and will pass him soon enough. But stability and trying to win right now are two messages they need to send to their fans. Altuve's leads the team in batting average (among eligible players) but is third in OB%.
I keep hearing people refer to him as a "singles hitter" If you get some time, look where he ranked in doubles last year He has his flaws for sure, but it's laughable to hear him referred to as a singles hitter
No, frankly, I don't. Do you really think Ruben Amaro is doing a deep-dive into sabermetrics? That's not to suggest *every* GM is dumb - but we shouldn't assume they're all as progressive as this FO. Plus, I just don't think this regime values his skill-set*, perhaps to their detriment as he's obviously not a *bad* 2B. * - I also believe they think less, generally, of Wade's personnel. It wouldn't surprise me to learn they're champing at the bit to switch their guy (Kemp) for Wade's guy (Altuve).
And makes contact with almost everything too A great eye doesn't mean he has great plate discipline, which he doesn't
3rd in all of baseball with 47. But remember: our premise here is that last year was the outlier - and he's never slugged above .400 before slugging .453 last year. Hey, look - if .340/.377/.453 was a reasonable expectation for him on a yearly basis, this would be a silly conversation. 76% of his career hits have been singles.
How does a fairly career mediocre hitter make Altuve more valuable? I think too many people here are *vastly* overrating Jed Lowrie. Nice player, sure - but this idea he makes the team better instantly... I mean, he's not Mike Trout. And is Altuve generally considered a great infielder? I'm genuinely asking. I think the general anectdotal opinion is that he's perfectly fine - but by no means exceptional. If you think Altuve has a "great" eye then I definitely think you're overrating his defense by calling it "great." He actually has a terrible eye, evidenced by the fact he doesn't ever walk. He's a great bad ball hitter; it seems at some point, the league will catch up to him. If guys show no patience and can't draw walks, good pitchers will eventually eat them alive.
I think the Astros value him making contact... and getting hits. That's pretty much what any GM would value in him. You don't need to be an expert BBS sabermetrician to value that. His speed is nice, but obviously not a "must" as they're willing to play him now but limit him to jogging. His defense isn't really a critical factor given the amount of shifts they employ. Also, Altuve was actually signed during the Pupurra era.... and I wouldn't really trust any regime who was biased as to only consider "their" guys over all other baseball players, and I doubt this front office really cares that much if the players show they can play.
Altuve's LD%, hard hit%, and GB% have stayed consistent. His swing% and contact% have also stayed consistent. Given those facts, aside from one year his BABIP has also been consistent (.321,.316,.360,.302). All of his ratios have been very stable, the only difference was his BABIP spiked last year, for statistically no good reason. I can't see how any objective person would assume that one statistical outlier is his true level. I really don't like to come across as the Altuve basher, but to me his 2014 season is very similar to Castros 2013 season, and people need to temper their expectations for him.
I think I open myself to the fact that he's 25 and may have actually improved at 24--seems pretty plausible, right? And, more than that, he might still improve. Most guys have their primes around 27...I don't think it's accelerated a ton by coming up early. Yes, it varies player to player, but it still seems very possible. Given that the "outlier" is only 1 month removed (i.e. all of last season + first month of this season)...I think I'll wait and see how it plays out.
And GM's were able to see the regression factor in Castro when the Astros attempted to sell high... there's a good chance they all see the same things in Altuve that you just mentioned. He's not going to get expensive any time soon... and until they get a lineup full of contact/OBP machines, he does have a needed role in the current lineup (albeit not at leadoff).
Sorta.... Springer was the subject of trade speculation last month, Altuve this month, McHugh/VV will be next month, and Correa will be slated for spring of 2020.
