I got a kick out of the astros.com headline the other day- "Astros break out bats for Backe." We scored 4 runs in the game. Apparently no one told astros.com only 3 other teams AVERAGE under 4 runs a game.
Dude. Those numbers aren't even close. You're comparing a guy with a career .779 OPS to one with an .894 OPS. That's a HUGE difference. I'm not saying the guy doesn't have his faults, but he's young and he would be a big addition to this offense.
I too, agree that pitching is important but look at what happened during their Dome days. Then the Astros focus was on pitching, speed and defense with hitting a distinct 4th on that list. That resulted in some of the most boring and dull baseball you ever saw. When they moved to Minute Maid park, they suddenly had to shift their focus to putting a more offensively capable team on the field hence all to the trades for proven players because their farm system was not producing these types of players. Now it has come down to this season. Look at the mess they trot out these days vs. what Texas puts on the field and you'll see my point: the Rangers have been better at finding solid position players. Their (Rangers) pitching is shaky at best but it doesn't (in my mind) compare to the Astros staff. Yet which team is doing better? Which team's season was not basically over after the 1st month? I think it all boils down to talent evaluation and that's where this organization has fallen short. I think that what's needed is an overhaul of their scouting staff. It may well take years to crawl out of this hole but I can accept this if I can see concrete moves being undertaken to address what brought about this shipwreck of a season.
If having one bad season out of 7 is enough to demand a new scouting staff, then the Rangers would be working on their 5th or 6th by now... Frankly, I don't think there's any comparison as to which organization has been more successful with the way it conducts buisness... the results over the past 10 years speak for itself. As far as farm systems go, these things invairably run in cycles. Right now, the Astros' pitching products have matched the Rangers hitting products (in fact, they've exceeded them)... and both teams are well above the average in growing great home grown players compared to the rest of the league (especially the rest of the upper mid-market teams, which is where Houston and Texas are). Many great teams aren't able to just constantly churn out position players from their farm. The Astros thought they had a great deal of success coming their way in Abreu, Hidalgo and Berkman... the first one was chosen in the expansion draft, the second one collapsed after getting his big money, and the third one is all we have left. Look at St. Louis... they've only produced Albert Pujols over the last 10 years.... but can you name any other position players? What about a position player on the Cubs.... D'Backs?... Dodgers??? I think you've got a little Dallas envy goin here... and you also have to realize that there wasn't much "scouting" when it came to drafting Texiera, Blalock, or trading for Soriano after paying for A-Rod to come there.
i suppose if you're addicted to moneyball and OPS is the ONLY stat you care about...then you're right. bottom line...kingman is the poster boy for guys who strike out a lot, but hit a lot of homers. dunn fits in that neat category, even if he's better than kingman.
You can't ignore a stat just because you don't agree with it Max. Taking 0.080 points off of Dunn's OBP, which is what you have to do to make him comparable to Kingman, is akin to comparing Tony Gwynn to somebody that hit 0.280.
No, it's not that. I'm just frustrated and a bit perplexed at how the Astros system can produce pitchers but fails to produce solid players like Texiera, Blalock and Mench who can stroke the ball. Texas is riding high for the moment because they play in a very weak division - so weak in fact that they can win it even with their spotty pitching staff. But if you compare their roster to ours -especially their infield, you can't help but see how badly the Astros come up short. I just want to see something concrete being done to address this disparity now rather than later.
Why are you so perplexed? Texiera and Blalock were both highly touted coming out of the draft (especially Texiera), and they've panned out great. The Astros decided to draft Berkman and Lidge as 1st round picks... and both of them turned out great. Sometimes teams draft out of need... when the Astros had Bagwell, Biggio, Caminitti, Finley, Gonzalez, Alou, etc. in their lineup, you tend to try to get some pitching to build around that solid core. Also, the Astros have been BETTER than the Rangers in each of the last 6 years... why is it time to panic when it seems like Texas might (only might) have a team that will put up a better record than Houston for the first time in the millenium. I don't think there should be cause for concern that Texas is doing something "oh so right", and Houston is clueless when it comes to developing a farm system. Its very rare for a farm system to produce great hitters AND great pitchers... frankly, as I said before... its rare for ANY team's farm system to produce this many good players period that either stick with the MLB club, or go on to become stars elsewhere.... Over the last 10 years these guys have come through the Houston system... and I challenge you to find a system that has been far more productive than this in producing viable MLB players: Roy Oswalt Brad Lidge Wade Miller Johan Santana Freddy Garcia Daryle Kile Billy Wagner Lance Berkman Richard Hidalgo Bobby Abreu Ozzie Guillen Daryle Ward Morgan Ensberg
We've had this argument before, Hammer. I'm opposed to OPS. I think it's a fine stat...one of many. I don't believe, however, it will feed the hungry or end all human suffering, as many of its proponents seem to. As in this instance...they'll look at a thousand other criteria that are similar...then find a difference in OPS, just one measure, and say, "oh, those players are entirely different." one way or the other, they'll overstate the case based entirely on one measure. that's the moneyball effect. and the A's suck.
OPS tells you nothing that OBP and SLG don't tell you. In fact, it tells you less--two guys with similar OPS could be very different offensive players! OPS is the lazy stat-geek's playtoy. Forget watching the damn game, let's just invent "superstats" and "measure" it, coming to ridiculous conclusions in the meantime. The A's suck.
Well, no kidding? It is in fact simply OBP + SLG. So, you're telling me two numbers are better than one? I don't understand what the deal is with your whole anti-OPS crusade. It's a single stupid stat. One that tells you the worth of a player as well as batting average, slugging percentage or any other offensive stat. What the hell is your problem man? Do you really think that anyone savvy enough to use OPS as a measuring tool would not be smart enough to know where those points are coming from? Btw, when I mention OPS as a measuring tool are you saying that I don't watch the games?
I can see your point. It's also interesting to note how many of those guys in you list are still here on the Astors making contributions. It's just after watching them get shutout for the 10th time because their roster couldn't hit wet toilet paper, one tends to get perplexed as to why this team can be such a laughing stock. This isn't even a AAA caliber team - it's more like an expansion team. I'm surprised that Leno hasn't got a running monologue about them. I suppose the big question is how can a team that was one game from making the World Series a year ago be this dismal. That really shouldn't happen unless the team we saw last year really wasn't all as good as it appeared. From what I'm seeing now, that is most definitely the case. Plus, someone somewhere completely screwed the pooch in evaluating the ability of our so-called young players to perform at the major league level.
Max, I didn't say anything about OPS, I said OBP. Basically what you did is remove a bunch of walks from Dunn to make him comparable to Kingman. I said it would be similar to taking a bunch of hits away from Gwynn then comparaing his batting average to a much lesser hitter.
Over 650 plate appearances, a guy with a .382 OBP will reach base 52 more times than a guy with .302 OBP. Yep, same player indeed.
Yes. Yes, I am. I don't mean to overgeneralize. There are a lot of folks who use OPS and other stats intelligently. It's just that I've seen just as many who folks who don't. I don't know you, but I know some who rarely attend or watch baseball and talk like know-it-alls because they have their nose up a bunch of numbers. The "conclusions" they are arrive at are mind-bogglingly stupid to anyone who actually watches the game. By the way, if I repeat an opinion more than once, it is not a "crusade". I agreed with someone else's take. I'm sorry you took it personal but *nothing* "the hell is my problem".
All people are doing is dispelling Dunn=Kingman. Dunn's career numbers have 15 point batting average edge, an 80 point on base percentage edge, and a 30 point slugging percentage edge. Kingman had one year with an OBP over .340. Dunn's done it his entire career. He's currently up over .400 which would be the 2nd time to do that in his young career. For instance, this year, Dunn's OBP puts him 18th in all the majors. Kingman's career high would put him tied for 83rd. Kingman's career average would put him tied for 154th (ironically, with Adam Everett). No one's saying OPS tells you what kind of player. You can have a guy in Kingman's mold have the same OPS as a guy in Ichiro's mold. But considering Dunn and Kingman are of the same mold, a 100 point OPS difference is significant. To say Dunn=Kingman because they hit a lot of homers and strike out a lot is like saying Ichiro=Paul Lo Duca because they don't walk much and are hard to strike out. Lo Duca's a fine player, but he's not Ichiro.
First of all, Dave Kingman was a very valuable player to his teams... much like Dunn is to the Reds (or to whichever team he ends up with). So, its not like saying "Dunn is like Dave Kingman" is all bad. Secondly, the comparison is being made because its the best one there is. Once again, its not a perfect comparison... but as Max said, its not that far off either. A guy who has the uncanny ability to strike-out alomst 200 times, yet can launch 46 HR's is very intriguing to say the least. Dunn would be a good addition to any team... but its kinda hard to see where he would be a good fit. Is he the missing piece of the puzzle? No. Should he be considered a franchise-type player... no. In the end, Dunn should probably be on a team that has a great offense despite him, not because of him. St. Louis, NY Yankees, and Boston are the only ones who can currently say that.
