Interestingly last year after the Padres traded for Josh Hader, Brandon Drury, Josh Bell, and Juan Soto their chances went from 4.3% to 9.1% So that's almost 5%
I’ll take the over on 5% just because he is an ace and an elite bat. Running him out there 2-3 times in a 7 game series against the Astros and then having him hit in the middle of the line up is likely worth more than 5%…. And that is taking into account him possibly being bad in a small sample size. Imagine him in a 7 game series getting 30 at bats, starting to games and pitching 12-14 innings total and then possibly coming out of the pen for another inning.
A lot of it depends on when you look at the odds. So assuming a 7 game playoff series….. going into that series, it will be more than 5%. That is to say the odds change based on circumstance. If I am a team that is confident about making the playoffs… let’s say the Yankees… if I add Ohtani, I feel a LOT more confident playing Houston or LA or ATL, and that type of thing is hard to always quantify.
A lot of it also depends on where you start and other factors. Last year, Ohtani might not improve the pitching at all but him at DH over Mancini/Diaz would have been huge. But this year, let's say Abreu, Yordan, and Brantley are all healthy and have good years. How much would Ohtani improve this team if the pitching is as good? A team like the Guardians or Twins may get a5% increase but Astros less
Let's say ohtani is in a 7 game series and pitches a gem game one. What are the chances that his opponent pitch him inside in game 3 before his next start. Wouldn't take much to impact a pitchers performance
No-that’s doubling their chance in the way he was talking about it. If they went from 4 to 5% their chances would improve by 25% is what he was saying.
This is primarily a mathematical difference as has been stated. The numbers are meaningless without understanding their basis. It is the same problem when a news headline gives a number without a basis. Of course that is what I expect from the modern press who would have been called propagandists back in the day.
Didn't see this posted, but Brown or Crane is not a fan of super long-term extensions. https://houston.sportsmap.com/astros-dana-extension-tucker-framber Houston Astros GM Dana Brown shared an update on how the contract negotiations have been going with Kyle Tucker and Framber Valdez. Unfortunately for Astros fans, it doesn't look like any extensions are likely to happen before the start of the season. Brown pointed to the length of the contracts as being one of the big concerns holding up any potential deals. Which is interesting because Brown is well-known for telling owner Jim Crane, “Fasten your seatbelt. It's time.” when it comes to the Astros aversion to long-term deals. And to Brown's credit, he did sign Cristian Javier to an extension this offseason, but that deal is for only five years. Brown is now saying that he doesn't believe in long-term deals, and it sure seems like Tucker is looking for a 10-year contract. So what changed? Brown told the media he's open to going as long as seven years, but not further than that. Did Jim Crane influence Brown's new outlook on these long-term deals, or has seven years always been a length Brown is unwilling to cross? When asked about the 8 and 10-year contracts the Braves have handed out (Brown's former organization), Brown basically said those deals were made by his boss, Braves GM Alex Anthopoulos.
Saw this… seems like he’s just echoing the line that Crane has drawn when it comes to these sorts of deals. Not that Crane is opposed to keeping players longer, just that he won’t get locked into anybody without some assurances that they’re still going to be worth it for the past-prime years. Altuve will likely be paid big money for around 10 years… but with separate deals. If this was truly Brown’s philosophy, wouldn’t he have said it concurrently when all the stories about him getting Crane to be aggressive were breaking? And it likely doesn’t matter if the GM has a philosophy or not… when the owner is against it, its not going to happen.
Delighted to hear this. I was concerned that the Astros might be changing what was working so well for them. My confidence in Brown has improved since reading this.
The longest term deals Crane has done is 6 new years after the current deal is completed. It is broken down into CC & ARB seasons and FA seasons. I believe an acceptable contract for more than 6 years would include more of the CC and ARB years, not more FA years. The seven year deal for Altuve included two years of club options which were a part of his previous 4 year contract which were rolled into the new contract in 2018 (AAV Management), so even that contract was for 5 additional years, not 7. Alvarez's deal was for an additional 6 years after completing the current year which was not rolled into the new contract (again, AAV Management). Neither Crane nor players seem to really want to commit beyond 6 years since almost all of the contracts now have a player opt out before the end of the contract terms of longer contracts, so can you blame him for not wanting to commit only to paying for players who disappoint? Well according to some, yes you can because he's a Billionaire and you want him to waste his money and eat the losses. And he's competing with fools so everyone should become foolish. If it made financial sense, I doubt he'd have a problem to go over 6 years. Yes Crane is a Billionaire, but the majority of his wealth is from the Astros and that is not fungible nor stable. Much of the valuation of the Astros comes from simply determining the value of the cash flow at a market rate of return. As the interest rate rises, the valuations of every team will go down with nothing changing to the income stream. Just as housing prices fall for the same house as interest rates rise, so will professional teams. The lower valuations (at least relative to higher interest rates) have not yet been factored into team valuations by Forbes. I support Crane's approach, even if it's unpopular with some. Just give him the same benefit of the doubt you give Dusty when you focus on results rather than the process. This concept may be foreign to younger folk, but those of us that remember the inflation years of the late 70s and early 80s grew up on this stuff. When you think of long term contracts for a "can't miss" prospect, don't forget Jon Singleton. Imagine him on a 10/$300M contract and how that would have affected the last 6 years. Please note - Not every response to a post is a counterpoint. Sometime, like this one, it is an addition or expansion of a point.
Fair point, but also double the risk if he's out. Now there are "two Stars" to replace. Imagine McCullers if he was also a key component to the Offense in 2021. We might have been swept.
I don’t think Tucker has ever been in play for an extension with all the talent we have coming up in the Minors. Hopefully Framber is an exception. We also need to re-sign Bregman and Altuve which are much less expendable due to our lack of depth in the infield.
I think the Astros have hit the sweet spot by buying out arbitration years which usually get you through age 27 to 32 somewhere in there, depending and then not giving out any deals that extend through years 34 to 40 until the player has proven they are still going to be good in this year's. Keep locking guys up in their prime years through arbitration and maybe one or two years more....then on the other end finding 35 years olds that are still producing and give them three year deals because they are on the tail end of their careers.
