We didn't come out here to play tiddlywinks, son.
-Hal Smith
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Jed Lowrie feels "better than ever"
We're just under three weeks from the Astros heading to Kissimmee for the start of another Spring Training, and Jed Lowrie is feeling aces.
What could the Astros have looked like this offseason?
There's been some increasing chatter amongst some of the fanbase that Luhnow shouldn't have sat on his hands so much this offseason. Even those that buy into the rebuild say that we should have been more active in signing the guys that were willing to take one year deals this offseason. So, let's see what might have been.
I was trying to wait out the final ZIPS projections before making this post, but given the response we've received from this post I thought I'd go ahead and throw this out there now. For any player that doesn't have a projection already available, I took their average WAR from the past three seasons. Not very scientific, but good enough for these exercises.
Right now the Astros are sitting on a roughly $21.5M payroll (not including amounts owed for players no longer on the team) and, according to ZIPS, that buys us a team WAR of about 18. A zero WAR team should be expected to win about 45.5 games. Let's go with 45. So the roster, as constructed today, should expect to go 63-99.
Next, let's see who signed one year deals that would offer a projected upgrade over the current roster. For these purposes let's assume that Houston would have had to offer ten percent more than what the player actually signed for in order to woo them away from their true destination.
Pitching makes the biggest difference here, so let's look at that first. The biggest signing would have been Dan Haren is the biggest splash here, good for 4.1 WAR. We'll give him $14.3M to steal him from Washington and replace Phil Humber's .8 WAR and $800k. Next we'll take Scott Baker's 3 WAR away from the Cubs for $6M and let Jordan Lyles ($500K and .6 WAR) spend the season in AAA. Our next signing will be Koji Uehara at $4.7M for 1.2 WAR, replacing Hector Ambriz at $500K and (-) .9 WAR. Rounding out the bullpen, let's sign Ryan Madson for $3.9 M with 1.4 WAR and take Josh Fields off the roster ($500K and (-).2 WAR).
Now that we've spent $28.9M (minus $2.3M on the guys we bumped out, for a net $26.6M increase) on upgrading the pitching staff by 10.3 WAR, let's turn to the position players.
Congrats fans, Houston has resigned Lance Berkman at 1B! Though it cost us $12.1M, the massive increase in ticket sales more than makes up for it, right? His 2.4 WAR means we move Wallace to the bench and don't have room on the roster anymore for Nate Freiman's $500K and (-) .3 WAR. Next let's sign a whole new outfield!! We'll take Juan Pierre in left at $1.8M and 1.3 WAR, Andres Torres in center at $2.2M and 2 WAR (removing his outlier 2010 season), and Nate Schierholtz in right at $2.5M and 1 WAR. This takes the Martinii off the roster (combined $1M and 1.1 WAR) and means we don't sign Ankiel at $500K with .7 WAR.
There we just spent another net $16.5M for an increase of 5.3 WAR.
Here's the new depth chart:
1B: Berkman
2B: Altuve
SS: Lowrie
3B: Dominguez
LF: Pierre
CF: Torres
RF: Schierholtz
DH: Pena
BE: Corporan
BE: Wallace
BE: Greene
BE: Maxwell
SP: Haren
SP: Baker
SP: Norris
SP: Bedard
SP: Harrell
RP: Ely
RP: Cedeno
RP: Rodriguez
RP: Veras
RP: Uehara
RP: Wright
CL: Madson
We added $43.1M to payroll, for a total of $64.6M and increased our projected WAR by 15.6 to 33.6. Now we're talking! The new team should go 79-83!!
Is it worth it?
I was trying to wait out the final ZIPS projections before making this post, but given the response we've received from this post I thought I'd go ahead and throw this out there now. For any player that doesn't have a projection already available, I took their average WAR from the past three seasons. Not very scientific, but good enough for these exercises.
Right now the Astros are sitting on a roughly $21.5M payroll (not including amounts owed for players no longer on the team) and, according to ZIPS, that buys us a team WAR of about 18. A zero WAR team should be expected to win about 45.5 games. Let's go with 45. So the roster, as constructed today, should expect to go 63-99.
Next, let's see who signed one year deals that would offer a projected upgrade over the current roster. For these purposes let's assume that Houston would have had to offer ten percent more than what the player actually signed for in order to woo them away from their true destination.
Pitching makes the biggest difference here, so let's look at that first. The biggest signing would have been Dan Haren is the biggest splash here, good for 4.1 WAR. We'll give him $14.3M to steal him from Washington and replace Phil Humber's .8 WAR and $800k. Next we'll take Scott Baker's 3 WAR away from the Cubs for $6M and let Jordan Lyles ($500K and .6 WAR) spend the season in AAA. Our next signing will be Koji Uehara at $4.7M for 1.2 WAR, replacing Hector Ambriz at $500K and (-) .9 WAR. Rounding out the bullpen, let's sign Ryan Madson for $3.9 M with 1.4 WAR and take Josh Fields off the roster ($500K and (-).2 WAR).
Now that we've spent $28.9M (minus $2.3M on the guys we bumped out, for a net $26.6M increase) on upgrading the pitching staff by 10.3 WAR, let's turn to the position players.
Congrats fans, Houston has resigned Lance Berkman at 1B! Though it cost us $12.1M, the massive increase in ticket sales more than makes up for it, right? His 2.4 WAR means we move Wallace to the bench and don't have room on the roster anymore for Nate Freiman's $500K and (-) .3 WAR. Next let's sign a whole new outfield!! We'll take Juan Pierre in left at $1.8M and 1.3 WAR, Andres Torres in center at $2.2M and 2 WAR (removing his outlier 2010 season), and Nate Schierholtz in right at $2.5M and 1 WAR. This takes the Martinii off the roster (combined $1M and 1.1 WAR) and means we don't sign Ankiel at $500K with .7 WAR.
There we just spent another net $16.5M for an increase of 5.3 WAR.
Here's the new depth chart:
1B: Berkman
2B: Altuve
SS: Lowrie
3B: Dominguez
LF: Pierre
CF: Torres
RF: Schierholtz
DH: Pena
BE: Corporan
BE: Wallace
BE: Greene
BE: Maxwell
SP: Haren
SP: Baker
SP: Norris
SP: Bedard
SP: Harrell
RP: Ely
RP: Cedeno
RP: Rodriguez
RP: Veras
RP: Uehara
RP: Wright
CL: Madson
We added $43.1M to payroll, for a total of $64.6M and increased our projected WAR by 15.6 to 33.6. Now we're talking! The new team should go 79-83!!
Is it worth it?
The Astros are not the Marlins
With all due respect to Peter Gammons, who has been honored by the Hall of Fame for excellence in baseball journalism (which, incidentally, does not make him a "Hall of Famer"), he is slightly full of crap.
Gammons tweeted early this morning that:
It's awfully hard for Bud Selig to come down on the Marlins for slashing payroll when the Astros are at $21M.
There's your typical national journalist, who simply looks at numbers, and not the reason behind them. The Marlins are a totally different animal than the Astros. How so?
1. "Slashing payroll?" Come on.
The Astros have not slashed payroll. They cleared out dead weight.
In 2010, the Astros' payroll was $93.2m. In 2011 it was $71.1m. In 2012, they closed the season at $37.7m. That's a decline of 59.5%, before you get into the possibilities of 2013's payroll (which looks to be in the $25-30m range). But you look at the salaries of whom they were ridding themselves: Brett Myers' $11m contract. Wandy Rodriguez's $34m contract. Brandon Lyon's $5.5m. No more Carlos Lee at $18.5m per year. Just stopping there represents an impressive amount of money. Yet when each were traded, the response was either "It's about time," or "Luhnow is a genius."
Does Gammons want the Astros to replace all that payroll, especially after his September 2012 column in which he wrote:
What Crane, Postolos and Luhnow inherited was a team that was in the World Series seven years ago but was drained of talent because former owner Drayton McLane did not invest in the Draft.
You simply cannot retroactively blast the Astros for doing what everyone agreed should have been done at least three years earlier.
The Marlins have a special case. They dumped $181m in contracts in one day. That's not slashing payroll, that's 1929 on Wall Street. Their Opening day payroll in 2012 was $107.7m. Baseball-Reference estimates their payroll in 2013 to be $45m - a 58.8% decline in three baseball months.
Nobody wrote about how the Astros' rebuilding plan was "a baseball tragedy" as Jeff Passan did regarding the Marlins. Nobody wrote about the Astros disgracing baseball, as Time Magazine did. Nobody called the Astros' actions "inexcusable," as the Sporting News did.
2. The Astros didn't commit fraud.
Late in 2011 the SEC opened an investigation into the Marlins' ballpark deal.
CBS Sports wrote at the time:
The city and county are paying for nearly 80 percent of the $634 million stadium. The subpoenas focus, the report says, on the Marlins trying to determine the team's ability to pay for the financing of the stadium. Last year, the Marlins' financial records were leaked and they showed that the team had received the most money in Major League Baseball from its revenue-sharing system, while not investing it back into the team. The team said it was financial strapped and needed help from the city and county to build the stadium, which it ultimately received.
And then they went out and signed those $181m in contracts, wooing Albert Pujols, promising to put a competitive team on the field, a promise which didn't make it to the All-Star Break. Passan wrote in the above-linked article that, by the time the balloon payments are due on the ballpark, it will cost Miami-Dade taxpayers $2.4 billion.
Of owner Jeffrey Loria and president David Samson, Passan wrote:
And these were two men who for years lied about their finances, lied about their intentions, lied all to get Miami to build them a $634 million ballpark that was supposed to end this wretched cycle of turning a major league franchise into a swap meet.
For Peter Gammons to mention the Marlins' long-term plans with the Astros' long-term plans is, at best, lazy. At worst, it's ignorant.
Gammons tweeted early this morning that:
It's awfully hard for Bud Selig to come down on the Marlins for slashing payroll when the Astros are at $21M.
There's your typical national journalist, who simply looks at numbers, and not the reason behind them. The Marlins are a totally different animal than the Astros. How so?
1. "Slashing payroll?" Come on.
The Astros have not slashed payroll. They cleared out dead weight.
In 2010, the Astros' payroll was $93.2m. In 2011 it was $71.1m. In 2012, they closed the season at $37.7m. That's a decline of 59.5%, before you get into the possibilities of 2013's payroll (which looks to be in the $25-30m range). But you look at the salaries of whom they were ridding themselves: Brett Myers' $11m contract. Wandy Rodriguez's $34m contract. Brandon Lyon's $5.5m. No more Carlos Lee at $18.5m per year. Just stopping there represents an impressive amount of money. Yet when each were traded, the response was either "It's about time," or "Luhnow is a genius."
Does Gammons want the Astros to replace all that payroll, especially after his September 2012 column in which he wrote:
What Crane, Postolos and Luhnow inherited was a team that was in the World Series seven years ago but was drained of talent because former owner Drayton McLane did not invest in the Draft.
You simply cannot retroactively blast the Astros for doing what everyone agreed should have been done at least three years earlier.
The Marlins have a special case. They dumped $181m in contracts in one day. That's not slashing payroll, that's 1929 on Wall Street. Their Opening day payroll in 2012 was $107.7m. Baseball-Reference estimates their payroll in 2013 to be $45m - a 58.8% decline in three baseball months.
Nobody wrote about how the Astros' rebuilding plan was "a baseball tragedy" as Jeff Passan did regarding the Marlins. Nobody wrote about the Astros disgracing baseball, as Time Magazine did. Nobody called the Astros' actions "inexcusable," as the Sporting News did.
2. The Astros didn't commit fraud.
Late in 2011 the SEC opened an investigation into the Marlins' ballpark deal.
CBS Sports wrote at the time:
The city and county are paying for nearly 80 percent of the $634 million stadium. The subpoenas focus, the report says, on the Marlins trying to determine the team's ability to pay for the financing of the stadium. Last year, the Marlins' financial records were leaked and they showed that the team had received the most money in Major League Baseball from its revenue-sharing system, while not investing it back into the team. The team said it was financial strapped and needed help from the city and county to build the stadium, which it ultimately received.
And then they went out and signed those $181m in contracts, wooing Albert Pujols, promising to put a competitive team on the field, a promise which didn't make it to the All-Star Break. Passan wrote in the above-linked article that, by the time the balloon payments are due on the ballpark, it will cost Miami-Dade taxpayers $2.4 billion.
Of owner Jeffrey Loria and president David Samson, Passan wrote:
And these were two men who for years lied about their finances, lied about their intentions, lied all to get Miami to build them a $634 million ballpark that was supposed to end this wretched cycle of turning a major league franchise into a swap meet.
For Peter Gammons to mention the Marlins' long-term plans with the Astros' long-term plans is, at best, lazy. At worst, it's ignorant.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Why I am Excited About the Bedard Signing, And Why You Should Be Too
Okay, "excited" is too strong a word. And so is "should." I don't want to tell you what to think. Let's try that again.
Why I am More Than Ambivalent About the Bedard Signing. You Can Feel How You Want.
From 2008-2011, Bedard was good. 3.41 ERA, and a ERA+ of 121 in the American League. In 2012, Bedard was not very good. 5.01 ERA and an ERA+ of 74 in the National League. What changed? Did Bedard fall of a cliff between his age 32 and 33 seasons?
Well, Bedard's 2012 peripherals were right in line with his numbers from 2008-2011. He was still striking out more than 8 batters per 9. His walk rate jumped from 3.7 to 4, but that doesn't seem to be enough to cause his numbers to dip that much. His line drive percentage also rose, which accounts for some of the difference. But I think the primary culprit is the spike in his Batting Average on Balls in Play, or BABIP. After keeping hitters to a .280 batting average from 2008 to 2011, that number spiked to .314. Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) and expected Fielding Independent Pitching (xFIP) are both tools which attempt to take into account the fluctuations of BABIP, among other things. Both of these peg Bedard's 2012 nearly a run lower, with a 4.07 FIP and a 4.05 xFIP. Still not great, but significantly better. There is a very real chance, with some regression in Bedard's BABIP, that he can be an effective starting pitcher at the back of the Astros rotation. Woo Hoo.
Now, Erik Bedard is not a workhorse. In fact, Bedard and workhorse have never appeared in a sentence together, excepting sentences which read "Bedard is not a workhorse." He has not thrown more than 130 innings since 2007, and has never exceeded 200. That's a big problem if you traded Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and George Sherrill for him to be your ace. Much less of a problem if you gave up nothing for him. If the Astros can get 100-130 innings of near 4.00 ERA from Bedard in 2013, he will be more than worth what they gave up for him, which is, again, nothing. If he stays healthy and effective enough to flip him for a prospect, that's a bonus.
Erik Bedard, worth giving up nothing for, with potential for more. If that doesn't scream "More than Ambivalent," I don't know what does.
Why I am More Than Ambivalent About the Bedard Signing. You Can Feel How You Want.
As you have read, the Astros signed Erik Bedard to a minor league contract, with an invitation to Spring Training. This has been met mostly with ambivalence. Understandably so, considering he put up a 5.01 ERA last year and was released by the Pirates. If he was any good, he wouldn't be available to sign to a minor league contract, right? But I am slightly more than ambivalent.
From 2008-2011, Bedard was good. 3.41 ERA, and a ERA+ of 121 in the American League. In 2012, Bedard was not very good. 5.01 ERA and an ERA+ of 74 in the National League. What changed? Did Bedard fall of a cliff between his age 32 and 33 seasons?
Well, Bedard's 2012 peripherals were right in line with his numbers from 2008-2011. He was still striking out more than 8 batters per 9. His walk rate jumped from 3.7 to 4, but that doesn't seem to be enough to cause his numbers to dip that much. His line drive percentage also rose, which accounts for some of the difference. But I think the primary culprit is the spike in his Batting Average on Balls in Play, or BABIP. After keeping hitters to a .280 batting average from 2008 to 2011, that number spiked to .314. Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) and expected Fielding Independent Pitching (xFIP) are both tools which attempt to take into account the fluctuations of BABIP, among other things. Both of these peg Bedard's 2012 nearly a run lower, with a 4.07 FIP and a 4.05 xFIP. Still not great, but significantly better. There is a very real chance, with some regression in Bedard's BABIP, that he can be an effective starting pitcher at the back of the Astros rotation. Woo Hoo.
Now, Erik Bedard is not a workhorse. In fact, Bedard and workhorse have never appeared in a sentence together, excepting sentences which read "Bedard is not a workhorse." He has not thrown more than 130 innings since 2007, and has never exceeded 200. That's a big problem if you traded Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and George Sherrill for him to be your ace. Much less of a problem if you gave up nothing for him. If the Astros can get 100-130 innings of near 4.00 ERA from Bedard in 2013, he will be more than worth what they gave up for him, which is, again, nothing. If he stays healthy and effective enough to flip him for a prospect, that's a bonus.
Erik Bedard, worth giving up nothing for, with potential for more. If that doesn't scream "More than Ambivalent," I don't know what does.
Astros sign Erik Bedard
I have known about the signing of Erik Bedard for approximately 12 hours, but I cannot think of an opinion about it.
Bedard will be 34 in March. He throws the ball with his left hand. He is Canadian. He was good. In 2006, he went 15-11 with a 3.76 ERA/1.35 WHIP for Baltimore, with 7.8 K/9. Then in 2007, he was better, going 13-5 with a 3.16 ERA/1.09 WHIP, his K/9 jumping to an AL-leading 10.9, and his 7.0 H/9 also led the American League. Bedard finished 5th in the Cy Young voting.
Then in February 2008, Bedard was traded to Seattle for Adam Jones, George Sherrill, Chris Tillman, and two other players. That trade did not work out for the Mariners. In parts of three injury-plagued seasons with Seattle he made just 46 starts and was traded in a big, complicated, multi-player three team trade to Boston, where he made eight starts, going 1-2 with a 4.03 ERA/1.55 WHIP.
Then he signed with Pittsburgh for 2012, and made 24 ineffective starts, going 7-14 with a career-worst 5.01 ERA to go along with a 1.47 WHIP, and was released on August 28. He still managed a 1.3 WAR (according to FanGraphs).
So with the news that the Astros signed him to a minor-league deal with an invitation to Spring Training, it's the very definition of low-cost/high-reward. Any reward at all will be high. He'll compete for a spot in the rotation, and Jeff Luhnow says he has a good chance to make the rotation.
That's fine, I guess. It gives the younger guys more time in the minors, and would bring a guy who has spent eight years of his Major-League career in the American League a chance to help the team. I still have no opinions. Could be fine. Might not. But, and this isn't an indictment of Luhnow/Front Office, this is precisely the move that we would have hammered Ed Wade over.
Bedard will be 34 in March. He throws the ball with his left hand. He is Canadian. He was good. In 2006, he went 15-11 with a 3.76 ERA/1.35 WHIP for Baltimore, with 7.8 K/9. Then in 2007, he was better, going 13-5 with a 3.16 ERA/1.09 WHIP, his K/9 jumping to an AL-leading 10.9, and his 7.0 H/9 also led the American League. Bedard finished 5th in the Cy Young voting.
Then in February 2008, Bedard was traded to Seattle for Adam Jones, George Sherrill, Chris Tillman, and two other players. That trade did not work out for the Mariners. In parts of three injury-plagued seasons with Seattle he made just 46 starts and was traded in a big, complicated, multi-player three team trade to Boston, where he made eight starts, going 1-2 with a 4.03 ERA/1.55 WHIP.
Then he signed with Pittsburgh for 2012, and made 24 ineffective starts, going 7-14 with a career-worst 5.01 ERA to go along with a 1.47 WHIP, and was released on August 28. He still managed a 1.3 WAR (according to FanGraphs).
So with the news that the Astros signed him to a minor-league deal with an invitation to Spring Training, it's the very definition of low-cost/high-reward. Any reward at all will be high. He'll compete for a spot in the rotation, and Jeff Luhnow says he has a good chance to make the rotation.
That's fine, I guess. It gives the younger guys more time in the minors, and would bring a guy who has spent eight years of his Major-League career in the American League a chance to help the team. I still have no opinions. Could be fine. Might not. But, and this isn't an indictment of Luhnow/Front Office, this is precisely the move that we would have hammered Ed Wade over.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Can Houston Win With a 23 Million Dollar Payroll?
The 2013 Astros' payroll is projected to be under 23 million dollars this season. Unless Houston decides to spend on the remaining free agents, they will have the lowest payroll in the AL and possibly MLB. It got me thinking about how teams have fared with a payroll so low. So using baseballreference.com I looked at payrolls from the last 13 seasons and took note of teams with payrolls under 40 million and their respective records.
In 2012 there were no teams with a payroll under 40 million.
From 2000 to 2011 their were a total of 35 teams who entered the season with payrolls under 40 mil. Of these 35 teams 9 had winning seasons. The 3 teams who featured payrolls under 40 mil the most were Tampa (6 times), Florida (6), and Pittsburgh (5).
Payrolls under 40 mil were more common early in the 2000's. Florida was the last team to have a payroll lower than what Houston's projects to be, and that was 21.8 mil in 2008. Florida also has bragging rights to the lowest payroll during this time span, 14.9 mil in 2006, with Tampa a close second in 2003 at 19.6 mil. Oakland in 2001 and Florida in 2000 had payrolls under 23 million. Houston will be the 6th team since 2000 to feature a payroll under 23 million.
The best records I found from these teams were much better than I anticipated. I expected the teams who had winning seasons to hover around the .500 mark, which about half did, but there were 5 90+ win seasons of the bunch.
2010 San Diego 91-71
2002 Oakland 103-59
2001 Oakland 102-60
2000 Oakland 91-70
2000 Chicago White Sox 95-67
Still, of these 90+ win teams only Oakland had a payroll under 30 mil, at 22.8 mil, very close to where Houstons' payroll will probably end up. The other 4 teams' payroll was closer to the 40 million dollar mark.
The average record of these 35 teams sits around 74-87.
I took it a little further and isolated the teams with payrolls under 25 mil. This left 8 teams with a average record of 79-82. Of these 8 teams only 3 have had winning seasons, with Oakland (2001) being the only team to win 90+ games.
So based strictly on payroll, is it possible for Houston to compete with a 23 million dollar payroll? Yes. Is it likely? No. Winning with a payroll under 40 mil is more the exception than the rule.
In 2012 there were no teams with a payroll under 40 million.
From 2000 to 2011 their were a total of 35 teams who entered the season with payrolls under 40 mil. Of these 35 teams 9 had winning seasons. The 3 teams who featured payrolls under 40 mil the most were Tampa (6 times), Florida (6), and Pittsburgh (5).
Payrolls under 40 mil were more common early in the 2000's. Florida was the last team to have a payroll lower than what Houston's projects to be, and that was 21.8 mil in 2008. Florida also has bragging rights to the lowest payroll during this time span, 14.9 mil in 2006, with Tampa a close second in 2003 at 19.6 mil. Oakland in 2001 and Florida in 2000 had payrolls under 23 million. Houston will be the 6th team since 2000 to feature a payroll under 23 million.
The best records I found from these teams were much better than I anticipated. I expected the teams who had winning seasons to hover around the .500 mark, which about half did, but there were 5 90+ win seasons of the bunch.
2010 San Diego 91-71
2002 Oakland 103-59
2001 Oakland 102-60
2000 Oakland 91-70
2000 Chicago White Sox 95-67
Still, of these 90+ win teams only Oakland had a payroll under 30 mil, at 22.8 mil, very close to where Houstons' payroll will probably end up. The other 4 teams' payroll was closer to the 40 million dollar mark.
The average record of these 35 teams sits around 74-87.
I took it a little further and isolated the teams with payrolls under 25 mil. This left 8 teams with a average record of 79-82. Of these 8 teams only 3 have had winning seasons, with Oakland (2001) being the only team to win 90+ games.
So based strictly on payroll, is it possible for Houston to compete with a 23 million dollar payroll? Yes. Is it likely? No. Winning with a payroll under 40 mil is more the exception than the rule.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Rick Ankiel sees opportunity with the Astros
In an interview with TCPalm.com, Rick Ankiel saw the Houston Astros and his eyes lit up with opportunity.
First of all, there are the connections. Bo Porter was his 3rd Base coach in Washington last year. There are the obvious Cardinals connections. And then there was the opportunity - Ankiel allegedly picked Houston over three other unnamed teams.
Ankiel:
"When I look at some of the players they have, I think there's some playing time for me. Everybody's so young, and I have the chance to make an impact and play in the outfield. Not only that, but I'm being able to give back and teach some of the younger guys to learn the game the way I did. Most of the other choices I had, I was the fourth or fifth guy, so the playing time probably wouldn't be there. In Houston, I had the chance for the most playing time."
Is he right? Well, let's look at the OFs on the 40-Man Roster:
Brandon Barnes
Robbie Grossman
Fernando Martinez
J.D. Martinez
Justin Maxwell
Jimmy Paredes
Justin Maxwell is the one guy I look at and see as a lock for the outfield. "The Martinii" (so coined by the fellers over at the Crawfish Boxes, I believe) have well-documented injury troubles. And also "hitting" troubles. Fernando Martinez did manage a career-high .766 OPS, but also only played in 41 games. J.D. Martinez had a less-stellar .685 OPS. I'd give the edge to Fernando Martinez here.
Robbie Grossman. Hm. Dark-horse candidate. Could be one of those guys who tears it up in Spring Training and forces a hard decision, but still basically has only played a year in Double-A. Nah.
Jimmy Paredes? Listed on the 40-Man as an outfielder, but spent the majority of his career in the infield. That said, with Lowrie and Altuve seemingly entrenched as the DP combo, he has since moved to the outfield. Could be a better short-term bet than Grossman, with his .826 OPS at OKC. In a ridiculously small-sample 24 games for Houston (82 PAs), Paredes hit .189/.244/.230.
How about the other Non-Roster Invitees for Spring Training:
Trevor Crowe
Jake Goebbert
Marc Krauss
Che-Hsuan Lin
George Springer
You can pretty much rule out Goebbert, Krauss, and Springer for being minor-league guys. They'll stay in the system, but are likely ticketed for OKC/Corpus.
Che-Hsuan Lin only has 12 major-league PAs. But in two seasons at Triple-A, he has a .242/.324/.305 line. 29-year old Trevor Crowe has spent at least part of his season in Triple-A since 2008, and has averaged a .739 OPS.
So. Barring some ridiculous Luke Scott-esque Spring Training, Rick Ankiel does have a shot, I suppose. Though 2008 was the last time he had an OPS over .800. He'd have to sit against LHPs (career .641 OPS vs. LHP - and that includes four straight years with an OPS under .600). Is it a good opportunity for him? Better than the other three options he apparently had, anyway...
First of all, there are the connections. Bo Porter was his 3rd Base coach in Washington last year. There are the obvious Cardinals connections. And then there was the opportunity - Ankiel allegedly picked Houston over three other unnamed teams.
Ankiel:
"When I look at some of the players they have, I think there's some playing time for me. Everybody's so young, and I have the chance to make an impact and play in the outfield. Not only that, but I'm being able to give back and teach some of the younger guys to learn the game the way I did. Most of the other choices I had, I was the fourth or fifth guy, so the playing time probably wouldn't be there. In Houston, I had the chance for the most playing time."
Is he right? Well, let's look at the OFs on the 40-Man Roster:
Brandon Barnes
Robbie Grossman
Fernando Martinez
J.D. Martinez
Justin Maxwell
Jimmy Paredes
Justin Maxwell is the one guy I look at and see as a lock for the outfield. "The Martinii" (so coined by the fellers over at the Crawfish Boxes, I believe) have well-documented injury troubles. And also "hitting" troubles. Fernando Martinez did manage a career-high .766 OPS, but also only played in 41 games. J.D. Martinez had a less-stellar .685 OPS. I'd give the edge to Fernando Martinez here.
Robbie Grossman. Hm. Dark-horse candidate. Could be one of those guys who tears it up in Spring Training and forces a hard decision, but still basically has only played a year in Double-A. Nah.
Jimmy Paredes? Listed on the 40-Man as an outfielder, but spent the majority of his career in the infield. That said, with Lowrie and Altuve seemingly entrenched as the DP combo, he has since moved to the outfield. Could be a better short-term bet than Grossman, with his .826 OPS at OKC. In a ridiculously small-sample 24 games for Houston (82 PAs), Paredes hit .189/.244/.230.
How about the other Non-Roster Invitees for Spring Training:
Trevor Crowe
Jake Goebbert
Marc Krauss
Che-Hsuan Lin
George Springer
You can pretty much rule out Goebbert, Krauss, and Springer for being minor-league guys. They'll stay in the system, but are likely ticketed for OKC/Corpus.
Che-Hsuan Lin only has 12 major-league PAs. But in two seasons at Triple-A, he has a .242/.324/.305 line. 29-year old Trevor Crowe has spent at least part of his season in Triple-A since 2008, and has averaged a .739 OPS.
So. Barring some ridiculous Luke Scott-esque Spring Training, Rick Ankiel does have a shot, I suppose. Though 2008 was the last time he had an OPS over .800. He'd have to sit against LHPs (career .641 OPS vs. LHP - and that includes four straight years with an OPS under .600). Is it a good opportunity for him? Better than the other three options he apparently had, anyway...
A longer look at payroll
Earlier we took a quick look at payroll, in which we found that 242 players will make more than the Astros highest-paid player. So what will payroll look like in 2013?
Guaranteed Contracts
We'll start with the players whose contracts are set.
Bud Norris: $3m
Carlos Pena: $2.9m
Jed Lowrie: $2.4m
Jose Veras: $1.85m
Wesley Wright: $1.025m
Philip Humber: $800,000
Total: $11,975,000
That's six players. Obviously, there are 19 other spots to fill. Those 19 players are all going to be for right around league minimum, which in 2012 was $480,000. Some quick multiplication shows that 19 players at league minimum is $9.12m. Let's say the Astros give a player here and there a little over League Minimum, and increase that to $9.25m. This would bring total possible payroll to $21,095,000.
We don't know exactly how much everyone will make in 2013 (yet), but it's pretty much set that the Astros payroll will be under $22m.
Guaranteed Contracts
We'll start with the players whose contracts are set.
Bud Norris: $3m
Carlos Pena: $2.9m
Jed Lowrie: $2.4m
Jose Veras: $1.85m
Wesley Wright: $1.025m
Philip Humber: $800,000
Total: $11,975,000
That's six players. Obviously, there are 19 other spots to fill. Those 19 players are all going to be for right around league minimum, which in 2012 was $480,000. Some quick multiplication shows that 19 players at league minimum is $9.12m. Let's say the Astros give a player here and there a little over League Minimum, and increase that to $9.25m. This would bring total possible payroll to $21,095,000.
We don't know exactly how much everyone will make in 2013 (yet), but it's pretty much set that the Astros payroll will be under $22m.
Friday, January 18, 2013
A quick look at payroll
So the Astros' Bud Norris has a $3m guaranteed contract for 2013. Unless Wesley Wright has nude pictures of Jeff Luhnow and makes a KILLING in the arbitration negotiation, and assuming that the Astros don't sign any other free agents, Bud Norris' $3m will make him the highest-paid player on the team. I thought it would be fun to look and see how many teams have players on the roster making more than $3m guaranteed (and this is as of January 18, 2013, and does not include arbitration cases yet to be decided):
Dodgers: 19 (!)
Blue Jays: 14
Yankees: 12
Red Sox: 12
Angels: 12
Rangers: 11
Tigers: 10
White Sox: 10
Nationals: 10
Phillies: 10
Giants: 10
D'Backs: 10
Royals: 8
Reds: 8
Cardinals: 8
Cubs: 8
Rockies: 8
Rays: 7
Twins: 7
Orioles: 6
A's: 6
Brewers: 6
Indians: 5
Braves: 5
Mets: 5
Pirates: 5
Padres: 5
Mariners: 4
Marlins: 1
Again, there are plenty of players whom Baseball-Reference pegs to go over $3m or 2013, but this is the list. It's not a criticism - at all - but there are 242 players making more than the highest-paid player on the Astros.
Dodgers: 19 (!)
Blue Jays: 14
Yankees: 12
Red Sox: 12
Angels: 12
Rangers: 11
Tigers: 10
White Sox: 10
Nationals: 10
Phillies: 10
Giants: 10
D'Backs: 10
Royals: 8
Reds: 8
Cardinals: 8
Cubs: 8
Rockies: 8
Rays: 7
Twins: 7
Orioles: 6
A's: 6
Brewers: 6
Indians: 5
Braves: 5
Mets: 5
Pirates: 5
Padres: 5
Mariners: 4
Marlins: 1
Again, there are plenty of players whom Baseball-Reference pegs to go over $3m or 2013, but this is the list. It's not a criticism - at all - but there are 242 players making more than the highest-paid player on the Astros.
Wesley Wright avoids arbitration
Couldn't we have just done this all at once? Now Wesley Wright has agreed to a contract for 2013, with details yet to be determined.
That takes care of everybody!
That takes care of everybody!
Astros avoid arbitration with Bud Norris
And now the Astros have avoided arbitration with Bud Norris, according to Brian McTaggart, agreeing on a $3m contract for 2013. This is a healthy increase above the $511,000 salary he made in his final year of pre-arbitration in 2012.
Only Wesley Wright remains eligible for arbitration...
Only Wesley Wright remains eligible for arbitration...
Astros avoid arbitration with Lowrie
The Astros avoided arbitration with Jed Lowrie today. Lowrie will make $2.4m in 2013, over double the $1.15m he made in 2012 (and $500,000 more than what Baseball-Reference predicted).
This makes Lowrie the 2nd-highest-paid player on the team, behind Carlos Pena ($2.9m minimum).
Bud Norris and Wesley Wright are the lone remaining arbitration-eligible players.
This makes Lowrie the 2nd-highest-paid player on the team, behind Carlos Pena ($2.9m minimum).
Bud Norris and Wesley Wright are the lone remaining arbitration-eligible players.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Six Astros' to Participate in the WBC
The U.S. roster for the World Baseball Classic was announced today and there will be no Astros on team U.S. However, Houston will feature 6 players in the classic this year.
Fernando Martinez and Rhiner Cruz will both play for team Spain, and Xavier Cedeno will represent team Puerto Rico.
3 minor leaguers are also participating in the classic: Murilo Gouvea will play for team Brazil, and Che-Hsuan Lin and Chia-Jen Lo will both play for Chinese Taipei.
Jeff Luhnow said he isn't against players playing in the WBC but says it may hurt the chances of players trying to make the team out of spring training. From astros.com, "The big challenge is ... a guy like Fernando Martinez, who's trying to make our club, [being] gone for an extended period of time. I think that potentially hurts him, even if he does well in the Classic," Not to worry F Mart, Luhnow says he doesn't think it is likely team Spain makes it past the 1st round.
I was surprised to see Lo participating after coming off of TJ surgery and only 10 appearances last season. Luhnow says he doesn't think it is a concern as the amount of relievers on each roster should keep any individual from being overworked.
In 2009 the Astros sent 7 to the WBC:
TJ Burton
Chia-Jen Lo
Chris Barnwell
LaTroy Hawkins
Roy Oswalt
Miguel Tejada
Carlos Lee
Lo is the only of the 7 still in the organization and the only Astros' repeat member on a WBC roster.
Fernando Martinez and Rhiner Cruz will both play for team Spain, and Xavier Cedeno will represent team Puerto Rico.
3 minor leaguers are also participating in the classic: Murilo Gouvea will play for team Brazil, and Che-Hsuan Lin and Chia-Jen Lo will both play for Chinese Taipei.
Jeff Luhnow said he isn't against players playing in the WBC but says it may hurt the chances of players trying to make the team out of spring training. From astros.com, "The big challenge is ... a guy like Fernando Martinez, who's trying to make our club, [being] gone for an extended period of time. I think that potentially hurts him, even if he does well in the Classic," Not to worry F Mart, Luhnow says he doesn't think it is likely team Spain makes it past the 1st round.
I was surprised to see Lo participating after coming off of TJ surgery and only 10 appearances last season. Luhnow says he doesn't think it is a concern as the amount of relievers on each roster should keep any individual from being overworked.
In 2009 the Astros sent 7 to the WBC:
TJ Burton
Chia-Jen Lo
Chris Barnwell
LaTroy Hawkins
Roy Oswalt
Miguel Tejada
Carlos Lee
Lo is the only of the 7 still in the organization and the only Astros' repeat member on a WBC roster.
Rick Ankiel Invited to Spring Training as Non Roster Invitee
Brian McTaggart reports that the Astros have invited Rick Ankiel to Spring Training as a non-roster invitee.
Ankiel is most famous for his conversion from pitching to the outfield following an odd breakdown on the mound during the 2000 NLCS, where he completely lost the ability to throw strikes. He had 9 wild pitches and 11 walks in 4 innings pitched during that series. It was hard to watch.
After failing to conquer his Steve Blass Disease, he returned to the Cardinals as an outfielder. He showed some power initially, hitting 25 home runs in 2008, but, never really conquered the strike zone. He has played most recently with the Washington Nationals. He was pretty terrible the last two seasons, putting up a .236/.292/.377 slash line. He was not any better in the two years before that. (.232/.298/.388).
There's clearly not much there in the batter's box anymore. Maybe he wants to try pitching again? Either way, there is zero risk attached to this move. Almost zero potential reward, too.
UPDATE: Turns out, there is at least some possibility that he might try to pitch again. That would make this situation significantly more interesting, if not any more likely to be successful. Thanks to @KevinBassStache for the heads up.
2ND UPDATE: Welp, there goes that. McTaggart confirms Ankiel will be coming back as a hitter.
Ankiel is most famous for his conversion from pitching to the outfield following an odd breakdown on the mound during the 2000 NLCS, where he completely lost the ability to throw strikes. He had 9 wild pitches and 11 walks in 4 innings pitched during that series. It was hard to watch.
After failing to conquer his Steve Blass Disease, he returned to the Cardinals as an outfielder. He showed some power initially, hitting 25 home runs in 2008, but, never really conquered the strike zone. He has played most recently with the Washington Nationals. He was pretty terrible the last two seasons, putting up a .236/.292/.377 slash line. He was not any better in the two years before that. (.232/.298/.388).
There's clearly not much there in the batter's box anymore. Maybe he wants to try pitching again? Either way, there is zero risk attached to this move. Almost zero potential reward, too.
UPDATE: Turns out, there is at least some possibility that he might try to pitch again. That would make this situation significantly more interesting, if not any more likely to be successful. Thanks to @KevinBassStache for the heads up.
2ND UPDATE: Welp, there goes that. McTaggart confirms Ankiel will be coming back as a hitter.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The Astros have at least ten scouts in the Dominican
The Astros have "at least" ten scouts in San Cristobal, DR at the MLB Prospect Showcase, according to Jesse Sanchez. He also notes that they'll have the most to spend (thanks to the awfulness that was 2012) come international signing day on July 2, at around $4.9m.
Norris, Lowrie, Wright file for arbitration
Bud Norris, Jed Lowrie and Wesley Wright filed for arbitration yesterday, and while Jeff Luhnow previously said that they weren't necessarily interested in signing arb-eligibles to long-term contracts, that may not be the case anymore. The Astros and each of the players have to exchange numbers by Friday, and will have arbitration hearings between February 4-20 if a deal cannot be reached.
In 2012, their salaries were as follows:
Lowrie: $1.15m
Norris: $511,000
Wright: $512,000
Baseball-Reference projects that Norris will make around $2.9m, Lowrie - $1.9m, and Wright - $900,000.
Just consider this for a second: The Astros have $6.15m committed to the 2014 payroll. $5.5m of that goes to the Pirates to help pay for Wandy Rodriguez. How does that stack up against the rest of theGod-forsaken AL West?
Angels: $127.1m
Rangers: $60.1m
Mariners: $28.7m
A's: $14.5m
Yeah, this'll be fun.
In 2012, their salaries were as follows:
Lowrie: $1.15m
Norris: $511,000
Wright: $512,000
Baseball-Reference projects that Norris will make around $2.9m, Lowrie - $1.9m, and Wright - $900,000.
Just consider this for a second: The Astros have $6.15m committed to the 2014 payroll. $5.5m of that goes to the Pirates to help pay for Wandy Rodriguez. How does that stack up against the rest of the
Angels: $127.1m
Rangers: $60.1m
Mariners: $28.7m
A's: $14.5m
Yeah, this'll be fun.
You can't watch the Rockets because of the Astros
So you know that you can't watch the brand spanking new CSN Houston network, right? (If you're 60% of the Houston area, anyway).
And you probably had directed your anger towards the network, or maybe DirecTV, and you probably chalked that up to CORP'RATE GREEEED.
Not so fast. The Houston Press had a post yesterday citing a source who says the Astros were the ones who blocked a deal to get the network on as many Houston-area televisions as possible last fall:
The Astros allegedly balked at negotiations between CSN the Rockets and DirecTV before a final deal could be struck because they believed they could hold out for a better price...
... If the Astros did indeed block the Rockets from making a deal with DirecTV, it is easy to see why many believed no deals would be done until Astros games were on chopping block.
So don't get used to watching Rockets games, Houston fans, the Astros are (allegedly) driving this train!
And you probably had directed your anger towards the network, or maybe DirecTV, and you probably chalked that up to CORP'RATE GREEEED.
Not so fast. The Houston Press had a post yesterday citing a source who says the Astros were the ones who blocked a deal to get the network on as many Houston-area televisions as possible last fall:
The Astros allegedly balked at negotiations between CSN the Rockets and DirecTV before a final deal could be struck because they believed they could hold out for a better price...
... If the Astros did indeed block the Rockets from making a deal with DirecTV, it is easy to see why many believed no deals would be done until Astros games were on chopping block.
So don't get used to watching Rockets games, Houston fans, the Astros are (allegedly) driving this train!
Friday, January 11, 2013
A Hall of Fame Proposal
I would like to offer my very reasonable and very likely to be adopted quickly proposal for how to fix the Hall of Fame voting process. And I promise, this will be the last time I write about the Hall of Fame until next voting season. Or maybe next week. We'll see.
My very simple proposal is to add a rule that any one who exceeds 80 fWAR is automatically admitted to the Hall of Fame. That's it. You could use 75 bWAR, or provide automatic entrance if you exceed either value. Its pretty much the same group, anyway. If you want to make them wait five years, or just put them in the very next class the year after retirement, both would be fine. But they are in, no questions asked.
I honestly don't see the downside to this. There are 43 position players who meet the criteria (40 on Baseball Reference) and 26 pitchers (using either method). And they are all unquestionably elite. Every single hitter and pitcher who meets this criteria and is eligible for the Hall of Fame is already in the Hall of Fame, except for four. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling and .... Jeff Bagwell (83.9 fWAR, 76.7 bWAR). Okay, so there's my motivation. I still think it's a good idea.
If the objective numbers say that a player is elite, why do we let the baseball writers disagree? Why do we let a group of 570 writers, with varying degrees of knowledge and interest in the game, override what the objective facts actually tell us. A certain writer in New York who never watched an Astros game and hates the Red Sox might not believe that Bagwell or Curt Schilling was among the game's greats, but an objective, unbiased measure of value does. Why does the writer's opinion carry the day, over objective demonstrable fact?
I know there are objections to WAR. WAR is imperfect. The Hall of Fame is not just about numbers. The voters are instructed to consider integrity, sportsmanship and character. And I agree with some of that. I am not proposing a rule that states "Over 60, in, Under 60, out." My proposal would still maintain the vote for all players under the automatic threshold. Let the writers decide who else gets in. If they want to use integrity and character and whatever other criteria they devise to either promote a marginal candidate or knock down a strong candidate, let them. But those arguments should exist in the margins. They should not be used to devalue the career of someone who was objectively one of the best of the best. WAR is imperfect, but a look at the list of players with over 80 WAR shows that it gets it right a whole lot more than it gets it wrong.
And yes, this rule would include all players eligible for the Hall of Fame, even those implicated in steroids. If the writers want to keep McGwire and Sosa and Palmeiro out, fine. But to keep out the guys who sit number two on both the pitcher and batters WAR list seems a bit much. And this way, you won't have to read any more articles on how hard it is to decide whether to vote for these two. The writers simply will not have the choice.
So what would be the result, if this was implemented now. Bagwell, Schilling, Bonds and Clemens are automatically in. Solves the lack of inductees this summer for Cooperstown. Maddux and Mussina are automatically in next year, (Glavine too by bWAR) and would not appear on the ballot. Solves the crowded ballot problem too. The writers would still be able to elect Biggio, Thomas, Morris, Piazza, or anyone else they want to. The year after, Randy Johnson and Pedro are automatics, and then Griffey in 2016. You might notice that most of these players would likely go first ballot anyway. That's kind of the point. Most of the time, the writers get it right, and elect these elite players the first time. This would just take away their ability to screw up, like they did with Schilling this year, Bagwell the last several years and poor Bert Blyleven (110!) for 15 years.
Who could possibly have a problem with this? No one, that's who. I predict it will happen within two weeks of me hitting publish.
My very simple proposal is to add a rule that any one who exceeds 80 fWAR is automatically admitted to the Hall of Fame. That's it. You could use 75 bWAR, or provide automatic entrance if you exceed either value. Its pretty much the same group, anyway. If you want to make them wait five years, or just put them in the very next class the year after retirement, both would be fine. But they are in, no questions asked.
I honestly don't see the downside to this. There are 43 position players who meet the criteria (40 on Baseball Reference) and 26 pitchers (using either method). And they are all unquestionably elite. Every single hitter and pitcher who meets this criteria and is eligible for the Hall of Fame is already in the Hall of Fame, except for four. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling and .... Jeff Bagwell (83.9 fWAR, 76.7 bWAR). Okay, so there's my motivation. I still think it's a good idea.
If the objective numbers say that a player is elite, why do we let the baseball writers disagree? Why do we let a group of 570 writers, with varying degrees of knowledge and interest in the game, override what the objective facts actually tell us. A certain writer in New York who never watched an Astros game and hates the Red Sox might not believe that Bagwell or Curt Schilling was among the game's greats, but an objective, unbiased measure of value does. Why does the writer's opinion carry the day, over objective demonstrable fact?
I know there are objections to WAR. WAR is imperfect. The Hall of Fame is not just about numbers. The voters are instructed to consider integrity, sportsmanship and character. And I agree with some of that. I am not proposing a rule that states "Over 60, in, Under 60, out." My proposal would still maintain the vote for all players under the automatic threshold. Let the writers decide who else gets in. If they want to use integrity and character and whatever other criteria they devise to either promote a marginal candidate or knock down a strong candidate, let them. But those arguments should exist in the margins. They should not be used to devalue the career of someone who was objectively one of the best of the best. WAR is imperfect, but a look at the list of players with over 80 WAR shows that it gets it right a whole lot more than it gets it wrong.
And yes, this rule would include all players eligible for the Hall of Fame, even those implicated in steroids. If the writers want to keep McGwire and Sosa and Palmeiro out, fine. But to keep out the guys who sit number two on both the pitcher and batters WAR list seems a bit much. And this way, you won't have to read any more articles on how hard it is to decide whether to vote for these two. The writers simply will not have the choice.
So what would be the result, if this was implemented now. Bagwell, Schilling, Bonds and Clemens are automatically in. Solves the lack of inductees this summer for Cooperstown. Maddux and Mussina are automatically in next year, (Glavine too by bWAR) and would not appear on the ballot. Solves the crowded ballot problem too. The writers would still be able to elect Biggio, Thomas, Morris, Piazza, or anyone else they want to. The year after, Randy Johnson and Pedro are automatics, and then Griffey in 2016. You might notice that most of these players would likely go first ballot anyway. That's kind of the point. Most of the time, the writers get it right, and elect these elite players the first time. This would just take away their ability to screw up, like they did with Schilling this year, Bagwell the last several years and poor Bert Blyleven (110!) for 15 years.
Who could possibly have a problem with this? No one, that's who. I predict it will happen within two weeks of me hitting publish.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Will Biggio Make it Next Year?
So yesterdays Hall of Fame news was disappointing, to say the least. Astros fans can't seem to catch a break. But can we at least take solace* in the fact that Biggio will get in next year? Well, maybe. But I don't think its guaranteed.
Biggio fell just 39 votes short. There were at least 39 voters that did not vote for Biggio because they felt he was a Hall of Famer, but not a first ballot Hall of Famer, whatever that means. It stands to reason, then, that he should get in next year. And that's still probably true.
However, this year was an undeniably crowded ballot, particularly for those willing to vote Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, et al. The BBWAA reported that 22% of voters used all 10 spots. The average ballot used 6.6 spots, which includes the blank ballots and those that listed only one or two players. I thinks it fair to say that at least 40% of ballots used 8, 9 or 10 spots. That number might be higher.
And its only going to get worse. Next years class includes Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina, and Jeff Kent. I expect Maddux to be named on over 90% of ballots, Glavine and Thomas on 60-80% and Mussina and Kent over 50%. The big hall group that voted for 8+ this year is very likely to be adding at least three more names. That means someone is going to have be cut.
I think the majority of voters will cut someone else besides Biggio. I expect the majority of the chops will be to those who did not get over 50% of the vote last year. Sadly, I expect Bagwell to lose some votes next year, and Tim Raines as well. But what if 5% of the voters drop Biggio. That's 11 votes. Now he needs to pick up 50 from the group that left him off their ballot the year before. What about 10%. He would then need more than 60 votes. Put another way, would we still expect Biggio to be a slam dunk next year if he was 60 votes short this year? That's less than 65%.
That's what really bugs me about the voters who decided Biggio was not a first ballot Hall of Famer. It was so shortsighted. Two facts were patently obvious before voting began this year. It was going to be very tough for anyone to be elected this year, and if no one was elected, the ballot was about to get really crowded. This should have surprised no one. Yet you had a large contingent of voters who looked at Biggio, acknowledged he was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and still voted no. There is no "first ballot Hall of Famer" distinction. They don't get a separate room. It is not mentioned on the plaque. Why were they so keen on protecting an honor that doesn't actually exist? And the cost was very real. This was Biggio's best chance. The crowded ballot is not going to get any better any time soon.
That being said, it could all work out. There has been a lot of talk on getting rid of the 10 vote limit, which only makes sense. There also might be more of an incentive to keep Biggio on the ballot, considering he is so close. Its still more likely than not that Biggio will go in next year, and if not next year, then the year after that. Only one person (Gaylord Perry) who debuted with greater than 65% of the vote failed to be elected the very next year, and it only took him one more try. I'm confident we will have an Astro in the Hall of Fame soon. Sorry to be such a downer. I guess being a Houston sports fan has bred a little pessimism in me.
*Another point to consider. If he goes in next year, Biggio will likely be inducted with at least one, probably two, Braves, which means someone will do the deplorable Tomahawk Chop, which will severely dampen the joy I will have that day.
Biggio fell just 39 votes short. There were at least 39 voters that did not vote for Biggio because they felt he was a Hall of Famer, but not a first ballot Hall of Famer, whatever that means. It stands to reason, then, that he should get in next year. And that's still probably true.
However, this year was an undeniably crowded ballot, particularly for those willing to vote Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, et al. The BBWAA reported that 22% of voters used all 10 spots. The average ballot used 6.6 spots, which includes the blank ballots and those that listed only one or two players. I thinks it fair to say that at least 40% of ballots used 8, 9 or 10 spots. That number might be higher.
And its only going to get worse. Next years class includes Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina, and Jeff Kent. I expect Maddux to be named on over 90% of ballots, Glavine and Thomas on 60-80% and Mussina and Kent over 50%. The big hall group that voted for 8+ this year is very likely to be adding at least three more names. That means someone is going to have be cut.
I think the majority of voters will cut someone else besides Biggio. I expect the majority of the chops will be to those who did not get over 50% of the vote last year. Sadly, I expect Bagwell to lose some votes next year, and Tim Raines as well. But what if 5% of the voters drop Biggio. That's 11 votes. Now he needs to pick up 50 from the group that left him off their ballot the year before. What about 10%. He would then need more than 60 votes. Put another way, would we still expect Biggio to be a slam dunk next year if he was 60 votes short this year? That's less than 65%.
That's what really bugs me about the voters who decided Biggio was not a first ballot Hall of Famer. It was so shortsighted. Two facts were patently obvious before voting began this year. It was going to be very tough for anyone to be elected this year, and if no one was elected, the ballot was about to get really crowded. This should have surprised no one. Yet you had a large contingent of voters who looked at Biggio, acknowledged he was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and still voted no. There is no "first ballot Hall of Famer" distinction. They don't get a separate room. It is not mentioned on the plaque. Why were they so keen on protecting an honor that doesn't actually exist? And the cost was very real. This was Biggio's best chance. The crowded ballot is not going to get any better any time soon.
That being said, it could all work out. There has been a lot of talk on getting rid of the 10 vote limit, which only makes sense. There also might be more of an incentive to keep Biggio on the ballot, considering he is so close. Its still more likely than not that Biggio will go in next year, and if not next year, then the year after that. Only one person (Gaylord Perry) who debuted with greater than 65% of the vote failed to be elected the very next year, and it only took him one more try. I'm confident we will have an Astro in the Hall of Fame soon. Sorry to be such a downer. I guess being a Houston sports fan has bred a little pessimism in me.
*Another point to consider. If he goes in next year, Biggio will likely be inducted with at least one, probably two, Braves, which means someone will do the deplorable Tomahawk Chop, which will severely dampen the joy I will have that day.
A lot can change for Jon Heyman in 21 months
Turns out that I'm still pretty pissed off about what happened to Biggio and Bagwell yesterday. The street-corner preachers in the BBWAA that talk about preserving the integrity of the game, while they made a conscious decision to ignore it while it was happening (revisionist history if I've ever seen it), still raises my blood pressure.
Still, there's no better an example of revisionist history than our old pal Jon Heyman.
Take for example, his piece explaining his ballot from just a few days ago:
The more I thought about it, the more I didn't want to celebrate their careers. Not yet, anyway.
More to the point, I didn't want to reward the cheats...The steroid guys already hit more home runs, recorded more strikeouts, made more money and won more awards thanks to one thing: having less integrity than some or many of their clean competitors.
Then, in splendid boiler-plate SportsWriter Style Guide, the one-sentence paragraph:
I am not about to add to their already crowded mantles.
O RLY.
Because less than two years ago (April 2011), a time frame in which Barry Bonds had no plate appearances, Heyman had this to say about the home run leader:
(And this is the lede, just so you get the context in which the piece was written):
Barry Bonds doesn't belong in jail. He belongs in the Hall of Fame...
Still, there's no better an example of revisionist history than our old pal Jon Heyman.
Take for example, his piece explaining his ballot from just a few days ago:
The more I thought about it, the more I didn't want to celebrate their careers. Not yet, anyway.
More to the point, I didn't want to reward the cheats...The steroid guys already hit more home runs, recorded more strikeouts, made more money and won more awards thanks to one thing: having less integrity than some or many of their clean competitors.
Then, in splendid boiler-plate SportsWriter Style Guide, the one-sentence paragraph:
I am not about to add to their already crowded mantles.
O RLY.
Because less than two years ago (April 2011), a time frame in which Barry Bonds had no plate appearances, Heyman had this to say about the home run leader:
(And this is the lede, just so you get the context in which the piece was written):
Barry Bonds doesn't belong in jail. He belongs in the Hall of Fame...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)