There are few things that matter less than constructing an all decade team. There are a also few things to write about the Astros. Rock, meet hard place. This where I feel like I am in terms of writing things about the Astros this week. Thankfully for me (and by proxy, you...I hope) the closing of the Aughts(?) allows for speculation about who should make the Astros All-Aughts team (this is my article and I like the term aughts the best.)
HLP and I started going over the possibilities earlier in the week and realized one thing: this decade cannot be figured out easily. For one thing, there wasn't a lot of stability for us throughout the decade. Secondly, Lance Berkman played too many positions during the decade. So we could legitimately just fill in Lance Berkman at CF, LF, and 1B. But what about Jeff Bagwell at 1B? Or Carlos Lee in LF? Is Lance really going to be the CF of the decade or should Hidalgo?
For example, the first base conundrum works out like this: In years in which they were the primary first basemen for the Astros in the Aughts, Bagwell totaled 18.8 WAR and Berkman totaled 18.9. If I were to weight Berkman's WAR by the percentage of games he played 1B in the decade and give Bagwell back his .5 WAR from 2005, Bagwell would edge out Berkman 19.3 WAR to 16.03 WAR.
But is that fair? Sure, I've weighted Berkman's WAR by games played, but that's a crude weighting. Correcting that way for every position for every year could work, but it does it answer the question that we as fans want answered?
To me, it doesn't. I look at that WAR graph and the numbers that construct it and still can't shake the feeling that to me, Lance Berkman is the 1B of the decade.
But this really isn't something that I should just opine on solo because we have each other. I mean, do you really want me to chart the weighted WAR of Richard Hidalgo, Lance Berkman, and Willy Taveras in CF? My guess—nay hope—is no. I'm sure for that amongst ourselves, we can decide on an All-Aughts team comprised of the following positions (my votes in parenthesis):
0 recs | 33 comments
I’m going to nominate Moises Alou for that RF spot.
AstroAndy - December 26, 2009
Moises Alou played LF in 2000 and RF in 2001. Where would you consider him? Do you realize that his Runs Created (wRC) in each of those years was higher than the average wRC by Carlos Lee as an Astros LFer? wRC= 142 in 01 and 156 in 00. Carlos Lee’s average wRC as an Astros player is 130.
Hidalgo had two comparable seasons to Alou: 2000 and 2003 (wRC= 152 and 145, respectively), and he played mostly CF in 2000 and primarily RF in 2003.
clack - December 26, 2009
Also, I should mention that Alou is one of my favorite Astros’ hitters. So, I would put him on the team, but momentarily, I’m not sure whether LF or RF. I suppose the easy answer is to put all three in the OF, with Lee in LF, Hidalgo in CF, and Alou in RF. But it’s confused by the fact that Hidalgo and Alou—and Berkman for that matter—played multiple OF positions this decade.
clack - December 26, 2009
It's a head ache
Stephen Higdon - December 26, 2009
I can feel my face screwing up like I ate something really nasty at the thought of picking Lee. Pence edges him out in terms of WAR over 07-09. The positional issue fogs things up, though.
OremLK - December 27, 2009
wagner over lidge...
just bcz of pujols
EveryHoustonTeamRox! - December 26, 2009
The numbers on Wandy’s three best (and most recent) seasons actually come surprisingly close to the numbers Pettitte put up in his time with us.
They had similar innings pitched. Pettitte logged 519 innings, whereas Wandy logged 525. In that time frame, Pettitte has a better WHIP (1.230 vs. 1.286) and ERA (3.38 vs. 3.70). But Wandy wins out in K’s (482 vs. 428) and in shutouts (Wandy 2, Andy 1).
AstroAndy - December 26, 2009
Pettitte got bonus points from me
for his role in our post-season success. This decade is definitely going to be remembered for the Astros finally progressing in the post-season and I think some of the guys on those teams should get some greater weight just for that a lone.
Stephen Higdon - December 27, 2009
x
Jeff Kent gets no love at second?
Phat Elvis - December 27, 2009
that's a fair point.
Unfortunately, Biggio’s best years were in the 90’s. In terms of WAR, Biggio didn’t have a season in the 00’s which came close to Kent’s two seasons as an Astros’ second baseman. Even Kaz Matsui’s 2008 season was better than all but one of Biggio’s seasons at 2d base in this decade.
clack - December 27, 2009
maybe...
shift Berkman into the of, put Bagwell at 1st, and take Alou and Hidalgo as the last two outfielders? You can actually make a fairly good case for Pence, too, given the sort of turnaround the Astros have had in most of the outfield. Lee, as well, even if [insert all of his deficiencies].
And what’s wrong with Ensberg? Sure, he totally collapsed eventually, but he was a great third baseman for a few years.
Only_A_Lad - December 27, 2009
As I said in October 2005
Morgan Ensberg had a lot of making up to do for egg he laid when he was needed most. Instead, he tanked. Right now, I have visions of Ensberg, and his bearded face, staring in horror as a pitch was delivered to him, in between cycling through five different angles with which he’d have his stance open. And that is what made me want to throw up a little bit in the back of my mouth. That and Joe Creede’s bullshit snags all series long.
Stephen Higdon - December 27, 2009
You know,
you appealing to the “choker” narrative really surprises me.
Only_A_Lad - December 27, 2009
Fair enough
Ensberg broke my heart long before I had picked up a copy of Moneyball and started thinking about baseball differently. I still just can’t shake how much Ensberg just fell off a cliff offensively. 2006 still saw strong numbers (.365wOBA and 125wRC+), but 2007 he was miserable—both on defense and on offense. Maybe it’s unfair, but the egg he laid will be something I never forget. He’ll be synonymous with it, which I know isn’t fair because he carried the team’s offense for a good deal of time in 2005. For some reason Ensberg will definitely always remain a blind spot in my objective evaluation.
Stephen Higdon - December 27, 2009
And by long before
I mean a few months.
Stephen Higdon - December 27, 2009
We could
always do gold glove style voting and just elect 3 outfielders and ignore position. If there’s no games played minimum, Carlos Beltran for cf.
jmike - December 27, 2009
Where's the offense?
It’s embarassing that we have guys like Ensberg, Everett and Ausmus on the all decade team. Adam and Brad are great guys and were great in the field but neither of them could hit the ball. When they were here we could pretty much write off our last 3 hitters in the order. Ensberg on the other hand showed 1 great year and then was just as bad as the other 2 hitters. What was even worse is that he was still hitting 5th or 6th in our order.
I know that Bagwell’s prime was in the 90’s, but I still don’t see how he doesn’t make it this decade as well. I think you have to move Berk to the outfield and get rid of Hidalgo to make room for Bags.
Oswalt and Biggio were the no-brainers. You might be able to put up an argument for a lot of the positions including Lidge and Andy, but these 2 should be unanimous across the readers.
Iceman 1 - December 27, 2009
Ensberg
I think you all are selling Ensberg short. He had 5 WAR (03), 6.3 WAR, and 3.2 (06) WAR seasons. He was injured in 04, or else he would probably have put up a WAR somewhere close to 5 WAR in that season too. I think Ensberg’s shoulder injury in 2006 was pretty much the beginning of the end for his career. My recollection is that no other Astros’ 3d baseman matches Ensberg’s cumulative WAR as an Astros 3d sacker. By way of comparison, the 3.2 WAR season is higher than the WAR posted by either Tejada, Berkman or Pence in 2009. Ensberg’s 6.3 WAR season is nearly as high as Berkman’s best season (6.5 in 2006). Ensberg’s 5 WAR season in 03 was better than any season Jeff Kent had as an Astros infielder.
Yeah, Ensberg fell off a cliff after 2006, probably helped along by the injury. Lots of ballplayers, particularly third baseman, have fallen off a cliff after age 30.
clack - December 27, 2009
The data used to compare Berkman and Bagwell
When you count to ten, you always include the number “10” at the end. In the same way, the year ending in “0” is always the end of the decade. Therefore, the year 2000 is not the beginning of this decade, but the end of last decade. To use the correct data, you have to wait for the results of 2010, and then make the bar graph start at 2001.
I suspect Berkman would come out on top under that analysis.
LAAstro - December 27, 2009
I knew that argument was coming up. I recall seeing numerous posts on a BBTF thread with people arguing as to whether 00 should be the beginning of the decade or not.
clack - December 27, 2009
I'll give you that
But….everyone else is putting they’re all decade lists out and this seemed like an easy enough undertaking on my end.
Stephen Higdon - December 27, 2009
not so fast...
when you evaluate the 1950’s as a decade, do you take into consideration 1960??? no, 1960 belongs to the 1960’s. So when you go to evaluate the 2000’s you must include year 200 and not year 2010. 2010 belongs to the 10’s
mjh84 - December 27, 2009
Everybody, let's count to ten
Let me explain it this way. A decade has ten years. Starting at zero, the first year was “1,” the second year was “2,” and so and so forth until the first decade was completed at year “ten.” Every decade completed thereafter is a multiple of ten. So the decade of the 1950s is properly defined as 1951 through 1960. Just because everyone else is doing it wrong is no reason to follow along.
LAAstro - December 28, 2009
well, according to wikipedia and dictionary.com, a decade is 10 years starting from a year that ends in 0…..now, i have read that classically, the decade begins with 1 going to the year that ends in 0. however the modern approach is to start from a year ending in zero.
mjh84 - December 28, 2009
You're both right
I would say that if we were referring to the 1,951st decade, that would be 1951 through 1960.
If we’re referring to the 1950s, that’s 1950 through 1959.
Here, we’re referring to the “aughts”, so that’s 2000 through 2009.
Xan - December 28, 2009
From Websters
Decade:
a period of 10 years
The definition is subjective, Craig Biggio played for two decades (1988-2007). Craig Biggio played in three different decades. 2000-2009 if you count is 10 years.
Zero is a number therefore if you’re starting at zero that is in fact the first number in the sequence.
Timothy De Block - December 29, 2009
Starting at 0
Right. Going from 0 to 1 equals one year. 0 to 10 equals ten years or one decade.
LAAstro - December 29, 2009
My starters:
C Ausmus
1B Berkman
2B Biggio
SS Everett
3B Ensberg
LF Lee
CF Taveras
RF Pence
SP Oswalt
SP Clemens
SP Pettitte
SP Rodriguez
SP Backe’s 2005 WS start
CL Lidge
Honestly what I’d like to do is put Bagwell at 1B, move Berkman to RF and Pence to CF. Can I do that with Pence’s half season in center?
byronlhsdrmr - December 27, 2009
you don’t like Hidalgo in CF? I think it’s hard to leave him off, with those two big offensive seasons.
clack - December 27, 2009
You picked Backe over Shane Reynolds?
Timothy De Block - December 29, 2009
It's not the "aughts"...
…it’s the “Uh-Ohs”.
DrBristol - December 28, 2009
Beltran
Not here long, but wow.
Caradoc - December 30, 2009
Right and Center Field
How about Lance Berkman and Lance Berkman.
bigdhusker - December 31, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of The Crawfish Boxes to post a comment.