From a few days ago: Zachary Levine updates us on which draft choices are still unsigned, and how the signed picks are performing in the minor leagues. Levine is also making a trip down to Corpus Christi to watch the Hooks take on the Frisco RoughRiders.
Minor League Ball sums up the Futures Game. Their final take on Mr. Jason Castro:
Love the Glove. Yeah, he hit the home run, too, but it was a hanging breaking ball. I'm still not convinced he'll be more than average with the bat, but that will be good enough for him to be a starter nevertheless.
Obviously, it's tough to get a good read on a player from one game. If he ends up being a top flight defensive catcher who hits for a high average, gets on base and provides some pop (10-15 home runs) I can't say I wouldn't be happy. It's so incredibly tough to find a good, young catcher. He seems like a special player, the sort of player the Astros have been searching for.
Another neat thing that I had overlooked is the Gameday provider from Minor League Baseball provides us with the normal Pitch F/X data for the game. Chia-Jen Lo really turned up his velocity to get out of a little jam. It's nice to know we have a guy in AA who not only has a great deal of international experience, but can dial it up to 95 MPH.
The Astros have been lucky this season, so says one person.
Oh, Joe Morgan, you're always fit to be ridiculed. Joe's sweet spot is telling the audience about the sort of minutae that the average fan knows little about—in game adjustments to batting stances, fielding tips, etc. Everything else...not so much.
Jonah Keri, formerly of Baseball Prospectus, tells us the Astros have a 36% chance of making of the playoffs. Specifically:
Middling squads like the Mets, Braves, Reds, Astros, White Sox and Mariners are still in the thick of the race due to division leaders’ inability to break away. Add it all up and we could see a busier than usual trade season.
As the trade deadline prepares to truly heat up, BtB is making sure that we bring the best of saber-thinking to the discussions.
Finally, it's time to bust out the tin for Lance Berkman. Happy anniversary, Lance.
0 recs | 17 comments
It's Ducky to be Lucky
I didn’t understand fully the"Lucky" column. Does it mean that the Astros may win 11 game more this sesson than they should because they are lucky? That is, if the Astros should win 74 or 78 games as many predicted using some formula, then because the Astros play under a lucky star they will win 85 or even 89 games.
I’ll take that. (especially the 89 wins part!).
Joe in Birmingham - July 16, 2009
As I read the article, this is a fancy pythagorean record calculation, which has been adjusted for schedule strength. So, they are saying that if this were the end of the year, the Astros would be outperforming the fancy adjusted Pythag by 11 wins. Again, this raises some interesting questions about the Astros continuing outperformance of Pythag.
clack - July 16, 2009
I like how Carruth dismissed that point when it was brought in terms of the Angels
Well in the last 1620 trails of that coin flipping, there’s been a lot of quite a lot of over performance that probably bears someone figuring it out. HLP threw out in the comments that the Astros have already been on the wrong side of a lot of big blowouts this year, that would skew they’re PythagRecord by a quite a bit without reflecting anything about their true talent level. Whereas things like “have great late inning guys who can hold tight leads” which is quantifiable and HLP pointed to, apparently don’t count?
Stephen Higdon - July 16, 2009
Thinking more on it
Comparing it to a coin flip is exactly what the guy who made the point about the Angels over performance was saying: at what point do you start wondering if the coin isn’t balanced? i.e. what point do we admit that all runs are not created equal? That such an idea gets brushed aside is kind of crazy because that’s the entire reason that fangraphs got started: graphically demonstrating how various runs scored/allowed during a game have widely different values in helping a team win/lose a game.
Stephen Higdon - July 16, 2009
Kinda strange thinking that Lance has been in the major leagues for a decade.
For the vast majority of his career, either Biggio or Bagwell was on the team, so he never really seemed to qualify as a “veteran.”
That, and he doesn’t have their “veteran” demeanor most of the time, either. Which is still refreshing, really.
Only_A_Lad - July 16, 2009
"Astros are lucky"
Translation: we’ve yet to make up more statistics to figure out why the hell the Astros continue to outperform expectations based on their run differential, etc.
goingforthecorner - July 16, 2009
“Man, I had this whole article planned out about how the Astros suck, but they aren’t doing nearly as bad as I thought they would….OK…Let’s see….click Find, Replace….replace “bad” with “lucky” and…."
The Houston Astros: Proof That You Can’t Quantify Veteraniness
AstroAndy - July 16, 2009
while I think that's true a lot of the time,
I’m not sure we can say that the Astros overperform often enough (or strongly enough) for it to be a “trend.”
Most teams will deviate somewhat from their Pythag record. People only start throwing around words like “lucky” when either the small deviations result in a playoff appearance or it’s a large discrepancy.
The Astros are overperforming by about 3 wins this year, which really isn’t anything huge at all. Last year’s 9-win difference was significant, however. The year before that, there was merely a one-win difference, and if you start looking before 2007 you start seeing more underperforming teams than overperforming ones.
I don’t know. Last year, I was willing to buy the idea that the Astros’ defense and strong bullpen accounted for the difference. This season, however, the Astros have had a strong bullpen but fairly spotty defense.
Only_A_Lad - July 16, 2009
I think the margin of error on the best version of Pythag
is somewhere around 4 wins. So we’re comfortably inside.
I hate the term “luck” when talking about Pythagorean. It implies that you the team doesn’t really deserve to have done as well as they did. But those guys were out on the field and playing the game, and short of maybe an umpire call here or there, they earned every ounce of their wins.
Furthermore, there’s a fundamental assumption in the Pythag analysis that I just don’t agree with. DQ already alluded to it above. The formula is based on a model that says that the number of runs scored and the number of runs allowed don’t depend on the game situation. But even Cecil Cooper doesn’t throw Jose Valverde out there when we’re down 6 runs. He sends out Tim Byrdak. You do this because it doesn’t matter much whether you lose by 6 or lose by 9. It’s a long season and players and managers try to conserve their resources (unless those resources are outs…). Not all runs are created equal.
AstroAndy - July 16, 2009
Now that I look again at the description of the Pythag method used in the Fangraphs article to describe “luck,” I am more skeptical. The Pythag is based on RS and RA from BaseRuns estimates. BaseRuns is an estimator of run scoring, similar to formulas like Runs Created. It uses number of baserunners and baserunner advancement factors (based on league averages) to estimate RS and RA. Why would you use an estimator of runs scored and allowed in the Pythag if you know the actual runs scored and allowed? The estimators are developed in order to make calcuations of runs scored when you don’t know the actual runs scored associated with a specific event. But why is the estimator better than the actuals? And why should we assume that variances between the actuals and the estimated RS and RA is due to luck?
clack - July 16, 2009
Random Dodger series comments
Wesley Wright rejoins the club today. I don’t recall reading that on TCB yet (sorry if I missed it).
In case I don’t make it home early enough to write about my overly optimistic view of the Astros chances in the Dodger series, the pitching matchups look fairly even (and maybe even favor the Astros). Tonight for example Wandy squares off against Randy Wolf. You’d think the Astros would have an excellent scouting report on Wolf (and Wandy is coming off a complete game shutout). Of course Brad Ausmus may be telling the Dodgers something about Wandy, too.
It ought to be a circus in Dodgertown – Manny’s first home game back.
Put on the coffee and be here at 9:00
Joe in Birmingham - July 16, 2009
Oh West Coast games
Stephen Higdon - July 16, 2009
the previous TCB report I had seen on Wright coming back...
was part of the note about Paulino being sent down. The Astros said at the time that Wright is “likely” to be called up, but that the final decision on the move would be made today. So, yes, that is news, albeit expected news.
clack - July 16, 2009
Castro
So …. what qualifies as “Average with the bat” for a catcher. I agree that if Castro is a great defensively and can hit for a high average (say above .290) and have a high OBP (say above .360)…. I would be excited. But that to me signifies Above Average…. Even w/out good power numbers. My translation of Sickels quote is that Castro will be about a .265 hitter with 10-15 HR’s. To me … that’s average for a catcher. But I hope I’m wrong. Somebody help me out
Rhombus67 - July 16, 2009
I don't know what Sickels meant when he stated his expectations...
but I can give you the stats for the “average” catcher in the NL so far this season:
.259, .331, .391, .722
I agree that I hope for better numbers from Castro, but even if that ended up as Castro’s normal ML line, it would be better offense than the Astros have seen at the catcher position in about 10 years.
Is there any thought that Castro could be similar to Russell Martin? Martin is having a down year so far, but his normal offensive stats: .281, .373, .414, .787 with 14 HRs (162 game avg. per B-Ref) seem similar to what we are expecting from Castro. If Martin ever hit the trading market, he would be one of the more valuable commodities around (even considering his current down season).
clack - July 16, 2009
Martin
without the steals, I think Castro could certainly get there.
jonthefon - July 16, 2009
Castro - Martin
I agree. I think Martin is a good comparison without the steals and maybe with a little more power ( simply b/c he plays 81 games at MMP). I was thinking of 2 other catchers to compare him to the other day. Yadier Molina and A.J. Pierzynski.
Pierzynski simply from an offensive stand point (as I don’t think he’s a good defensive catcher but am not really sure) he has averaged .285 for his career and has hit anywhere from10-18 homers a year for the past 7 seasons.
Molina has drastically improved offensively the past couple years and is obviously great with the glove.
I think it’s fair to say that if he turns out to hit like Pierzynski and field comparably to Molina we will all be very pleased.
Rhombus67 - July 16, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of The Crawfish Boxes to post a comment.