Pence Up, Randolph Down

by Stros Bro on Apr 28, 2007 9:47 AM CDT in News

As you may have noticed, Hunter Pence has finally been given a shot to start in the majors, replacing Chris Burke as the starting center fielder for your Houston Astros(starting tonight). Personally, I think it's about damn time... I mean it only took a 7 game losing streak for Purpura to do something about it.

I'm a big fan of Burke, but he just hasn't put up enough production to warrant an everyday spot in center field. If he was an average or above average center fielder and he wasn't doing well on offense, then I could maybe give him a slide. But he's been below average in the outfield and below average at the plate. Burke has the worst batting average on the team of the regular starters(.219) and has struck out 17 times. He only shows to have 1 error on the season in the field, but there have been numerous chances that he just didn't get to that a decent outfielder would have made the play on.

That being said, I still expect Burke to get starts in center field and he'll probably get more starts at 2nd base as well.. Hopefully this doesn't take away from starts that Loretta would be getting, being that Loretta is actually putting up good numbers this season in his limited playing time(.361 avg).

With Pence coming up, Randolph went down. That sucks for Randolph, who really didn't get a chance to take a spot on the team. Through 2 games, he pitched one inning after rushing up to Pittsburgh to take over for Rick White who hit the DL.

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

OK, here's the thing.

Normally, I think Tim'n'Phil should allow the batter mix to settle down a bit and see how it plays out through another series or two.

However, there are two mitigating factors that probably guided their hand.

First, our losses have been to, at best, above-average teams. Mostly, though, mediocre and, um, "developing." Even our wins weren't what I would call "quality." Putting a rally together in the last three innings against relievers does not exactly describe a team that's going places.

I mean, the Bucs series(es) says it all. What if we had to go against Mets or Braves or Dodgers? It would have been beyond embarassing (if it's even possible to be more embarassed than we currently are).

Second, retaining and obtaining quality pitchers will be next to impossible if mgmt doesn't act to improve the batting situation. I read Oswalt's comments on Pence being called up as a sanitized version of, "It's about time somebody took action."

Sometimes mere change is enough of a motivator to break through a stalemate. Something. Anything.

So, with that in mind, there had to be a sacrificial lamb, and I'm sure Burke was chosen because he's at the bottom of the totem pole.

Sure, Berkman, Burke -shouldn't- get the shaft, but somebody had to. Are you offering yourself up? Unfortunately, this can't be poo-pooed off as merely "a slump." Yeah, right, and the Giants' recent effort was merely a lucky streak. Something had to be done.

At least Burke didn't get sent to Round Rock.

OK, analysis.

by pel on Apr 28, 2007 12:13 PM CDT reply actions

this is good

but will the lineup change significantly? biggio has been a bit better this week but he still shouldnt be batting 1 with his terrible obp. a mix of loretta, ensberg, and/or now pence within the 1 and 2 spots in the lineup is the best way to go. i know they're trying to get craig the PA's to get this done quickly but the move to the bottom of the order is as needed as the pence move was.

this does bulk up the offense to just a nick past mediocre...now we have 2 real hitters and a prospect . the pitching is still a mess and is turning into as big of a problem as the silent bats.

prediction for hunter tonight:

2-4, 2b, 1b, r

by mswank on Apr 28, 2007 12:39 PM CDT reply actions

I wouldn't

Spot Pence in the 1 hole this early.. I think he'll probably be the starting lead off hitter next season, but throwing him out there right now is a bit much.. put him in the 6 hole tonight and maybe for the weekend and then maybe move him to # 2 next week.. if he does well, then let him and Biggio platoon in the # 1 spot.

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Apr 28, 2007 1:43 PM CDT reply actions

Batting Pence sixth will surely

help start him with a good OBP. If he comes up with any kind of offensive situation going, they'll walk him to get to Everett and Ausmus.

by bwhite2323 on Apr 28, 2007 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions

H U N T E R

I look for Hunter to be in the #2 spot tonight. He "should" see some good pitches with Lance behind him. Of course, Lance "should" be hitting.

by Astro Toe on Apr 28, 2007 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm not at all sure I agree with this move

for several reasons:

First of all, this team may not that far off track. It is a decidedly .500 team from the standpoint of its overall personnel, albeit in a mediocre division which may give it the appearance of being a bit better. Remember, the pitching has been much better than it should have been and likely it will decline some, so when (if) the offense gets untracked, the Astros are still a middle of the pack team. How is Pence supposed to fix that?

Second, it is a very poor way to bring a developing star into the system. Welcome to the bigs, Hunter, all you have to do is save the team, something that none of the big names - Lee, Berkman, Biggio, etc. - have been able to do. No pressure there! Should we gamble a man's career on that? Obviously the Astros think yes, but then Pupura and Garner look to be more worried about their own jobs than Hunter's and they are desperately (selfishly?) expecting Hunter to fix that.

Third, this will do nothing about the absolute lack of anything positive in the 7-8 holes in the lineup. Check the play-by-play and you will find that for the last 3 games at least, several offensive opportunities have died with a thud when Everett came up to the plate. Everett is a magnificent fielder, and a great man with a superb work ethic, very popular with his teammates. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way the Astros management has concluded that makes him a major league shortstop. He isn't. Ausmus can catch, he just can't hit or throw. We are giving away 1/3 of our at bats every game! How can Pence fix that?

Finally, there are a few details that need attention with the present roster, say, like Berkman loafing on a ground ball to first or getting caught after overrunning first base on a routine single. Or Ensberg stumbling on a ground ball leaving him only a throw to first instead of saving a run with a force at home (and those examples are only from last night's game). How is Hunter Pence supposed to fix that?

One thing sure, if Pence does fix all of that he is one helluva man! They shouldn't stop with giving him a regular starting assignment; they should make him the General Manager!

And that might not be such a bad idea. As Rastro and Baseball Prospectus, among others, have noted: this is a team without a plan, grasping at straws.

by bwhite2323 on Apr 28, 2007 1:52 PM CDT reply actions

attitude

what Pence can fix is attitude. whether is tired, lackadaisical, or distracted, we have not been playing Astro baseball. the whole team played better in ST with Hunter in the game.

by rwallis on Apr 28, 2007 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Isn't that what the manager

and captain are supposed to do?

by bwhite2323 on Apr 28, 2007 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions

I think you had a valid point there!

Pence certainly brought an aggressive style and a real zest to tonight's game and it looked like he was having fun.

May it be that way every game!

by bwhite2323 on Apr 28, 2007 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions

whoa

You think Everett isn't a Major League shortstop?

by KE2117 on Apr 28, 2007 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions

He's great defensively - no doubt

Although not as great, curiously, as some would imagine. He had the fourth highest range factor among NL shortstops last year, which is in the top 15%. He is ranked 18th among ML shortstops this year in fielding percentage, but we all know he will finish higher, just as surely as his current batting average will finish lower, maybe under .240.

And that's the problem. His fielding cannot possibly (I can quantify that if you wish to wade through a long analysis) make up for the runs his batting costs the team. And on a team where two (three perhaps, counting Biggio) batting spots are already thrown aside (catcher and pitcher), we cannot afford it.

It's well known that at least three teams (Tampa Bay, Baltimore, & Oakland) could not be interested in a trade for Everett during the off season and that many other inquiries never developed. It's probably harsh to say Everett is not a major league shortstop, but he is not an every day starting major league shortstop because of his woeful offense. He would make a more than capable utility player for defensive purposes, and would probably be OK on a team that had great hitting in the other 8 positions (hence the attempts to trade him to the American League mostly).

by bwhite2323 on Apr 28, 2007 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions

i think if you ask any pitcher on the

staff whether they'd prefer everett and his low BA in the 7 hole, or another ss with a higher BA playing behind them when they pitch, they'd prefer everett's defense and weak offense

by KE2117 on Apr 28, 2007 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions

The pitchers are his teammates and I'd expect

they would say that. I certainly would, no matter what I thought.

Perhaps a bigger question is "Why won't other major league General Managers show an interest in Everett when he's offered for trade?"

by bwhite2323 on Apr 28, 2007 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions

so he isn't a major league shortstop bc

other teams want pitching or don't need a shortstop? He is constantly praised for his amazing defense and has been penned as the best defensive ss in the league by many people. He is a major league shortstop regardless of whether his batting average is .240 or .260

by KE2117 on Apr 28, 2007 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions

haha

no...adam everett is not a major league ss...he's a defensive replacement with a double a bat. accept it.

by mswank on Apr 28, 2007 9:29 PM CDT reply actions

He doesn't even have to do that

Just hitting .260 would make the difference between him being a defensive specialist and a bona fide every day shortstop. And I would love it.

He raised his average to a bit over .240 tonight. Get used to it, that's where he'll be at the end of the season.

However, the production was there in the 7-8-9 spots tonight (as well as others) and look at what a difference it made - tonight was truly the exception that proves the rule.

And I hope I'm wrong - really I do!

"The race is not always to the swift and strong, but when forced to bet, that's where you should put your money."

by bwhite2323 on Apr 28, 2007 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions

I disagree on Adam Everett..

I think he is a good shortstop overall. Some stat experts have argued that Everett and Michael Young are equivalent when you account for both offense and defense. From Hardball Times:
"While we still cannot quantify defense all that well, we do know that it is a highly undervalued commodity when it comes to player analysis. For instance, Michael Young is regarded as one of the best young players in the game. Adam Everett is regarded a blackhole in the Astros lineup. However, if you factor in their defense, Everett is the more valuable player."
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/tht-daily-battles-of-the-pens/

Adam Everett had the highest zone rating of any NL player at ANY position in 2006.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy =zone_rating&direction=DESC&qual_filter=1&season_filter%5B%5D=2006&league_filter%5B% 5D=2&pos_filter%5B%5D=All&Submit=Submit

Among NL shortstops, Everett's ZR was .891 compared to Vizquel's .869. Everett made 60 "out of zone" plays compared to Vizquel's 36.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&qual_fi lter=1&season_filter[0]=2006&league_filter[0]=2&pos_filter[0]=6&Submit=Submit&orderBy=zone_rating&di rection=DESC&page=1

by clack on Apr 28, 2007 10:18 PM CDT reply actions

I have argued myself

that Everett is a superb defensive player. Unfortunately, unless he can hit around .260 (.264, actually), he cannot make up for the lack of runs created despite his magnificent defense. My argument is no major league team can give up three spots in its batting order for defensive purposes and expect to win. Two, perhaps, but not three. In general, defense is way overrated - average defense is fine (remember, the average is pretty darn good).

The Astros seem to be stuck with Ausmus as the "must have" defensive player plus, as with most of the NL, the pitcher's spot is lost. That just doesn't leave room for another negative contributor (see this year's Baseball Prospectus for their very candid thoughts about both Ausmus and Everett offensively). If a player must be platooned or worked around, then, in my opinion, that does not make him a major leaguer in the true sense of the word.

Everett could be used nicely by the Astros (or any other team) as a late inning defensive specialist or he could well be the every day shortstop if we could find a catcher with agreeable hitting credentials. The question goes unanswered: If Everett is such a contributor, why is no other team (not even in the AL) interested in him?

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions

well luckily you dont make decisions

for the astros, i could not disagree with you more and i'm not getting how whether or not AL teams want him determines his status as a major league shortstop. I honestly think you're just reaching at this point, lol

by KE2117 on Apr 29, 2007 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Another curiosity...

Hardball Times argument that Everett is the more valuable player (at 80% of the salary) would suggest that the Rangers should be willing to trade him for Everett PLUS give us something else to even up the deal.

Really? I don't think the Rangers would even return the phone call.

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions

by "trade him"

I mean Michael Young...

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions

why? why would they have to trade young

and give something else to prove his value? the article is saying that everett's defense, offense, and salary are more of a value than michael young...why is a hypothetical trade necessary?

by KE2117 on Apr 29, 2007 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions

Of course Texas wouldn't make

the trade. They are happy with Young.

The suggestion that HT made indicates that in a hypothetical situation, the trade would have to be Young PLUS something else to equal Everett. Seems like HT is way off base to make that assertion. See my analysis (actually Bill James' analysis) below:

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions

I think I should provide

Some statistical support to all of you for my position on Everett.

A player makes two basic contributions to the team: offense or defense. Offensively, a player's job is to create runs. Defensively, it is to prevent runs.

Offensively, the statistics are readily available. For the 2006 season, here are the runs created for:

Adam Everett 53

Average of all ML shortstops 90 (Michael Young = 105, by the way)

Defensively, a player prevents runs by preventing plate appearances. A defensive play that results in an out eliminates a further plate appearance by another batter. An error allows another batter to come to the plate, thus creating an additional plate appearance for the opposition. In2006, a major league team scored about 1 run for every 8.5 plate appearances, so for a defensive player to save a run, he must single-handedly eliminate 8.5 plate appearances by the opposition.

A player who is deficient offensively must break even by supplying defensive plays to offset that - simple enough.

Everett is 90-53 or 37 runs created short of being an average shortstop offensively. To make up for that deficiency he must save 37 runs or 37 X 8.5 plate appearances/ run or 314.5 plate appearances (single handedly and indisputably) over the season. Everett played 150 games last year, so all he must do is make 314.5/150 or 2.1 outstanding plays per game that the average shortstop (who is usually one of the best fielders on the team) would not have made.

Everett had about 680 chances last year. To make 314.5 plays that the average shortstop would not have made, over 45% of the time he touches the ball, it would have to be a situation that the average shortstop indisputably could not have handled.

It just isn't happening. And for Hardball Times to claim Everett is more valuable than Michael Young is ridiculous, in my opinion.

This analysis follows a procedure first used by Bill James in the late 80s in his Baseball Abstracts.

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions

In my opinion HT is correct

and you are incorrect, but that is really irrelevant. What is ridiculous is your previous claim that Adam Everett is not a Major League shortstop. That is what I disagree with and the reason I first replied. Now this has turned into a comparison of Adam Everett and Michael Young and shotty ways of determining who is superior. If Everett were not a ML SS as you claim, he wouldn't be regarded as arguably (obviously) the best defensive SS in the league. I still cannot believe that you think he isn't worthy of being in the majors for anything other than a late inning defensive replacement. He's our best defensive fielder on the team and the only reason this issue is coming up again is because the rest of our lineup hasn't been producing. If 1-2 are getting on base and Berkman, Lee, Scott/Lane, and possibly Pence produce-no one will be talking about Everett's BA, only his Gold Glove worthy defense.

by KE2117 on Apr 29, 2007 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions

What about the James essay

in the fielding bible? Just going from memory, I think the numbers for 2005 were something like 35 plays that everett made that the average ss wouldn't make, and 35 plays that jeter didn't make that the average ss would make. So that's about a 70 play difference. The average value of a play is about 1/2 a run I think, so that's about 35 runs Everett saved over Jeter. In 05, Jeter created 112 runs, Everett had 53. That comes out to a difference of 59 offensively. So 59(offensive difference)-35(defensive difference)=24 runs that Jeter is worth over Everett. That doesn't seem like Everett is that bad, considering Jeter is getting paid 5 times as much. And he is certainly an ML shortstop.

by MG(vers. 2) on Apr 29, 2007 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions

5 times as much? Try over 7 1/2 times as much

Jeter is making 21.6 million this year, compared to Everett's 2.8 million, and the contract he's in is 10 years long

by KE2117 on Apr 29, 2007 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions

The point is

not whether AE is better or worse than Jeter, not whether he is better than Young, but what he needs to do to make up his offensive production deficit - what he needs to do to just be AVERAGE.

Even at 1/3 of a run per outstanding play, he has to make up 37 runs or (using the 1/3) or 111 plays over the course of the season, just to become average.

Jeter and Young don't have to do that because they make a huge positive contribution. And yes, they cost more.

The poor hitting at he 7-8 spots is not a topic of recent discussion, but one that has been talked about for at least 2 years. Think of what 37 extra runs could have meant to last year's team.

By the way, the Fielding Bible, I believe, is edited by John Dewan.

My (Bill James' method) analysis says AE is way below average and thus I don't think he should play every day. It's OK if you want to think he should, just hard to support statistically. You are in better company than I because Garner and Pupura agree with you, and just because it can't be supported statistically doesn't mean you are wrong, but it means we are going to disagree.

And if AE were really that good a) Why were we trying to trade him? and b) Why were there no takers?

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions

if oswalt is so good why were we trying

to trade him? The Astros fielded many offers/every offer, we needed a bat and it was rumored that we wanted tejada, whose a ss therefore we wouldnt need everett, but in those same rumors the astros apparently listened to offers for oswalt as well-it means nothing. They gave him a $900,000 raise in the offseason and he's starting everyday bc we filled our need for a bat with a left fielder. Yes I understand that teams do not trade great offense for great defense, I can't recall any trade like that ever. The Astros "trying to trade him" is not supported by anything but rumors, and while i know his name came up, i also know that the name of our ace, one of the top 3 pitchers in the league, also came up. It doesn't hold any ground. There are numerous ways to determine a player's contribution to a team, and I've heard Berkman go out of his way to support Everett by calling in 610 to argue the point that he saves enough runs to make up for his weaker offense. His defense is especially necessary right now, with Biggio playing at 2nd. His fielding makes up for the defensive shortcomings of Biggio, sometimes Ensberg, and some bad fielding from pitchers. He turns double plays that a very small number of people can turn, and there are instances like the diving grab he made the other day- he kept it in the infield preventing a run from scoring but he didn't make an out, how do those plays factor into your formula? There are things that stats can't calculate and I don't think they can do Everett's defense justice.

by KE2117 on Apr 29, 2007 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions

And so we will

have to agree to disagree. And not only is that OK, it's part of the fun of being "Monday morning quarterbacks". It's part of learning to reason in a quantifiable way without letting emotion interfere with one's final conclusion. All that is good stuff.

The real truth on AE is most likely somewhere in between. Everyone has made some great points and I intend to study them in depth. Hope you'll do the same for mine.

Speaking of Oswalt, I'd argue, by the way, that he is currently the best pitcher in baseball..... I can quantify that, but I won't!

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions

The Hardball Times comment seemed so unlike them

that I wanted to pursue it farther. When I tried to get to their website, it was down, so no luck at first. However, I finally got through - the claim is not from Hardball Times, but is on their website as a quote from another sprotswriter.

Pursuing that, it turns out to be a claim from an ESPN.com writer who goes on to later suggest that Everett is even better than Derek Jeter. No analysis is presented to support that.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion......

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions

he must be the one person at espn that

doesn't have an enormous east coast bias

by KE2117 on Apr 29, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Ain't that the truth!

by bwhite2323 on Apr 29, 2007 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Current Series

3 game series vs Rockies @ Minute Maid Park

Colorado Rockies Purple Row @ Houston Astros The Crawfish Boxes Friday, Apr 6, 2012, 6:05 PM CDT Minute Maid Park Complete Coverage >
Sat 04/07		6:05 PM CDT
Sun 04/08		1:05 PM CDT

NL Central Standings

	PCT	STRK
Chicago Bleed Cubbie Blue	.000	Lost 0
Cincinnati Red Reporter	.000	Lost 0
Houston The Crawfish Boxes	.000	Lost 0
Milwaukee Brew Crew Ball	.000	Lost 0
Pittsburgh Bucs Dugout	.000	Lost 0
St. Louis Viva El Birdos	.000	Lost 0