Managerial Blunder

[barzilla]

I want everyone to know first that Brad Lidge was unavailable last night because of a sore forearm. Keeping that in mind, I can't help but think that Phil Garner still completely miscalculated last night's eighth inning. Here are the better options he had.

1) I'm normally not for stretching starters, but you have to do it sometimes. Maybe Clemens could have come out in the 8th. When you have a weakness in the pen and you really need a game (we need them all on the road in particular) that is a good time to stretch.

2) Treat the 8th like it is the save situation. Right now there are three pitchers I would never use with the game on the line (Springer, Harville, Franco) and he used two out of three of them. Particularly, using them with men on base is dangerous. Yes, Springer got a key strikeout in Monday's game, but that was with a six run lead. Your choice to ride Qualls for the entire inning or bring Wheeler to guarantee you a four run (or better) going into the 9th. Folks, sometimes the real save situation doesn't occur in the 9th.

3) Double switch Wheeler with two outs and then let him go an inning and a third.

I'm beginning to see why Garner has a negative Pythagorean rating. He can't manage a pitching staff. :(

[PopTop]

I'm sure that, in hindsight, Garner might make a different decision now. And I'm also guessing that he doesn't have at least half of his bullpen arms on the DNR list. He can't possibly NOT use both Franco and Springer when the game is on the line, within a few runs, etc. I'd also speculate that he wanted to have Wheeler available for an inning Tuesday and another inning on Wednesday, if need be.

It's a shame that the bullpen blew another great effort by Clemens. If Skippy had a crystal ball and knew we'd be going into the 8th on Wednesday with a 7-0 lead, maybe he would've let Wheeler toss more than an inning on Tuesday. Whoever manages the Astros right now has limited bullpen resources to work with. Blaming Garner for Qualls, Franco and Springer not getting their jobs done just seems wrong.

[barzilla]

Pops,

I agree generally with that statement, but when you have guys with astronomical ERAs doesn't that tell you that they can't be relied on? I mean, I can only buy the "blame the pitcher" thing only so far. It would be like if the track coach pulled me into to run the 100. I would come in dead last for sure. Do you blame me for my "bad" performance or the person who should have known that I would come in last? Similarly, you can blame Franco and Springer (Qualls has been mostly successful, so I support Garner on using him) if you want, but if Franco and Springer suck a lot and Garner continues to use them in pressure situations then who really is to blame?

[Astro Annie]

I like how they were commenting that Springer is a flyball pitcher just before the debacle. It wasn't quite calling it, but it was pretty close. I know I got really concerned when I heard that--that's not a good thing to be at Coors.

[PopTop]

Scott, I understand what you're saying. You wouldn't come in last in the 100 if I was in the same race, by the way :D

I agree that Franco, Springer, Harville and even Burns really can't be counted on to post zeroes out of the bullpen. Qualls has started to come around, as you said, and both Lidge and Wheeler have been pretty damn solid, Wheeler has be a very pleasant surprise.

But Garner has little option but to use them (Franco, Harville, Springer, Burns) in some pressure situations, especially if either Wheeler or Lidge is unavailable for one reason or another. I would guess that, after pitching the last two games, Qualls may not be available tonight. If he is, then he will definitely be unavailable on Friday. I would be more inclined to agree with you that the "blunder" was Garner not leaving Clemens in for one more inning. He was just over 100 pitches, and could've gotten out of the 8th before he reached 120 pitches. There again, we don't know what Rocket was telling Garner after the 7th, maybe he was out of gas :notme:

But for my money, the real issue isn't how Garner's managing the bullpen, but the bullpen he's been given to manage. Until we have more than two reliable arms down there (Lidge & Wheeler), it's going to be tough on Garner or any other manager.

[barzilla]

Willie,

Now, we're getting somewhere. I also have a feeling the crowd would be pelting us with tomatoes if we were both in the race. :love2:

Here is the question then. Let's pretend you could acquire two players with our available talent. What would they be?

1) Starter
2) Reliever
3) Catcher
4) Shortstop
5) Corner Outfielder

You can pick two of those (or even two relievers I suppose).

Personally, I still would go with two offensive players because it would set us up better for 2006. We can afford cheap relievers in the offseason and say a catcher and shortstop is acquired, suddenly your lineup has zero holes.

[Sandy]

If I was in that race, they'd be timing us with a calendar.

[PopTop]

Here is the question then. Let's pretend you could acquire two players with our available talent. What would they be?I would probably want one reliever and one corner OF.

[Sandy]

I'd want an upgrade at shortstop and catcher.

[stubbyc]

I'd want an upgrade at shortstop and catcher.

I'm fine with our SS. He's cheap and unlike Aumsus, his defense is legitimately worth his shortcomings with the bat.

They won't upgrade from Ausmus because the Astros are dumb enough to believe that offense from a C is completely irrelevant.

[bagger]

it's been a while, but i'll take a reliever and a corner outfielder.

i know there's a differences between wishes and reality, but there's no way houston displace ausmus or everett. with that in mind, my third choice for upgrade might be back-up catcher. chavez is awful defensively and marginal at best with a bat. quintero may not be the right choice for this season (i don't really know that though), so i'd find a rental back-up catcher and send a low-level minor leaguer.

the issue of back-up catcher touches on a broader point. if the team is to be a contender this year and if the offense is to continue producing into the later months of the season, then i worry about depth. lamb has fallen off the map. burke has struggled to emerge as a reliable bench option (assuming he goes there after we add a COF). viz and chamo have been lame. orlando palmeiro has been the only good bench guy this season (.314/.375/.465)!

[Sandy]

Everyone pretty much agrees that the Astros won't touch Everett or Ausmus. And that may ultimately sum up one of the reasons the Astros seem to flounder every season instead of getting over the hump.

Last season, they let go of Dotel - a player they really liked, and who had done a bang up job for them. They did NOT let sentiment get in the way of making a move to improve the team. Because Beltran was such a great player, nobody really cared about losing Buck or Dotel along the way.

The thing is - Everett is a sub-par bat, and only an 'adequate' defensive player. That makes him a mediocre SS (at best), and Ausmus is an even worse bat - but a better defensive guy, ALSO making him a mediocre (at best) player.

Personally, I think overall both players are BELOW average. It makes ZERO sense to me to hang on to sub-par players simply because they're likeable. From a human standpoint, I understand the reluctance - but from a competitive standpoint, it's just bad business.

One simple reality about rebuilding is that it is MUCH easier to improve by replacing bad players with average players than it is to replace mediocre players with star players. So, the generally most successful methodology for improving is looking to dump your worst overall players first.

The math is simple. Let's assume you have a system to compute both the runs produced AND the runs prevented for a given player. (this is a fictional system, purely for illustrative purposes - we'll assume the scale goes from 0 to 100 - with 100 being Barry Bonds or AROD and 50 being an average player). If your worst two players have aggregate numbers of 25 and 30 (55 total) -- swapping them has a number of plusses. The downside is limited. They were your worst players - so the odds of ending up worse off is slim. Getting average players is cheaper, and they are the most plentiful on the market (the distribution of talent generally being a bell curve). You ALSO increase your upside drastically. If you swap out that 55 runs for two dead average guys, (100 total), you come out 45 runs ahead. But, if you get a little lucky, and get a 75 and a 50, you come out 70 ahead.

On the other hand, if you swap out a couple of average guys, (100 total), trying to get stars, the chance of downside is much larger. The limit of upside is squashed. And the price you'll pay to get the talent is going to be significant. If you happen to get a 70 and 75, you come out 45 runs ahead - exactly the same gain in production - but likely for a much larger monetary cost. To come out 70 ahead, you'd need to land an 80 AND a 90 - which is not only unlikely, it's fantastically expensive in the baseball market.

My view is that guys like Taveras and Lane are looking to be average guys - but they still have clear opportunity to improve based on age and experience. The biggest "potential" gains are always tied up in dumping your worst players (at their position) first.

Scott's book, in analyzing trades showed that the vast majority of deals made in recent years ended up with a rough 50/50 success rate with few exceptions. There were only a couple of teams to significantly improve on the coin flip of talent sloshing. Those teams DID have very deep pockets. They could afford to get those proven 90 guys. But they ALSO had a tendency to move their worst players first.

Obviously, monetary constraints and who is available impacts what you CAN go after. But, assuming Clemens' salary is gone next year, the best place to spend that money and be reasonably certain of improvement is to replace the worst players.

I could buy the argument that the bullpen (as a whole) might be the 'worst player', or perhaps the 4/5 slots in the rotation (after Rocket is gone). But, in general, everyday players have more total impact on overall production.

[Astro Annie]

Well, I'm with Bagger on one thing. We need a corner OF. We keep sticking infielders out there. And I agree that our C should be gone. I don't have a lot of fancy words or numbers to support my position, but I think the need for a corner OF is more important than replacing our SS.