So, I guess Chris Burke is not good after all.

So who is the prospective 2B right now?
And is Bourn settled in for CF?

Is it possible they could have 4 sub .300 OBP guys in their starting lineup?

That Brad Ausmus projection is amazing for all the wrong reasons.

Is Hunter Pence a long-time solution for CF? It seems the Astros are eager to push him to right for some reason.

Holy ####. Bourn doesn't look too good. I thought he was the key piece to the Lidge deal.

Jason Jennings' closest comp is Jason Johnson? I knew there was a reason I couldn't keep them straight in my mind.

Is Mark Saccomanno related to Bob?

The O's comparison is a bit unfair -- the Astros have really only been meandering since Purpura took over. The O's have been meandering for a decade now. But yes, the Ed Wade hire suggest the Stros are the new Os.

Offensively, this looks like an older version of the Twins. Only 5 guys (Lamb's an FA) project to hit better than an average C and there's no help ready on the farm. They've got a lot of PAs they need to find somewhere. Of course, for some reason this got spun as a positive for the Twins. :-)

The pitching's nowhere near as promising as the Twins though.

In a lot of ways, this looks like a typical Cub team. A couple really, really good players (Oswalt, Berkman, maybe Pence), another good-OK corner player or two (Lee, maybe Wigginton) and crap hitters at the positions it's hard to find good hitters ... so you end up saying "sure, we'd like to find a better 2B than Loretta or Burke but there just aren't any available and those guys aren't THAT bad."

I'd love to see the pessimistic projection on Ausmus. I know, the real pessimistic projection is out of baseball by May 10 but ZIPS will project him to lots of PT.

And I always knew Everett was a bad hitter ... don't think I realized how bad until now though.

Oswalt's gotta be regretting that extension.

Is Mark Saccomanno related to Bob?

You tell that son of a bit?h he's never getting called up to Houston! Not as long as you ??stards are running things!

The Jennings projection in the team section and in the spotlight don't match.

Fixed - I had last year's projection in the team section.

"So, I guess Chris Burke is not good after all."

Burke's the butcher, Hare's the thief, and Knox the man who buys the beef.

A few notes.

1. For 2008 I think the Astros are hoping that Towles will be the primary catcher and Ausmus will be the backup/mentor. Towles hit pretty well at the end of last year. The Astros may be able to hope for league average C production here soon.

2. Tal Smith is taking a more active role and it will be Smith and Wade making the plans, not just Wade. I believe Wade and Smith have a plan for 2008.

3. The plan for 2008 included finding a CF (Bourn), a 2b (targets included Iguchi, Castillo, and Matsui), tinker with the bullpen, turn spare parts (Luke Scott, Chris Burke) into something useful. They are aiming to improve team speed and defense.

4. Pence is being moved to RF because he is not seen as a good enough fielder for CF. Some even think he is better suited to LF, but that position is taken. Bourn is reputed to be an excellent defender in CF. The Fans' scouting report seems to agree.

5. I think Bourn is slated to lead off. His minor league record shows decent patience (.378 OBP and 10% BB rate) and that seemed to carry over to MLB (.340 OBP and 10% BB rate) last year. Why does ZIPs think he's only a .306 OBP for next year? Also, Bourn is only 25.

6. Losing Lidge is a blow to the bullpen, but I it looks like they are trying to replace him (e.g. competitive offer to Cordero). I think they only traded him because they thought the return (Bourn + Geary + AAA 3b) would be worth it. If Bourn turns into a league average CF (offense + defense) it's probably a good deal.

With a little luck on the pitching side this plan could turn into a .500 season for 2008.

Bourn's minor league OBP is .378, but that's all from extremely low levels.

Bourn's minor league OBP is .378, but that's all from extremely low levels.

Mostly, anyway. He posted .348 and .350 at Reading (a good hitting environment), and .362 at SWB (but in just 38 games).

Bourn's Willy Taveras all over again.

-- MWE

Eyeballing it, it looks like the projection's low as I have his OBPs for Reading translated to .311 and .318 - I'll double-check.

turn spare parts (Luke Scott, Chris Burke) into something useful.

Why do you view Luke Scott as a spare part? He looks like a very serviceable OF, and he must still be cheap.

Why not just leave Pence in CF?

Very slight uptick for Bourn - it seems I got a Jason Bourgeois year in there. Not a big difference as Bourgeois's not much worse a hitter than Bourn.

I don't see any way that a Lee-Bourn-Pence is anywhere near as good as Lee-Pence-Scott. There's no real evidence that Pence can't handle center and the conclusion that Bourn is some awesome centerfielder is quite premature considering he wasn't highly regarded, his defensive stats in the minors were good, not great, and he's fielded all of 16 balls in the majors as a centerfielder.

Bourn is a judgment call. He turns 25 next month. He does have a history at some points of very good strike zone control and he is a very efficient base-stealing threat. His 85% projection would probably be about .270/.360/.370 in 600 PAs with a 45-6 SB/CS. With his defensive abilities, he could be a very valuable property for an organization like the Astros over the next few years. The subjective assessment of motivation and learning ability would be very important.

Luke Scott is 30, and it is unlikely that he will be a valuable property over the medium term.

Luke Scott is 30, and it is unlikely that he will be a valuable property over the medium term.

I agree, but can the Astros really afford to be giving up above average hitters? They ain't got too many of them.

When you have gaping holes at C, 2B, SS and 3B, how can you consider moving your 4th best hitter to play a rookie CF with no history of offensive success above AA?

Dan, If I remember right, Pence played RF in the minors and was always thought of as an RF until last year. Putting Pence in CF was seen as an emergency stopgap after the Chris Burke experiment was abandoned. I don't know that there is enough evidence to show whether Pence can be good as a CF but it looks like the Astros haven't got much confidence in it.

Snapper, with Pence in right there is no place to play Scott. I think he is wasted on the bench as a 4th OF. I personally wouldn't mind if Lee was traded for pitching and Scott was given LF. But that isn't going to happen. The Astros are looking at this as a tradeoff of defense for offense.

Putting Pence in CF was seen as an emergency stopgap

Didn't know that. Don't follow the team closely. What do the advanced stats say about his D?

The Astros are looking at this as a tradeoff of defense for offense.

I guess my broader point is I don't think they can afford to do this.

PMR had Pence 2 outs worse than average. The Dial LW method had his range at 3 runs worse than average and an arm 1 better than average. The only UZR I've got is MGL's mid-season update with Pence 1 run better than average.

All in all, whether or not he was considered a CF option, it's clear that the evidence suggests that he's at least adequate in center. I can envision a team that might have use for Bourn as a starter in center, at least until he demonstrates that he's not a big plus defensively, but not on a bad, old, shallow offensive team with no real strong flyball pitchers, Troy Patton the most notable exception, but I don't think he's ready yet.

Matt Albers is their 12th-to-14th range best starting pitcher? There's some guys ahead of him I've never even heard of.

I'm fairly certain Pence came up as a CF.

Hank, He was called up to play CF. But in the minors he had been playing RF not CF. I think the organization has always thought of him as a hitting prospect first and a fielder second. The defensive stats and Tango's fan scouting have him as a decent CF. Maybe Pence has improved defensively and the organization hasn't recognized that yet. Or maybe the stats are too small a sample to be sure. If he's a legit CF then I think Dan's right that Lee, Pence, Scott is better than what the Astros seem to be going for.

His 85% projection would probably be about .270/.360/.370 in 600 PAs with a 45-6 SB/CS. With his defensive abilities, he could be a very valuable property for an organization like the Astros over the next few years. The subjective assessment of motivation and learning ability would be very important.

The 85% projection Bourn would make you happy. In the right place he could steal 50-60 bases. He's very fast. As far as motivation, he always looked like he was going full bore, said the right stuff, etc. Don't have any way to judge learning ability other than he ain't ever gonna learn to hit with power. :)
I think the Willy Taveras is pretty accurate.
The Phillies have had some guys bloom late (Utley, Howard, Ruiz), so for whatever relevance that has, maybe Bourn will be a bit of a late bloomer. The Lidge trade was a good gamble trade all around -- helps the Phils (most likely), gives the Astros a couple of darts to toss at the dart board along with a perfectly adequate relief pitcher for Ed Wade to feel good about.

PMR had Pence 2 outs worse than average. The Dial LW method had his range at 3 runs worse than average and an arm 1 better than average. The only UZR I've got is MGL's mid-season update with Pence 1 run better than average.

Then I'd say they have to stick with Lee/Pence/Scott until they get some ML quality hitters in the infield besides Berkman.

You take Scott out of that lineup now and it's a complete joke.

Houston's problems last year were myriad:

-- an offense that wasn't very good (10th in OBP, 10th in SLG, playing in a power hitters' park), and that wound up being less than the sum of its parts (13th in scoring runs - they should have scored about 10-15 more runs than they did, by my crude estimator).

-- pitching that was pretty bad, outside of Oswalt and the front of the bullpen.

-- weak up-the-middle defense after Everett went down. Not terrible (except for Biggio, who saw his PT cut in the second half), just below average.

-- few in-house solutions to fix any of the problems.

Given that Drayton McLane doesn't want to spend money, the Astros are following a small-market model for remaining at least competitive; try to improve the defense and pitching and hope to keep the games low-scoring enough to steal wins. Unfortunately, they have a ballpark which is going to work against them to some extent. MMP isn't a great hitter's environment, but the Crawford boxes in left make it tough for pitchers to keep the ball in play.

-- MWE

The Phillies have had some guys bloom late (Utley, Howard, Ruiz), so for whatever relevance that has, maybe Bourn will be a bit of a late bloomer.

I thought the case of Utley and Howard wasn't that they bloomed late, but that they were laying waste to the minors, & were held back only because of someone @ the major league level (Polanco / Bell & Thome, respectively) blocking their path.

Given that Drayton McLane doesn't want to spend money, the Astros are following a small-market model for remaining at least competitive

They why don't they trade Oswalt and Berkman? With the packages that are being talked about for Cabrera and Santana, they could rebuild pretty quickly.

They why don't they trade Oswalt and Berkman?

Because they have to keep at least a couple recognizable names around, or else the fan base will lose interest.

-- MWE

maybe they are moving Pence out of CF to protect his legs from Tal's Hill.

I'll be very disappointed if Bourn, Towles and Berkman don't perform a whole lot better than this projection in 2008.

Are you sure you didn't substitute Towles' pessimistic projection in there Dan? That seems like an awfully poor projection considering his minor league track record.

Are you sure you didn't substitute Towles' pessimistic projection in there Dan?

Yes. Chone has Towles a little better, but it's not huge - 332/407.

I thought the case of Utley and Howard wasn't that they bloomed late, but that they were laying waste to the minors

Both rocketed up the prospect charts in his age 24 years. Utley was maybe held back close to a year because of Polanco and Bell; Howard was stifled for no more than a 1/2 year.

tal smith and ed wade have already said that they intend to make the astros a pitching/defense team. which they will have to because there will only be 3 guys left in the lineup who can hit. towles had only 1 year at AA/AAA and i seriously doubt he is gonna hit for a high average like he did in his 40 AB

thee is no question whatsoever that an OF of lee, pence, scott is incredibly better than lee, bourn, pence. he looks to me to be around league average

pence played cf in AA but RF before that.

but for some reason, it is obvious that they dislike luke scott - they didn't give him the RF job he had EARNED last year. i think he is on the tradeing block and i hope we can get something decent for him. they have also gotten rid of loretta and lamb, the only other guys who can hit.

i looked at bourn's stats and agree that he is taveras all over again - with fewer bunt singles. agree that there is absolutely no reason to think he will be a great CF.

dan always has pessimistic projections for the astros players what can i say

they CAN'T trade berkman because he has a complete no trade and has said on the record more than once that he refuses to leave houston. as for trading owwalt, our ONLY good pitcher as welll as fan fave? not real too smart.

and dead right about mclane not wanting to spend money. he been cutting corners with drafting and the farm for about 5 years now and it is gonna cost us for years and years

dan always has pessimistic projections for the astros players what can i say

Dan has pessimistic projections for most players.

The reason as I understand it, in very simple terms, is that ZIPS is designed to come to a zero sum total whereby the average of all the OPS projections equals the expected major league average OPS.

Here are the implications of this. Let's assume that ZIPS expects an average OPS of .760 in the major leagues in 08. Let's assume that there are no injuries to hitters whatsoever in 08. In this case the real major leauge OPS would probably be between .780 and .790, because very few back-up players or minor leaguers would get much playing time, and there would be nobody to pull down the average. The .760 average OPS is based a pre-detemined expected injury level. Now if ZIPS projected what everybody would do it they were healthy, it would also get an average OPS of between .780 and .790, so in order to come to an overall average of .760 OPS, it builds in a injury factor for each player thus lowering each individual projection from what the player would achieve if he stayed healthy. This adjustment is larger for older players and unproven players.

Hopefully Dan will comment on whether this explains the apparent phenomenom of almost every player getting projected to perform at somewhat lower than his established level. For the record CHONE does the same thing. The translation of player's major league stats from the minors to the majors are much harsher than others I have seen. I know Dan has done a lot of work on this and am assuming that he is at least as accurate as other sources. There is a tremendous failure rate for players who newly arrive on the major league scene and I'm not sure that this phenomenom is accurately allowed for by some MLE systems. I think they may focus too heavily on the players that achieve significant major league playing time thus biasing the translation results too positively.

Actually, I don't project players around a set league OPS at all - I only include those benchmarks for reference.

Last year, for instance, I projected players with 250 or more PA to collectively have a .783 OPS, a hair higher than CHONE at .782, above THT at .771 and below the others which ranged in the .790s (the actual stats turned out to be .777).

For pitchers that ended up with 50 IP, I was more optimistic than PECOTA, Marcel, and THT and CHONE was the most optimistic.

My variances also tend to be in the middle of the pack and that continued in 2007, for both hitters and pitchers.

There's no real reason for ZiPS to be considered particularly positive or negative overall on players.

Nate didn't cover them, but the Bill James-branded ones are regularly the most optimistic of all projections by a good margin.

BBC's referencing an old disagreement when, after the 2005 season I projected 8 of the 11 most-used Astros pitchers to have worse years in 2006, with the other 3 only being slight improvements (7 of those 11 pitchers did have worse years in the end).

was more optimistic than PECOTA, Marcel, and THT and CHONE was the most optimistic.

PECOTA, Marcel, and THT were more pessimistic than ZiPS. CHONE and one or two others were more optimistic.

Also, on the subject of MLEs, I think CHONE's weights are a bit too harsh, but the translation factors have decreased significantly since the mid-90s.

Nate didn't cover them, but the Bill James-branded ones are regularly the most optimistic of all projections by a good margin.

I find that STATS projections are close to useless. It was the use of their stats in 92 & 93 that persuaded me to do my own. Their projections are still bad but much better than in those days.

For 2008 - Jay Bruce (308/363/602), Chase Headley (310/409/922), J.R. Towles (293/355/462), Evan Longoria (284/365/504), Jack Cust (254/402/490), Matthew Antonelli (275/371/428).

I suspect that doing optimistic projections is probably deliberate and simply good marketing. People love to read how well their fantasy players or home town players are going to do.

Wow, those are some optimistic projections! Slipped digit for Headley? I certainly hope so! Unlike Bagwell's BA, I'd bet my life on that one not happening!

It's definitely more *fun* to give optimistic projections, though. Since I do them one at a time due to the way ZiPS works, I tend to remember how each player comes out and it's kinda depressing to do such a good amount of work just to tell people that their team sucks! Every Giant hitting projection, I was always hoping when I hit the button to projection, I would constantly hope that this one would be the one not to suck!

I suspect that doing optimistic projections is probably deliberate and simply good marketing.

I think it's also a sensitivity vs. specificity issue. People seem to be able to claim more credibility for their methods if they correctly predict a prospect to do well than if they correctly predict a prospct to NOT do well. So, if you want to brag, it's better to sacrifice specificity (getting the breakout prospect right) than sensitivity (getting the struggling prospect right), even though the positive predictive value of your approach will be low due to the small number of the former and the large number of the latter. Dan's ZiPS stuff tends to be more negative because he's aggressively trying to get the overall errors of the predictions as small as possible. And that means that he needs to be better at getting the struggling prospects right, because they're a larger pool of the players.