astros logo new

Hating on the Astros is trendy. But it’s also rather silly.

80 Comments

I’ve noticed a pretty marked trend in Astros hate the past couple of days.  Yesterday Buster Olney wrote at length about how bad the Astros are, how low their payroll is and how they are being rewarded for it in the form of profitability and draft picks. Buster basically accused the Astros of tanking the season. This morning Peter Gammons tweeted out the same, couching it as the Astros being “rewarded for losing.”

There are no factual inaccuracies in any of that. Yes, the Astros stink. Yes their payroll is low. Yes, they are being “rewarded” insofar as the worst team in baseball has been given the top draft pick since the advent of the draft nearly 50 years ago. But the critics seem to have it in for the Astros way more than your typical not-very-good major league team and I don’t really get it.

The Astros’ previous owners totally strip-mined that team. They left the minor league cupboard more than bare, in large part because they tried to squeeze way too much out of the Biggio-Bagwell years and put off rebuilding far too long. With the team in the gutter and Houston being about as low on the free agent-desirability list as it comes what, exactly, should the Astros have done differently than they have? Signed Michael Bourn or Josh Hamilton? That woulda been swell. They may have challenged for 60 wins in such an event and raised their TV ratings from 0.0 to 0.2 maybe.

The talk that Jeff Luhnow and his team of forward-thinking scouts and executives are geniuses poised to usher in a decade of Astros dominance can get a bit much at times — smarts are important and they have them but results are never guaranteed — but I am struggling to think of what else the Astros could have or should have done differently than they have. It is essential that they rebuild the farm system. It is essential that they not waste money on things that will not make the Astros better and put all efforts into things that will. Yes, that makes for a bad major league product at the moment, but there is no obvious way for them to have changed that while still rebuilding the franchise. This was not a 75-win franchise with some diamonds in the rough or otherwise good but injured players who needed a little boost to get back into contention. This was a tire fire.

And, if the system, rather than the Astros, is the problem, what changes do Olney and Gammons suggest we make to it? A salary floor? Neither of them have ever advocated for that to my knowledge and both stop short of doing so now. Changing the draft to a “make it take it” system in which the best teams in baseball draft first? Of course not. The system of talent distribution/development/payroll is the only one we have, is the best that anyone has come up with and it has been in place forever. Why is it now such a problem that the Astros are taking advantage of it? That’s the entire point of it.

Is it so galling to see a team lose 100 games multiple years in a row and to see them ending the season so poorly? Is it all the more galling to see a team losing because it simply lacks talent rather than because it lacks money and talent? Maybe that’s what the Astros’ critics are on about. I have no idea. All I do know is that nothing that the Astros are doing suggests that they particularly enjoy losing or want to continue losing. They simply stink and are doing what they can to get better while the system’s chips fall where they are designed to fall.

Or am I missing something?

Baseball Hall revamps veterans’ committees

Cooperstown
Associated Press
1 Comment

COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. (AP) Baseball’s Hall of Fame has again revamped its veterans’ committees, attempting to increase consideration for more contemporary players, managers, umpires and executives.

Under the change announced Saturday by the Hall’s board of directors, there will be separate committees for Today’s Game (1988-2016), Modern Baseball (1970-87), Golden Days (1950-69) and Early Baseball (1871-1949). Today’s Game and Modern Baseball will vote twice every five years, Golden Days once every five years and Early Baseball once every 10 years.

“There are twice as many players in the Hall of Fame who debuted before 1950 as compared to afterward, and yet there are nearly double the eligible candidates after 1950 than prior,” Hall chair Jane Forbes Clark said in a statement. “Those who served the game long ago and have been evaluated many times on past ballots will now be reviewed less frequently.”

Today’s Game will vote in 2016, `18, `21, and `23, and Modern Baseball in 2017, `19, `21 and `23. Golden Days will vote in 2020 and `25, and Early Baseball in 2020 and `30. The Hall’s Historical Overview Committee will decide which committee will consider those who span eras, based on the time or place of their most indelible impression.

Since 2010, the Hall had established three veterans committees: Pre-Integration Era (1871-1946), Golden Era (1947-72) and Expansion Era (1973-2016). No one was elected by the Pre-Integration Era committee in December.

In addition, the Hall eliminated the one-year waiting period between a player’s last appearance on the Baseball Writers’ Association of America ballot and his veterans committee debut for consideration. The Hall also said active executives 70 or older may be given consideration, up from 65.

Committees will remain at 16 people, with a vote of at least 75 percent needed for election. The ballot size will be 10 for each committee; it had been 12 for Expansion Era and 10 for the others.

The BBWAA votes on players who have been retired for at least five years and no more than 15. Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza are to be inducted Sunday.

The Hall also changed some of the rules for the Ford C. Frick Award, presented annually to a broadcaster for “major contributions to baseball.” The committee making the annual decision will consider a three-year cycle of Current Major League Markets (team-specific announcers) for the 2017 award, National Voices for 2018 and Broadcasting Beginnings (early team voices and pioneers) for 2019.

Since 2013, the Frick’s three-year cycle had been High Tide Era (mid-1980s to present), Living Room Era (mid-1950s to mid-1980) and Broadcasting Dawn Era (before mid-1950s).

The criteria will be “commitment to excellence, quality of broadcasting abilities, reverence within the game, popularity with fans, and recognition by peers” instead of “longevity; continuity with a club; honors, including national assignments such as the World Series and All-Star Games; and popularity with fans.”

The Frick ballot size will be reduced from 10 to eight, and the three ballot spots previously determined by fan voting will be decided by historians.

Ozzie Smith, inducted to the Hall in 2002, was voted to the Hall’s board of directors.

Red Sox analyst Remy struck by monitor as wind causes havoc

ramirez
AP Photo
2 Comments

BOSTON — Red Sox TV analyst Jerry Remy was hit in the head by a falling TV monitor as swirling winds caused havoc during the first inning at Fenway Park.

Remy was sent home from Boston’s game Saturday night against the Minnesota Twins but is expected back Sunday. Former player Steve Lyons, also an analyst during some games, came in for Remy.

The strong winds made for an interesting first.

Minnesota’s Robbie Grossman hit a fly that appeared headed for center, but a gust blew it to right, sending right fielder Michael Martinez twisting as the ball fell for a triple.

There were a handful of stoppages as dirt and litter swirled around the field. Batters stepped out to wipe their eyes and Red Sox first baseman Hanley Ramirez headed to the dugout to have a trainer help him clear his left eye.