The Stros had a relative slugfest on Friday night as JK drove in three runs with a double and triple and Pete Munro did his best imitation of the Rocket in leading the Stros to a 4-0 win over the Anaheim Angels.
Munro was outstanding, giving up only three hits and no runs over six and a third innings. Miceli, Lidge and Dotel cleaned up over the final three innings. Bags hit a mighty yak bottom of the eight for the Stros’ final run and hopefully that will help him break out of a prolonged slump that has seen his slugging percentage drop well below Bidg‘s.
By the way, Richard Hidalgo was 0 for 4 in his first game with the Mets.
Things should be fun at the Juice Box on Saturday night as Clemens goes for his 10th win against the Angels’ Ramon Ortiz (2-5;5.32 ERA).
In other Stros news, the Padres picked up Ricky Stone after the Stros had designated him for assignment when they acquired the two pitchers in the Hidalgo trade. Also, 25 year old AA Round Rock shortstop Tommy Whiteman, who has been having a tremendous season to date (.381 OBP; .473 SLG; 8 yaks), has been promoted to AAA New Orleans.
Daily Archives: June 18, 2004
Jimy’s penchant for the sacrifice bunt
The next time you hear the Stros’ propaganda machine touting the brilliance of Jimy Williams‘ strategy of having Adam Everett‘s sacrifice at virtually every opportunity, please recall this Baseball Prospectus analysis:
Waste Not, Want Not: We’ll use an example from the Astros game against St. Louis on June 4, but any Houston fan could name a half-dozen others. Craig Biggio led off the game with a double to left field, bringing up shortstop Adam Everett.
Nice start, right? On the way to a big inning, right? Wrong, if you’re Jimy Williams, who’s never met a pointless sacrifice bunt that didn’t seem like a good strategic decision, especially with Everett at the plate. So far in 2004, Everett has 19 sacrifice bunts in 61 games, by far the most in the majors.
So, as ever, Williams asked Everett to lay down a bunt. He couldn’t get the bunt down, and the Astros eventually stranded Biggio at second base.
In James Click’s series on the sacrifice bunt, we learned that the threshold for a bunt in a runner on second, no out situation is .249/.305/.363–that is, if the batter’s numbers are below that threshold, a bunt makes sense. Otherwise, the batter should hit away.
Everett is currently at .282/.316/.370 this year, which means that a bunt with a runner on second and no one out is a bad play with Everett at the plate (although, not as bad a play as you might think). And keep in mind, that situation is the best situation for a sacrifice bunt when you’re trying to maximize the number of runs you score; any other situation early in a game is an even worse time to lay one down.
This is old news to most of you out there, but apparently Williams hasn’t gotten the memo on this. In a lineup that features four players with a VORP in double digits, Williams’ penchant for throwing away outs and runs early in games is especially baffling, and if Houston comes up short in the NL Central, he’ll deserve a great deal of the blame.
United goes back to the drawing board
The federal Air Transportation Stabilization Board announced on Thursday that it has rejected Chicago-based United Airlines‘ application for a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee, which is the foundation of the second largest U.S. airline’s current reorganization plan to emerge from its pending chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The ATSB concluded that “the likelihood of United succeeding without a loan guarantee is sufficiently high so as to make a loan guarantee unnecessary.” The ATSB represents the Treasury Department, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal Reserve.
Nevertheless, the political pressure is already mounting to undermine the ATSB’s decision. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said he favors reconsideration of United’s application. Moreover, United said in a statement that it will bring important modifications to its application and request reconsideration. Finally, United’s union members have been hammered with deep pay cuts during the reorganization, so Union leadership reacted angrily to the ATSB’s announcement.
In that connection, a reconsideration appears at least reasonably possible because the ATSB decision was a split vote. Treasury Undersecretary Brian Roseboro and Fed Governor Edward Gramlich voted no, while Transportation Undersecretary Jeff Shane voted to defer a decision to give the airline more time.
By all accounts, United’s new business plan was far superior to its previous ones. During its chapter 11 case, the company has cut its annual expenses by about $5 billion. However, the airline industry has continued to change rapidly during United’s chapter 11 case as a group of successful discount carriers now controls 25% of the domestic market. With their much higher costs, big airlines such as United have been losing billions of dollars a year by matching the discounters’ fares. Meanwhile, fuel prices have skyrocketed, making matters worse for the big boys.
The ATSB’s decision continues an admirable Bush Administration policy of being relunctant to bail out airlines. The ATSB was set up by Congress three years ago to handle the doling out $5 billion in direct grants to the industry and administering up to $10 billion in loan guarantees. At that time, the then-secretary of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan criticized the idea of loan guarantees. The loan board received 16 applications for guarantees before the June 2002 deadline, and was tight-fisted in doling out aid. Eight applications were denied. The six that were issued amounted to about $1.5 billion.
The decision has no immediate effect on United’s operations in its pending chapter 11 case, which is a year and a half old now. Despite the political knashing of teeth over the ATSB’s decision, the decision is the correct one. Hopefully, the decision will stand and simply force the creditors with stakes in United’s survival to share the full economic risk of reorganizing United. As Professor Ribstein has articulated eloquently, risk of loss and threat of failure are powerful inducements to reorganize a big company the right way.