This week started well yesterday when the mailman delivered the always eagerly awaited copy of the Baseball Prospectus, which is flat out the best annual baseball book on the market.
So, in anticipation of reviewing this year’s edition, I cruised over to the Baseball Prospectus ($) website to check things out, only to find Joe Sheehan dropping some serious bad karma on the Stros. After identifying the Indians as the team most likely to take a big step forward this season, Mr. Sheehan votes the Stros most likely to take a big step in the other direction:

The flip side of the Indians’ story is that of the Astros. Their Cinderella run from seventh in the wild-card chase to the seventh game of the ALCS was one of ’04’s great stories. It also provided an object lesson in how the length of the baseball season makes fools of those of us who make broad statements based on how things look at any point in time.
On February 28, though, it’s hard to see how the Astros can repeat last year’s success. They are going to lose a ton of runs from even last year’s average attack–seventh in the NL in EqA. Carlos Beltran is gone. Jeff Kent is gone. Their best hitter, Lance Berkman, is going to miss at least a few weeks rehabbing a knee injury. Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio are a year older. Even in the best-case scenario, where Chris Burke and Jason Lane are allowed to win jobs and both hit to expectations, that just makes up for the losses of Beltran and Kent.

After pointing out the Stros’ inexplicable continued reliance on Brad Ausmus, and the problems that Bidg creates in blocking the progress of younger players, Mr. Sheehan turns to the Stros’ pitching staff:

The Astros aren’t going to make it up on the pitching side. Keeping Roger Clemens around just kept them running in place. They still have the same depth issues as they did a year ago, with a host of injury cases and suspects vying to fill out the rotation behind Clemens and Roy Oswalt and the bullpen in front of Brad Lidge. A healthy Andy Pettitte makes up some of that, but there’s still the question of whether two starters can be found from among Brandon Backe, Carlos Hernandez, Tim Redding, or even a longshot like Ezequiel Astacio.

Mr. Sheehan concludes with the following ominous warning:

Last year’s playoff run happened because the front end of the Astros’ roster included some very dominant players. They’re down two stars this year, and the likelihood that Clemens and Lidge can match ’04’s work is slim. They don’t have the depth to make up for that kind of slippage. Not only are the Astros unlikely to return to the postseason, I doubt they can stay in contention.

Well, that analysis did not make my day.
I will have more on the Stros later during spring training, but my short retort to the above analysis is that Mr. Sheehan overstates the Stros’ problems, just like he did last August in this earlier post. Thus, even the best sabermetricians are not infallible.
Although the Stros are clearly a team in transition from the Biggio-Bagwell era, I’m cautiously optimistic that the club can continue to contend even during this period. Yes, losing Beltran hurt, but as noted here, not as much for the long term prospects of the club as one might think. Moroever, my sense is that the loss of Kent will be nowhere near as big a problem as Mr. Sheehan makes it out to be, particularly if Chris Burke emerges as a solid major leaguer. In fact, if now seasoned veterans such as Ensberg and Everett can become just average National League hitters this season, then that improvement will likely more than make up for any difference in run production between Beltran and his replacement, Jason Lane. Finally, both of the Stros’ main National League Central rivals — the Cardinals and the Cubs — are notably weaker this season, so I don’t see either of those clubs, or the improved Reds, running away from the Stros in the division race.
Consequently, despite Mr. Sheehan’s reservations, don’t give up on the Stros just yet. This is a club that has been pretty darn good for a very long time, and I don’t see it as one that will slide into mediocrity without a good fight. Let’s at least wait to see how spring training unfolds.

Rich Lederer over at the Baseball Analysts posts this first segment in a three part series of his recent interview with Bill James, who is the creator of Sabermetrics, the mathematical and statistical analysis of baseball records. Check out this fascinating interview, which includes such interesting observations as the following:

RL: In the 1979 Abstract, you noted that Rod Carew once swung at two pitches when he was being intentionally walked, trying to get the pitcher to throw him something he could reach. Do you think that is a strategy Barry Bonds could employ today?
BJ: I don’t know. I would argue about it this way. If it is genuinely advantageous for the defense to intentionally walk Barry Bonds, then logically it has to be defensible for Bonds to swing at one or two pitches to try to negate that advantage and try to tempt them into throwing him a pitch. On the other hand, if hitters never react by swinging at pitches to try to stop the opposing team from intentionally walking them, the implication is that the offense always agrees to accept it even though the defense thinks the walk is helpful, which seems somewhat illogical.

A couple of previous interviews with Mr. James can be reviewed here and here. Mr. James was hired last year by the Red Sox as a consultant and, although he would attribute the Red Sox subsequent World Series Championship as pure coincidence, I’m not so sure. Bill James is one smart cookie on matters relating to baseball.
Update: Here is the second segment of the interview.
And the third.