Justifying Biggio

ESPN asking Rob Neyer to start a blog (Insider) has been terrific for baseball fans because it's resulted in much more Neyer than we've been getting the past few years. Today he questions the Astros' continued use of Craig Biggio as their starting second baseman and leadoff hitter. Neyer writes that the Astros want the public relations and attendance boost that comes with Biggio's quest for his 3,000th hit, but from a strict talent standpoint, Mark Loretta, Chris Burke and top prospect Hunter Pence should all be higher on the depth chart:

"I know the organization wants to see Biggio reach the magic number. I'd feel the same way, if I were running the franchise. But can you really sacrifice a shot at the World Series in the interest of one player's statistics?"

Posing the question that way might be unfair to Biggio, who's not in charge of making out each day's lineup card. The decision to pencil in the original "Killer B" is probably coming from higher up the corporate ladder than manager Phil Garner. That makes it more a business decision than a baseball one, so Neyer's question should be rephrased as follows: "Is the potential long-term windfall from a playoff appearance greater than the short-term boost the Astros will get from Biggio's milestone-chase?"

I'm reminded of a WSJ article from a couple weeks back titled "The Real Most Valuable Players." Russell Adams reported that several teams (in particular the Cleveland Indians) have been combining sabermetrics and economics to determine which players will most benefit the team's finances. Adams writes:

"It also raises the unsettling possibility that some teams might determine that it's financially in their best interest to be mediocre, not good, and definitely far from great. That's because by some calculations, the best balance of revenue and expenses isn't always compatible with greatness, nor winning with profitability."

Teams that are closer to playoff contention stand to benefit more from marginal improvements than lesser teams. But since the Astros really aren't on the playoff fence, baseball decisions made in furtherance of the Astros making the playoffs in 2007 are likely to be misguided from a financial standpoint. Though Houston is currently in second place in the NL Central with a 9-9 record, BP's adjusted standings (taking into account the components that make up all teams' hitting and pitching performance) has the team down in fifth place at 8-10. That puts Houston on pace for the 72-win season I predicted on Opening Day.

The fact that Biggio's only hitting .222 ends up being good for the Astros. His prolonged race to 3,000 hits will (hopefully) distract fans from the fact that the Astros are not very good. It might even keep attendance at high levels when it's clear the team is out of playoff contention. The extra revenue could enable the Astros to replace the retiring Biggio with a quality free-agent in the offseason - how about stealing Carlos Zambrano from the Cubs? Finishing lower in the standings would give them a higher draft pick if they don't sign a big money free agent. Better that they keep Pence in the minors for most of 2007, keeping him at a lower salary - and an extra year - when he's on the next good Astros team.

Bill Simmons wrote about NBA teams that understand the optimal strategy for a losing team is to lose some more. Too many teams were a little too blatant with their tanking that the second half of the NBA season was far from aestheically pleasing. But if the Astros lose this year with gusto while letting Biggio get to 3,000 and then get out, everyone in Houston might be better off in 2008.

Nats Will Be Awful

I respectfully disagree with Rob Neyer, who blogged yesterday that the Washington Nationals won't lose 100 games.

Set aside that their starting shortstop is so bad that Baseball Prospectus included a "Cristian Antonio Guzman Award" - position player mostly likely to put up the lowest VORP in regular playing time - in their staff prediction article. And ignore Vegas's over/under line of only 94 losses.

The Nationals' best hitter, Nick Johnson, is less durable than a used piñata - and that's when he starts the season healthy. Unfortunately for the team, the broken leg that ended Johnson's 2006 may have also ended his career. Johnson's replacement at first base is a running joke on the funniest baseball site around, which is good for laughs but not for scoring runs.

And the Nats will need runs, as their second through fifth starting pitchers have career major-league ERA's of 6.90 (Shawn Hill), N/A (Matt Chico, whose first start will be his MLB debut but had an equivalent ERA of 4.09 in double-A last year), 5.76 (Jay Bergmann), and 4.03 (Jerome Williams, he of the 7.30 ERA for last year's Cubs). If the Nationals didn't play in one of the best pitcher's parks in the game, they'd be a lock to allow 1,000 runs.

I'll put the 2007 Nationals at 61-101. And if John Patterson - the team's only legitimate MLB-quality starter - pitches like he did last night, then watch out '96 Tigers (53-109).