What If More Teams Follow the Astros’ Extreme Roadmap?

Astros baseball didn’t always inspire this variety of joy. (Photo: Keith Allison)

Following one of the most remarkable World Series of all time, in the wake of a matchup defined by historically wild swings in win probability, the Houston Astros engaged in a relatively subdued title celebration on the infield turf of Dodger Stadium. Given that Game 7 was one of the few four-hour stretches in the series that lacked constant tension and drama, it makes sense. As Charlie Morton finished off the Dodgers in the final innings, the conclusion seemed inevitable.

Following the game, the architect of the title, Astros GM Jeffrey Luhnow, briefly took the post-game microphone, addressing an emptying stadium and a national television audience. He did what most winning executives do in such situations: he thanked ownership for their patience and support.

As mundane as Luhnow’s words might have seemed, it’s likely that they transcended mere cliche. Because, where other clubs typically experience ebbs and flows, the Astros took one of the most extreme routes to a title in the game’s history. Ownership had to be open to a lot of losing. Because of the result, however, it’s a path down which other clubs will likely attempt to travel. In a copycat industry such as this one, everyone wants to be like, or at least learn from, the last team standing.

How can your team be like the Astros?

While Houston’s title seemed inevitable for most of Wednesday night, an eventual coronation has seemed probable for some time. A smart team that bottoms out to enjoy premium picks and talent, that finds value in trades and free-agent signings, that improves players through development and training practices — that’s going to be a very successful team. And a lot of people expected the Astros, even during their Disastros Phase, to be quite successful. Houston’s plan wasn’t all that different from the one embraced by the Cubs en route to a curse-ending championship in 2016. Even the Yankees have benefited from a similar model. Each club has provided the industry with a roadmap to building a super team.

While the Astros’ roadmap isn’t unique, it is more extreme. The Astros bottomed out at a $26 million payroll and 111 losses in 2013, a campaign that tied for the ninth-most single-season losses in the game’s history and the most since the 2003 Tigers lost 119. The Astros stunk, in part, because of circumstances within their roster then depleted farm system. They were also awful by design, though.

In reality, the Astros followed an NBA-style tanking model. It made sense. It’s better to be really bad for a while, and position yourself to be really good, than to be mediocre for a long stretch of time. More and more clubs appear to be adopting this mindset: reduce payroll, exchange veteran talent for prospects, and get in better position to acquire elite talent in the draft and internationally. The Astros took a rational, logical approach and maximized the return.

Of course, more teams are operating this way. Even entering the season, there was a pretty clear line between the contenders and non-contenders. And that’s part of a definite trend. Consider: teams that placed last or second-to-last in divisions this year finished, on average, 27.1 games back of their respective division leaders.

Five years ago, it was only 24.4 games.

Five years before that? Just 18.3 games.

While the gap between the Haves and Have Nots has gone through periods of widening and contraction before, while it’s always ebbed and flowed, what’s different about this period is more teams are bad, really bad, intentionally.

While we have perhaps entered an era of super teams, we might also be witnessing an era of super bad teams. This is a zero-sum game.

And having the map, the plan, is one thing. Executing along the way is quite another.

The Astros executed exceptionally well. Their young core is the envy of about every major-league club. Jose Altuve, Alex Bregman, Carlos Correa, Lance McCullers and George Springer are all postseason stars who were homegrown. The Astros drafted mostly well with early selections from 2012 to -14.

But it wasn’t just hitting on draft picks that allowed the Astros to post a 121 wRC+ this season as an offensive group, a mark that trails only the batting lines produced by the 1927, 1930, and 1931 Yankees. Player development and the integration of data were essential ingredients. Houston’s staff, for example, helped Bregman to get the ball in the air and off the ground. The third baseman enjoyed a second-half and postseason breakout. This is an organization-wide success story.

There was value found in trades (Justin Verlander, most notably) and free agency. The Astros plucked Charlie Morton out of reclamation bin and all he did was transform himself and become an integral part of the club’s Game 7 victories in the ALCS and World Series.

The Astros’ turnaround from Disastros to World Series champs was actually fairly rapid. Luhnow arrived in December of 2011. Two 100-plus-loss seasons followed, then another losing season, before three straight winning campaigns and two postseason berths. But not every team following such a plan will be so fortunate.

There are a couple entities that have to be concerned about the tanking approach to rebuilding, and about a widening gap between rich and poor clubs.

One is Major League Baseball. If the sport becomes dominated by a few well-run, large-market super teams, there’s going to be fewer interesting and meaningful games. And if more teams attempt an Astros-like rebuilds, they will necessarily have to endure lean years, creating an even wider gap between the Haves and Have Nots. With that gulf expanding, regular-season baseball will be less competitive.

And then there’s the MLBPA, which cannot love the fact that the Astros ran payrolls of $61 million or less between 2012-14 or that 2017 marked just the second time in franchise that club crossed the $100 million payroll mark on Opening Day. Houston, after all, is the nation’s fourth-largest market by population. Players would benefit if they spent like it.

While there is a tax on the top end of payrolls, creating a soft cap for players, there’s no mechanism on the low end of payrolls forcing owners to spend and meet a payroll floor. It’s one reason why owners’ share of revenue keeps increasing.

There’s no wins minimum, either, forcing clubs to maintain a baseline of competitiveness, which also promotes a tanking approach. In the regular season, that means fewer dollars for players and fewer competitive games.

The Astros are an organization-wide success story, a club that followed its own path, an extreme one, to ultimate success. They created a super team in the process. But if the copycats grow in number, it could stress the game in ways that perhaps aren’t good for its overall health. More regulation — win floors and salary floors — might be required. The Astros aren’t going away but joining them is easier planned than executed.

We hoped you liked reading What If More Teams Follow the Astros’ Extreme Roadmap? by Travis Sawchik!

Please support FanGraphs by becoming a member. We publish thousands of articles a year, host multiple podcasts, and have an ever growing database of baseball stats.

FanGraphs does not have a paywall. With your membership, we can continue to offer the content you've come to rely on and add to our unique baseball coverage.

Support FanGraphs




A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.

newest oldest most voted
Lunch Angle
Member
Member
Lunch Angle

If more teams try to tank, tanking will be more difficult. Which will then encourage teams to aim for an easier-to-reach playoff spot. I can see the tanking strategy being cyclical.

Brian Reinhart
Member
Member

I’m in an online OOTP league (I know, I know) where this exact culture has developed. So many people sell at the deadline and tank into the draft that the bar for playoff entry has lowered and, oddly enough, trying to win has become the new Moneyball. Other players have undergone a strategic shift towards exploiting the buyer’s market on rental players, patching together quick and quickly dissolved rosters that can snag Wild Card spots.

tz
Member

Way back when I still played in a fantasy league (Roto with minors) the order for the minor league draft gave the #1 pick to the BEST team to miss the playoffs, then the 2nd best etc., to discourage tanking. I’ve always thought this would be a perfect solution to the NBA’s runaway tanking problem, and might be needed for MLB if more and more teams flat out tank.

RoyalsFan#14321
Member
RoyalsFan#14321

I can’t imagine how awful an NBA game #82 would look like if a team involved had to decide between #1 pick in the draft and the #8 spot in the playoffs…

Cavarretta
Member
Member
Cavarretta

Players already have plenty of incentive to play to win. After all they get paid based on their performance. What baseball really needs is an incentive for owners to construct competitive rosters. Here’s an idea: the team with the worst record receives the 15th pick in the draft, and the rest of the draft order remains unchanged. This would force GMs to field minimally competitive rosters, and worse teams would probably spend a bit more to try to avoid finishing last.

sadtrombone
Member
sadtrombone

There was a great anti-tanking proposal in the NBA, which is that your draft position is due to how many games you win (not lose!) *after* being eliminated from the playoffs. I would love to see this adopted.

ALLluckNOtalent
Member
Member
ALLluckNOtalent

The wins after being eliminated is best solution in nba… do not like giving slot to 9th seed because giving teams that barely miss playoffs a strong chance to get land a top pick in sport most affected by having superstar creates weird incentives. Teams in the 6-8 spot would all try to tank over last month of season which would be much more embarrassing then bad teams really tanking

tz
Member

Point well taken on my NBA idea, low playoff seeds aren’t exactly the holy grail vs. getting the next LeBron James.

I really like Cavaretta’s idea for baseball – it’s simple and the penalty for finishing last should be enough incentive to do the trick. The wins after elimination idea is a great one for the NBA. The only possible tanking would be for teams trying to get eliminated from the playoffs earlier so they have more chances to win, but that’s a stretch (and it would keep the tanking from happening in late-season games that could affect actual playoff contenders).

sadtrombone
Member
sadtrombone

I’m a huge fan of the number of wins after elimination idea for a number of ideas. It is intuitively appealing: You get eliminated early, you get more chances to earn your way into a good draft position. But it’s not a given either. But I also like it because it makes tanking way more complicated. Tear down all your players in the offseason to get eliminated early? Great, but you still need to win games later. Exactly how are you going to suddenly become a good team after running out a AAAA squad early on?

You could hack it, I suppose, by trading/signing a huge number of players who are seriously hurt and not likely to contribute until around the all-star game. So if you suddenly get a couple of good pitchers and 3-4 good position players because they’ve been rehabbing serious injuries the first half of the year, that could do it. If they’re on pillow deals, you could re-create that year after year. But it would also be a ton of work and there’s no guarantee it would work out.

One odd wrinkle is that it would make trade deadline acquisitions much more expensive. Because you’re trading away possible extra wins (which would help you improve your draft position) you would want some real talent back most likely. I think this is a good thing because it means that if you’re trading away players to rebuild for the future, you’re really trying hard to get good prospects. What really offended me about the Astros in the bad old days was that it seemed like they were more interested in moving the asset than what they were getting back a lot of times (this may not have been true, but it’s how it seemed).

peakbear
Member
peakbear

How about a kind of weighted lottery type system to determine draft order so you don’t know your exact pick. If you get a fluky number 1pick this year it could adjust to give you less of a chance the following year to di the same, and so on….

bder19
Member
bder19

I wonder how having just one tanking team penalized influences the calculus by FOs and owners. Because if two teams are tracking towards, say, 105 losses, and everyone else will finish with at most 95 losses, one team gets a much worse outcome even though there were two teams that significantly worse than the rest of the league.