Messages

1

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 31, 2010, 02:47:13 pm »

What about Bass?

Black guy already in center field.  Hello??

2

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 31, 2010, 02:30:50 pm »

Justice tweets:
Just been told Astros won't trade Wandy Rodriguez or Brett Myers. Listened to offers. Got nothing they liked

So, we're all in agreement it's almost a certainty that they will be?

3

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 11:05:25 pm »

This is hilariously reminiscent of the goon who asked Jim if he'd ever seen the Express.

I take it that other guy was serious?

4

Talk Zone / Re: The Face of the Fanchise

« on: July 30, 2010, 05:43:54 pm »

Oh, fuck off Mr. Prime Time Player.

Me, I have no such designs of papal ascendancy.  I'm just happy to be here.

5

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 05:41:27 pm »

More and bigger Xmas presents for the grandkids.

6

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 05:39:31 pm »

Well, he can really hit minor league pitching, right?  I mean, he could miss.

Who was it (Noe?) that said Wallace could have bigger upside offensively than Buster Posey?  But yes, he could miss.  But if only you'd seen him in Vegas, baby...he was like, I don't know, that kid on 21.  He killed!

7

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 30, 2010, 05:34:04 pm »

the Phillies did not want to give up the CFer we sent to get Wallace but they had to in order to get the deal done.

Of course, if we'd only informed the Padres of our true intentions earlier we could have had Latos and two or three of their top prospects.  And I'm sure St. Louis would have kicked in Rasmus.  Just ask ESPN.

8

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 05:31:07 pm »

So, is this correct:

We traded Roy Oswalt and Lance Berkman for one 27 year old starter/reliever, one A-ball pitcher, and one could-miss slugger who can't play a position?

Worse, one A-ball shortstop not pitcher.  But the slugger can play 1B.  He passes HH's test.

9

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 30, 2010, 05:26:49 pm »

MLBTR adds some more details of what the Astros were after/offered by other clubs

Link

Clearly, if the Astros were going to get either an MLB or MLB-ready starter, it would have to be someone like Happ, i.e. a guy who would be in most rotations but has been trying to come back from injury or can't seem to crack the top five for some reason.  I mean, why would a contending team want to trade one of their starters simply to get another one?  Makes me think this is more noise, or that Wade and co. were not anticipating those negotiations would go very far because they didn't like their prospects as much Philly's.  I thought they also wanted James Loney/Matt Kemp.  Again, what would be the point of the Dodgers surrendering talent they're counting on?

I'm not sure whom to believe anymore.  Other than Footer, of course.

10

Talk Zone / Re: The Face of the Fanchise

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:57:55 pm »

Crap.  6 seconds.

That's one of the perks of the "double secret" part of being a pope -- the post accelerator.  You'll get there someday.

11

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:56:06 pm »

Yeah, no one.  We don't own a rental unit.  But it SOUNDED fucking awesome, no?

Come on, admit it.  Have you ever even seen NY?  And no, watching Letterman every night doesn't count.

12

Talk Zone / Re: The Face of the Fanchise

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:52:34 pm »

So, with Roy and Lance gone, who is the longest tenured Astro?  Wandy?

Strech?  Liborio?

13

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:45:45 pm »

Then, in the next Tweet Footer crushes the hopes and dreams of every SnSer with the following: 

"Pence is getting the night off because Mills wants JMike to get a start. Pence is NOT being traded."

She typed giddily as she took another pull on her vodka.

14

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:37:34 pm »

If they only get marginal prospects back then it's all a favor to him.  Otherwise why do the deal?  The salary relief isn't much, and they don't have to pick up his option.

Could be a short stint in RR for Mr. Wallace.  Of course, Feliz is available.

15

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:31:30 pm »

http://twitter.com/BloggingBombers/status/19939993153

"Source: Yankees deal for Berkman is "imminent" - won't be giving up any big prospects, but will take on his contract. He'll be the new DH."

You mean, no Montero, no Phil Hughes?!@#$%@!!  Fleeced again, Ed Wade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

16

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:26:17 pm »

According to one of my friends that looks at such things, he likely wouldn't even be Type B in the AL.  I don't understand how these things work, but my friend does have an MBA.  From an ivy league school.  And he's Jewish.

Your friends with Brad Ausmus?

17

Talk Zone / Re: Berkman's contract

« on: July 30, 2010, 04:24:53 pm »

As in, could not be more wrong.

Please stop equivocating and tell us what's on your mind!  No more mind games!!!

18

Talk Zone / Re: The Face of the Fanchise

« on: July 30, 2010, 03:23:05 pm »

is not in the lineup tonight...according to his tweet.
linky

Hmmm...stirring up more trade rumors?  You shouldn't tease like this.

19

Talk Zone / Re: Edwin Jackson, anyone?

« on: July 30, 2010, 03:20:02 pm »

I, for one, couldn't possibly give a shit less. To me, the money is only relevant in terms of trying to figure out what's possible – it's a part of the mechanics of the deal, but has absolutely no impact on me as a fan whatsoever.

Besides, most of that $11 MM was simply pulled from the "Whatever it takes for Roy to go away" contingency fund.  So it's all within budgetary guidelines.

20

Talk Zone / Re: Simmons on Law

« on: July 30, 2010, 03:14:02 pm »

I can really only tolerate Simmons' pop culture commentary. His sports stuff makes me cringe more than it makes me laugh.

Just the opposite for me.  I have no interest in his marathon podcasts discussing the virtues of the Jersey Shore cast with one of his pals, but I love his NBA analysis and especially his candor on anything sports-related.  He really doesn't care who's offended or flattered.

21

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 30, 2010, 03:07:07 pm »

That's fantastic news. Anyone hear from their sources whether Wallace can pour piss from a boot?

You and HH both will be relieved to know I ran across this excerpt from an audio stream by a Willie something or other, detailing his overall scouting report:

PPFBR: 0.96 (This is his Pour Piss From Boot Ratio) - "So only 4 times out of every hundred will there be spillage, leakage or inadequate volume recovery in this young man's pours.  As long as he stays above the 0.90 threshold, he should be able to locate and step on first base equally well with either foot.  His greatest tool, however, is his height.  At 6'2", he should carry sufficient VZR (vertical zone ratio) to be able to block, knock down and even catch a fair percentage of the attempted throws toward home sailing in from right field.

"Conclusion: While offensively he sprays to all fields with plus plus power, his flaccid output on the field means that, as a leftfielder he projects top-end ability of a Ryan Braun-ish skillset (i.e. will 7 times out of 10 locate the wall behind him and hit one of the cutoff men if they're spread out evenly), but will most likely settle into something approaching a visually impaired Rafael Soriano.  Even though his makeup is not a complete defensive void, he is destined to be a first baseman in the mold of Gil Hodges, in that he will wear his mitt on the same hand.

"Note: Although the PPFBR test doesn't actually involve bases, gloves, balls or bats, clinical research has proven that in blind studies involving a random set of Doc Maartens, pouring piss from a boot at a 90% success ratio translates to effective catching of throws 12-18X per game (9 innings maximum), safely throwing around the horn, and more often than not remembering to bring a ball with one's mitt on the field each time for infield practice."

22

Talk Zone / Re: Edwin Jackson, anyone?

« on: July 30, 2010, 01:59:35 pm »

OK, what do the Sox have to offer?

Nightengale: White Sox pursuing Brett Myers
Joe Cowley: Kenny Williams has "something big cooking", not Jackson
Ed Price: "buzz" about White Sox going after Berkman

Let's start with Gordon Beckham and go from there.

But more importantly, Noe wants to know: Do they have a Brendan Ryan-type available?

23

Talk Zone / Re: Edwin Jackson, anyone?

« on: July 30, 2010, 01:54:52 pm »

okey, dokey. send a bus for all the players we want for both.

i really respect Myers for what he has done in Houston.

Me too.  Certainly has an ACE mentality.  My 20-year-old son HAS to see him pitch every turn in the rotation, he just loves the way he battles.

24

Talk Zone / Re: Simmons on Law

« on: July 30, 2010, 01:47:15 pm »

It's always too early to read ESPN.

Bill Simmons would have to be the exception for me, if ESPN has one.  He's mainly basketball-focused (and loves Daryl Morey!) but he will take any and every player, coach, manager, GM or owner to the woodshed on any occasion, and then convincingly prove they deserve it.

His critique of the Tiger apology is priceless, particularly juxtaposed to his fellow-ESPN talking/writing heads (not naming names Rick Reilly but there are plenty to go around online and on TV) who want so badly to to not dislike this guy that they'll almost tear up everytime he looks away from the camera and sighs.

Simmons is too good for ESPN.  The dotcom version or the "family of networks" they boast.

25

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 10:35:16 pm »

It sells on the concourse, so it's not all the fault of the punditry.  They know their audience.

True.  I forgot to add: 30 HR.  Now all this has happened in Las Vegas.  Let's hope *this* doesn't stay in Las Vegas.

26

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 10:27:16 pm »

Toronto traded from what *they* think is a strength to fill a weakness.

Yeah, someone in here mentioned that the Jays really coveted Gose and had wanted him included in the Halladay deal.  Wallace, meanwhile, is just another guy projected to hit .301 with 40 doubles, score and drive in over 100 runs, and have a .360 OBP.  Maybe the Jays have guys like that.  Only the Astros don't have anyone else in their system projected to do anything like this who is also close to being MLB-ready.

So it's easy to see this as a win-win.  Of course, the punditry assumes that someone has to get fleeced in every deal.

27

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 09:35:50 pm »

I did get the memo, but not before reading that HH's post a few hours ago, foolishly replying to it just now after it became irrelevant, and then deleting my post upon realizing my mistake. Yes, Gose-for-Wallace is clearly the key here. I'm not sure what Happ does for them in the long run.

"Long run" is the operative term.  The makeup of this club could be even more "developmental" (hopefully not "transitional") in nature in the next 36-48 hours than it is now.  Maybe it's time for all of us to party like it's 1991.

28

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 09:21:21 pm »

At least the Astros have experience handling players totally lacking in plate discipline. He should fit right in.

Arky, did you miss the memo?  They flipped Gose for Wallace.  And yes, most of us in here think Wallace would qualify as a significant prospect, regardless of what we think Gose is.

29

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 09:08:31 pm »

Good point. And if they can't get good value, the shouldn't trade him. That being said, given his track record, I'm skeptical of whether the Grocer understands that this wasn't just about doing a favor granting a longtime player's trade request.

I'm coming around to the thinking that he's coming around.  After all, when Berkman's gone -- be that tomorrow, Saturday or October -- Jeff Keppinger will be the gray beard (at 31 or so) in the infield.  Next oldest?  Tommy Manzella.  So I think it's hard even for him to buy into the notion that they'll be Champions! anytime soon.  Of course, with Pence in the outfield and Carlos Lee returning to 2007 form, and Chris Sampson rediscovering his sinker,...wow, I'm getting excited already!

30

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 09:01:15 pm »

Brendan Ryan! 

Yeah, with a Shelby Miller ducktaped to him.  Get 'er done!

31

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 08:30:57 pm »

I really think this is the best we could've gotten, and I'm not saying this because I don't have confidence in Wade.  Just given all of the circumstances involved, I think both parties benefit.

What I don't get is the hesitance to deal Myers.

In a down year, Myers has been a gamer and shown himself to be the anti-Oswalt amid Roy's grousing and playing the role of malcontent.  Myers is also only 29 and they want to try to keep him beyond this season.  I'm sure teams were throwing around names of lower-ceiling prospects (i.e. future middle relievers/lefty specialists) that signaled to the Astros that these clubs were hoping to get the 2010 version of Myers in exchange for value equivalent to the 2009 version.

32

Talk Zone / Re: I was just on Facebook (Fuckhouse related)...

« on: July 29, 2010, 06:56:48 pm »

@HunterPence9: Hi all!

@Cutoff_Man: Hey! Long time no see... been missing me?

@HunterPence9: Huh?!! Who r u?

@EyeHighFastball: Hey there... New in town, sailor? Lookin' for a date?

@HunterPence9: I'm lookin' for more than a date, honey...

@EyeHighFastball: Oh yeah, baby! I got what u need!! [tits.jpeg] U like?

@HunterPence9: I love you! I love you so much!! I can have babies with you!!! WILL YOU MARRY ME?!!1!

@HunterPence9: [engage_ring.gif]!!!

@Cutoff_Man: ....

@Guy.On.3rd: I should just kill myself now, right?

@Cutoff_Man: All I can say is "down the road, not across the street"...

Funniest thing I've read in here since Curly's impersonation of the PBP on Monday Night Football after Dennis Miller and Dan Fouts have learned that they're about to be replaced by John Madden.  (I'm going from memory, so I may not have all of my facts straight.)

33

Talk Zone / Re: Something I'm willing to admit

« on: July 29, 2010, 06:30:41 pm »

the difference between Lidge and Oswalt is class, especially in the face of adversity. one has it, and one does not.

Thanks to ESPN and others who won't ever let it go, it's sad that he'll be remembered more for what turned out to be a meaningless homerun over a perfect season three years later.  I just wish he could have killed in the 2005 World Series -- maybe gotten a save or two -- to show he hadn't gone mental over the Pujols bomb.  I wished that as much for his sake as for what the results would have meant for the team.  He showed everyone eventually -- everyone who chose to notice, that is.

34

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 06:19:11 pm »

OK, let's nip this in the bud.

1.  He was drafted by the Co-ards ONLY as trade bait.  They never believed he'd play 3b, and he sure as all hell wasn't supplanting Pooholes.
2.  He was sent by the A's as essentially a sidebar deal to the Holliday deal, b/c the A's like Taylor (who is now their #1 prospect) as a better fit.

In my view, the multiple trades mean NOTHING about the kid as a player.

Nothing to nip.  I was commenting only on the frequent movement of a #13 pick only two years ago who has demonstrated some pretty promising offensive skills.  I can see how your first two points make perfect sense, but it made me wonder about Gose based on the snippets of scouting reports copied in this forum.  Seems that if accurate the Astros got a much better return in a Wallace-for-Gose deal straight up.  Who knows, though, maybe Gose ends up being a Kenny Lofton, or better even.

35

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 04:41:18 pm »

There is new fangled thing called video and all... w'all, they sit the guy in front of a camera and darn if that thing doesn't take moving pictures with sound and all.  It's like he's there in person... only he ain't!

Or Drayton could be his replacement.

36

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 04:35:16 pm »

agreed. i like Lance Berkman and wish he could retire as an Astro. i think Noe nailed it, though--he may be ready to leave for his own good and for the Astros' good.

Lance cannot go until after the trade deadline.  He's giving his testimony at Faith and Family night this Saturday, isn't he?  Can't happen.

37

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 04:32:41 pm »

Baseball Prospectus is already spouting the Wallace hate, so I see that as a HUGE plus.  Doubled my excitement about the kid!

Wallace was picked only 3 slots after Castro and 2 after Smoak, by the 3rdinals, right?  He's been traded 3 times already, this time for a weak-hitting CF with great wheels.  I wonder what infectious disease he has to get moved around so much.  Hope H-town is the antidote and that he prospers for many years in what is about to be a gaping hole at 1B.

38

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 04:17:22 pm »

Footer (via Twitter): No Carlos was not traded. To review, he is the most untradeable player in the history of untradeable players.

This tweet proves she can be unfailingly polite and patient as well.

39

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 04:03:20 pm »

From BP:
ETA: Whether by trade, retirement, or FA, I think chances are slim that Puma is here next year.

Well, according to HH, if you can "pour piss from a boot" you can play 1B.  So if he can hit .300 and provide lots of power and reasonable OBP, he can be slow and poor defensively.

40

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 03:48:59 pm »

Astros get Brett Wallace for Gose

This sounds much better.  Wallace is nearly MLB-ready at 1b.

Hey, and the Turdinals thought they had come in too late to be part of the deal...thanks to them, in a roundabout way.

41

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 02:34:36 pm »

Ladies and gentlemen, your Houston Royals.

42

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 02:29:20 pm »

This.

I don't get this deal.  Why not use that money in Latin America?

Where at least there's lube.

43

Talk Zone / Re: Roy O to Phillies

« on: July 29, 2010, 02:01:22 pm »

Meanwhile, Stark has been curiously silent for the past two hours.  These days, that's equivalent to a full news cycle.  He must be aware of all the "noise" out there but also doesn't have the definitive list.

44

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 29, 2010, 08:14:36 am »

What does this mean for me?

Look forward to the biggest highlight of the next two seasons being the June draft day.

45

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 29, 2010, 08:11:01 am »

I could be wrong, but I read that as saying that Drayton was the one who didn't really know what was going on.

I was actually commenting on the mediots who think Drayton McLane is a doofus.  It was all about slamming the pundits who like to criticize the owner (especially including certain sports personalities in this city) as being out of his league.

Anyway, didn't mean to direct it at either Drayton or Jim.  Apologies if it was taken that way.

46

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 28, 2010, 05:38:11 pm »

Uncle D speaks: "I'd say it's about 60 percent that something could be done and 40 percent that Roy will be here next year."

No, no, we're waiting for Jim's report from someone actually in the know.

47

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 28, 2010, 02:44:58 pm »

Victorino just went on the DL.  Domonic Brown has been called up.  It seems safe to assume Werth will not be traded.  Hey, maybe the Phils will think that bolstering their staff is the only way to stay in the hunt now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5417230

48

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 28, 2010, 01:30:47 pm »

i have asked for a status report.

Thanks, I'll need that on my desk by 5.

49

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 27, 2010, 01:27:20 pm »

The only reason I could think of for Tal to say it was almost a foregone conclusion that Roy would be traded is that he already had the mechanics of at least one deal in place, but meanwhile was hoping to sweeten the offer or get a better one.  But he didn't have to pretend anymore that it might not happen.  I just wonder what else they're getting directly from the Phillies in addition to what Werth garners from Tampa Bay or whoever; they're not simply trading Oswalt for Werth's value.  Happ would seem to be involved if any of the other rumors hold, but the Astros were scouting the Phillies on the day before Happ pitched, so maybe another big leaguer would be part of the deal?

50

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 26, 2010, 03:20:52 pm »

You're exactly right. Many of those knuckleheads are not well plugged in, but Stark seems to be one who is.

Problem is, he may be *too* close to the Phillies.  He sounds like a fan in some of his tweets; he sounds like us!

51

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 26, 2010, 02:51:24 pm »

I predict everyone will talk in circles for most of the week, and Roy will get one more chance Thursday to tie the Astros' record for wins. Then a deal will get done Friday and he can go the fuck away.

Agreed.  I don't think Tal Smith would publicly concede that it's likely otherwise.  That sounds more like resignation  than pot-stirring.  He's just waiting for the standings, injuries and desperation to all work themselves out.  Should be fun to watch.    

52

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 26, 2010, 01:17:07 pm »

This is a standard goddamn negotiation where both sides try to get the best deal they can. It isn't some fucking Peen-Off just because they say it is.

Perfectly stated.  The Astros organization is simply full of boobs, so why should they think they are being prudent in their negotiations?  Remember how their idiot scouting dept made a mockery of the draft by "overreaching" for that Lyles kid?  Why doesn't  Ed Wade finally admit he has no idea what he's doing and tell the Cardinals he'd be happy to take Brendan Ryan, Jon Jay and any lower-tier throwaway prospect they might offer?

Losers.   

53

Talk Zone / Re: last night the dufas who cauth the inplay ball

« on: July 25, 2010, 11:54:04 am »

Of course it's intentional.  We're all aware by now that she is a tenured professor of rhetoric at Oxford College.

54

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 25, 2010, 11:40:11 am »

Interesting, evenhanded read from Boston Globe: http://mobile.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/07/25/oswalt_may_be_the_subject_of_a_moving_story.

Among the highlights:

- Tal expects Roy to be dealt as there is plenty of interest from teams; thinks things will pick up starting today/tomorrow.

- Roy's track record in 2nd half (record is 70-23) very attractive to clubs.

Unrelated to the article, but if Astros scouts were at the Phillies/Rockies game, whom are they scouting?     

55

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 23, 2010, 04:47:11 pm »

cardinal fan clearly expects him too.  i hate them even more now.

they think the "Really?" shirts were in reference to Ed Wade.

Yeah, why wouldn't he take Ryan and Jay and a couple of Low A, marginal prospects and think that was fair value?  And who here thinks Bobby Heck could tell the difference on the farm between an emerging Albert Pujols from an enlargening Luis Pujols?  So we should all just set our sights a little more squarely on reality.

56

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 23, 2010, 03:16:55 pm »

Would've been reckless to give a 4 year deal; he only managed 4 cy-youngs and 1,400 strikeouts over that period.

I think the Unit was going to Arizona no matter what.  Just like Carlos 6 years later was going to NY.  Whether it was Mets or Yankees, he didn't care.  But neither was staying in Houston any more than LeBron was staying in Cleveland.

57

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 23, 2010, 02:53:26 pm »

i stayed up until the deadline and was totally blown away. i knew at that moment the Astros would win the WS. put Johnson with that team? unbelieveable.

I was lying on the floor/couch with all the lights out, everyone else in the family having long since retired.  I had a feeling Gerry would get it done somehow, not sure why.  When I heard the midnight sports update it was surreal.  I almost expected it but didn't quite believe it either.

Now I find myself trying to get pumped up again...this time for 2013.

58

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 23, 2010, 02:39:31 pm »

Of course I meant *serious* pundits.  But I don't recall much buzz up until then, do you?

59

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 23, 2010, 02:34:58 pm »

Who are typically the quiet negotiators, if there are any anymore now that we have Twitter and Buster?  I'm wondering if it's not someone like Minnesota (who apparently has a bevy of prospects, unlike Philly or St. Louis) or someone else whose name hasn't even surfaced yet.  Someone who swoops in early next week and takes the lead behind the scenes.  I remember in '98 the Hun coyly remarking on the radio the day before the trade deadline that the "Astros just might surprise some people" in the end.  "Just wait and see" or something to that effect.  Meanwhile Houston wasn't seriously on the radars of any of the "pundits."

And if Roy refuses to budge on 2012, Drayton can just sit him down and reassure him that the Astros will be doing everything they can over the next two years to be champions -- still.

60

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 23, 2010, 02:00:23 pm »

Mighty charitable of them.  Maybe if they threw in Jeff Suppan...and Al Hrabosky.

61

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 09:21:17 pm »

Stark updates:

I don't want Happ.  He's 28 and coming off injury.  I hope they're not interested in anyone who'll be at least 30 by the time the team is ready to start becoming competitive again.  I'm not hearing much promising about St. Louis's crop down on the farm either.

Might need a third team with a deeper, richer prospect pool to get involved.  Like the Rays.      

62

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 07:40:25 pm »

And another team joins the hunt, the more the merrier.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7120495.html

Yeah, a couple hours ago ESPN was teasing with "St. Louis frontrunner for Oswalt."  Now it's "Cardinals and Phillies vie for Oswalt."  Reminds me of when they were trying to convince us the Bulls were in the lead for Dwayne Wade.  Personally I think Roy's taking his talents to South Beach.

63

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 04:35:04 pm »

Nothing to do with age.  He flat out doesn't care when he's out there and has quit on his team.  Aces don't do that. Despite what your numbers are telling you, that kind of crap matters to franchises when they're about to potentially be on the hook for 39 million dollars.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it had to do with age, it just happened to be at the end of the quotation.  You've spoken with every scout from the contenders?  I'm not convinced that just because one, two or even a few out there feel that he's lost his edge to dominate means that not one single contending team therefore would see him as their ace the minute he walked into their clubhouse.

Scouts do differ on their opinions, you know.  And some GMs and managers think they can turn bad attitudes around in any case.  I guess we'll see.

64

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 04:20:51 pm »

Roy isn't either of these things any more, so that may be part of the issue.

I can think of at least 5 teams in contention who would consider him to be either one or the other.  He may not be what he once was, but he's still better than anything a bunch of clubs have, not only for his track record of winning but for what he's doing this season:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings100722

Oswalt is averaging nearly a whiff an inning. He has the same WHIP (1.07) as Ubaldo Jimenez. He's third in the league in quality starts. And his opponent OPS (.619) is lower than the OPS against Roy Halladay, Chris Carpenter or Tim Lincecum. So clearly, this guy still can pitch, even as he closes in on his 33rd birthday next month.

65

Talk Zone / Re: Trade Deadline...

« on: July 22, 2010, 04:05:03 pm »

yep. i knew the rule.

The bottom line is, the only reason people are thrown off by his eligibility status is that his parents held him back in school one year somewhere along the way.  Heck, my son played baseball and basketball with him at Klein and I didn't even know until about a month ago.  But  I'm sure it played a factor in his decision to go to TCU, knowing it was almost like going the Juco route in terms of required time.

66

Talk Zone / Re: Trade Deadline...

« on: July 22, 2010, 03:16:39 pm »

He falls into the draft eligible sophomore category due to his age at the time of the 2011 draft.

Yeah, he's either just turned 20 or about to, so he's very old for his class.  Most students his age are one year ahead of him.   

67

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 02:49:46 pm »

I don't think they do. Other than everyone being a year older and Roy being a year cheaper, they'll likely be in the exact same position next year.

Interesting.  I  don't see that happening, but I'm not sure how intent on winning a title *now* some of these well-heeled organizations really are, or whether they think anyone believes them when they say Ted Lilly is the guy that can put them over the top instead.  There's nothing close to an ace or a 1a pitcher out there besides Roy.  And everyone knows it.  Meanwhile the Yankees, Braves and Rangers are pulling away.  This aint over yet.  Unless, of course, Roy is content to stay with a 95-100-game loser instead of having another chance at a ring this year.  If so, well, they'll just deal with this in the offseason again.

68

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 02:19:17 pm »

I don't think anyone making 15-16 million dollars per year can ever be categorized as "desperate."

No, you're right, "desperate" is actually drinking the motor oil.  (If you've seen the end of "Quantum of Solace" you'll know what I'm talking about.  Although come to think of it, that guy made a lot more than Roy.) 

69

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 12:23:10 pm »

Seems to me that it's July 22.  A lot of rhetoric now may cease as we move on especially if the desire to get dealt is as strong as Oswalt makes it appear.  Let's see what happens as we move toward the end of next week.

Exactly.  So if you're the Astros, don't "settle."  Wait for Roy to start sweating over the next 9 days.  But if he won't come off his demands and no one will meet them, fine.  He can assert his leverage to go only under certain conditions, and the Astros can assert their leverage to do nothing.  But it won't come to that, not if Roy refuses to consider staying.  If he's bent on leaving, he is the only one who has to ensure he leaves.  As MM stated, the Astros don't have to do anything. 

I just hope they don't feel like they do.            

70

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 11:34:13 am »

I take  it the two of you aren't all that familiar with the definition of the term "desperate."

71

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 11:28:50 am »

Please tell us then, oh Oracle of All Things Oswalt, what is Roy's bidding?

72

Talk Zone / Re: Stark: Oswalt to Phillies?

« on: July 22, 2010, 11:17:03 am »

Clearly he's not so desperate to leave if he's making such onerous preconditions.  Anyone who's begging for divorce doesn't then DEMAND that the partner move out and leave everything behind.  Roy is merely flirting with the idea of divorce.

The Astros should stand pat if he won't budge AND there's no "other woman" lusting after him enough to be willing to pay off all his credit card debt. 

73

Talk Zone / Re: Roy Oswalt talking like a man that is willing to get traded this season

« on: July 09, 2010, 05:16:34 pm »

He killed a trade to the ChiSox earlier that season, so it wasn't just media BS.

Another thought on Roy not wanting to go to Chicago: earlier this season, when the White Sox were really scuffling, Williams made comments about being open to rebuilding. Peavy said that he'd want to play somewhere else if the team went in that direction. He may not have good things to say about the White Sox organization, and Roy probably doesn't want to go to a team that has considered a rebuild in the past five years. I'm sure Roy wants to play with Peavy, but things might be more complex than all that.

By "complex" I assume you mean, "living north of the Mason-Dixon line" or "playing in the wussy Junior Circuit"?

74

Talk Zone / Re: Roy Oswalt talking like a man that is willing to get traded this season

« on: July 09, 2010, 05:08:33 pm »

Rosenthal gets much of his information from scouts. i have been around when such calls occur.

I just knew you were his "source," Jim, I knew it!

75

Talk Zone / Re: Cliff Lee is a Ranger

« on: July 09, 2010, 04:59:37 pm »

Best of all it clears the deck for Roy to become the belle of the ball.

76

Talk Zone / Re: Cliff Lee is a Ranger

« on: July 09, 2010, 04:45:18 pm »

That's certainly more than we traded for the rental of Unit in '98.  And Lee ain't no Unit.

77

Talk Zone / Re: My friends, I have tremendous news

« on: April 24, 2010, 04:32:11 pm »

Morgan is apparently continuing with ESPN. Shitfuck.

Yeah, but Sutcliffe?  Sorry, it's mute button either way.

78

Beer and Queso / Re: I Agree With Sarah Palin

« on: June 11, 2009, 06:52:48 pm »

I doubt very seriously that Letterman knew that the 14 year old was with her mother rather than the already knocked up 18 year old.

Palin is a painfully stupid human being and making a fuss over something silly like this only calls further attention to it. I can't wait for that idiot to drive a final nail in the heart of the religious nutcase party two and three years from now.

This is a painfully stupid statement.  Actually you compound its stupidity with the second statement.  Good, cogent commentary on your part.  Keep it up.  We all love a little intelligent political discourse when we can get it.  It's great to know it's not just us Jesus-freak conservatives that are too interested in good ole red meat, ad hominem attacks to bother with meaningful discussion of issues.

Good job, you got me riled up.  You do your lefty side proud.

79

Game Zone 2009 Archive / Re: FTC, 06.11.09

« on: June 11, 2009, 05:49:03 pm »

Tendergroin.

Tasty.  I love that with hollandaise and a bloomin' onion.

80

Game Zone 2009 Archive / Re: FTC, 06.11.09

« on: June 11, 2009, 05:42:04 pm »

Paulino to the DL, Wright recalled.

I can't recall, what's the official injury to San Felipe?

81

Game Zone 2009 Archive / Re: ftc @ ASTROS 6.10.09

« on: June 11, 2009, 05:35:43 pm »

Are we living in the past or did you mean to post in yesterday's game thread?  I'm just wondering where everybody went.

82

Talk Zone / Re: LaTroy Hawkins

« on: June 10, 2009, 05:49:44 pm »

I wouldn't be surprised if only one, maybe two guys are shipped.  I think Tejada will get you back so much right now, especially from those teams who really want a bat (see: League, American) and don't mind defense that much.  I'm looking at you Boston!  Will the Astros clean house at the trading deadline?  I doubt it, although if I had to venture a guess, Valverde would be the next logical player to go if he's healthy and pitching well.  Beyond that, I doubt anybody else would get moved.

I think that's probably how it plays out, but other than Roy, Lance, Lee, Pence, and maybe Wandy, I think they can all be had.  Or at least that will be the word around the All-Star break.  For the time being, though, I expect to hear something to the effect of "Hey, we're only 7 games out and there's a lot of season left."

83

Talk Zone / Re: LaTroy Hawkins

« on: June 10, 2009, 05:33:41 pm »

The ONE year the Mets finally go out and get a freaking closer in the offseason.  Not that I'd be a proponent of particuarly doing anything to potentially get them to the postseason, but they have been the perennial logical trading partner for those with closers to deal at the deadline.

I'm getting the sense that over the next few weeks the Astros will have about 20 guys on their roster who will be deemed "touchable."

84

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: 2009 Draft

« on: June 10, 2009, 12:00:51 pm »

Stupid.

"Yeah, thanks for taking my call.  Why aren't the Astros taking guys that anyone else has heard of?  I don't see any players from the Big 12, PAC 10 or SEC on their list.  What about those top high school players that Baseball Prospectus had rated so high?  And couldn't they have packaged some of their low-level minor league prospects and traded up to a top 10 slot?  I don't think they have a clue what they're doing.  They're just trying to save money by getting guys who will sign for cheap and keep Drayton happy.  I played a little high school ball, you know, JV, and I'm not impressed with any of the videos I've seen.  When's the trade deadline, and I'll hang up and listen."

85

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: 2009 Draft

« on: June 09, 2009, 07:12:40 pm »

Yeah, I agree with those of you who want to give Bobby Heck the benefit of the doubt.  He does know a little bit about this talent evaluation stuff.  From the video, he looks like he makes the throw to first with ease, but I'm no scout.

86

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: 2009 Draft

« on: June 09, 2009, 06:24:59 pm »

Not after breakfast Sunday morning on the veranda with Nolie.

87

Talk Zone / Re: Ensberg calls CWS

« on: June 08, 2009, 04:43:58 pm »

I thought he was pretty good too.  I like how he explained the difference, as a hitter, facing a pitcher from the windup vs. the stretch.  It's insight like that makes a good color man, not telling "war stories". 

I've seen so many games the past few days I get confused, but was that Mo talking about the left-handed hitter who jacked one out right as both guys were gushing about how unhittable Josh Spence had been up to that point?  If so, not only did I like his analysis and voice, but wow, the simple joys of hearing correct grammar...how refreshing.

Why does almost every "analyst" on the planet (JD being one of the exceptions) seem to think phrases like "he should have went to third" or "if he had ran down the line harder" are sound?  Man, that's the all the color commentary I need, thank you.

88

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: 2009 Draft

« on: June 08, 2009, 04:33:20 pm »

For those that are interested, Bobby Heck will be on 1560 (www.1560thegame.com) at 2:00 or so today, talking about the draft.

Anybody have a summary?  I mean, other than he intends to take the best player available?  Like, perhaps, he plans to throw a curve and select the most marginal player available?

Thanks

89

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: 2009 Draft

« on: June 08, 2009, 01:14:11 pm »

I have a hard time believing that if Purke makes it to #21, that the Astros don't take him. I know the "reported" price tag, but with a chance to pick up one of the best (arguably the best) left-handed prep pitchers, who happens to be a local kid, I don't think the Astros pass him up. Unless they have someone else targeted or there is another player on their board that rates higher.

Some things I've discovered about Purke -- you can take for what it's worth:

1. Asking price is more like $7M.
2. He was in Arlington over the weekend, having breakfast yesterday with Nolan Ryan and then having a private workout for him.  Apparently they are seriously considering ponying up the premium he's alleged to be seeking.
3. He's been looking at Boras as his agent.

Given these considerations, if true, the Astros are likely looking elsewhere.

90

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: 2009 Draft

« on: May 20, 2009, 06:05:19 pm »

I'd like to see them take a pitcher, hoping that Miller, Brothers, Paxton, Purke or Turner fall to the 21st spot.

I do wonder though if Turner or Purke dropped due to signability issues or salary demands, would the Astros take a chance on these prospects?

Selfishly, I'm rooting for Matt Purke to be the pick.  My son played with him last year at Klein, so it would be cool to see him become a Stro.  I didn't see him pitch this year, but he may have been even more dominant as a junior.  Just ask Georgetown HS how unhittable he was in the playoffs.  They beat us 2 out of 3 in the third round, but they were no-hit by him in the opener and barely scratched off him in Game 3 in relief.  He was the ace of the staff last summer at the World Series too.  He outshined Matzek and everyone else.  He's committed to TCU, but I don't see that as a serious option.  He's a tall, lanky, hard-throwing lefty, so they usually get scooped up early.

91

2008 1560 The Game Radio Archives / Re: Spikes n Stars, The Radio Show - Program #2, May 10, 2008

« on: May 15, 2008, 07:43:25 pm »

First, the good.  I was flipping around last Saturday morning and came across your show.  Since I hadn't visited the BFT in a while, it was a stroke of luck to learn of the new site this way.  Not that I wouldn't have been redirected, but still, had no idea. 

Now, the bad: 

First, Zipp, you sound smarter online than over the airwaves.  Kidding, but it was weird hearing your voice for the first time ever.  I was expecting something different.  The man crush is over.  On the other hand, appreciated the fresh perspective you brought to a forum -- sports talk radio, that is -- that rarely has any.  Don't hear things like Bourn's apparent resistance to bunting very often on radio. 

Second, the "apology."  See, though, it wasn't exactly an apology.  It sounded about as much like an apology as a man apologizing to his wife for cheating on her, and then telling her to get over it.  He said something to the effect of "Yeah, I'm sorry I hung up on him...after his 86-minute call."  Cute.  Smartass.  But decidedly not apologetic.  Turns me off, as do all hosts in the mode of Zeuerlein, who feel it's their province to make snide remarks at the callers' expense.  It made me not want to listen again.  Look, if you want to apologize, say "Gee, I'm sorry, my bad," or "Sorry, dude, shouldn't have done that," or "I apologize."  Any attempt to justify your actions on-air completely nullifies the apology, and is in fact worse than not apologizing at all.  There, a customer's first impression for you to file away.  Or ignore.

I realize you're there to entertain first and foremost, but try some humility.  It actually is so rarely ever seen/heard in broadcasting that you'd be surprised how much you would stand out above all the other pinheads, pinwheels and pin cushions across the dial.  Think more JD, less DJ.

92

Talk Zone / Re: Serious? Smoke screen? Or proving a point?

« on: September 13, 2007, 12:40:49 pm »

Holy crap.  ESPN (and others) are reporting that Terry Ryan is out in Minny.  I don't know if he'd be willing to come down to Texas, but if Drayton and Tal haven't at least placed a call to his people, then they're bigger idiots than I thought.

I was thinking the same thing.  He's still young, too, at 52.

93

Talk Zone / Re: fresh ideas?

« on: August 28, 2007, 09:01:26 am »

Molony notes,

Cooper is now the third manager the Astros have had in four years. During that time, the Astros have had three pitching coaches (Burt Hooton, Jim Hickey and Dave Wallace), two hitting coaches (Gary Gaetti and Sean Berry) and now have had three general managers (Gerry Hunsicker, Purpura and Smith), with a fourth most likely coming after the season.
Link

Past couple years players have been lining up to play for the Astros.  I wonder if they have any fresh ideas about how they're going to convince anyone to step into this meat grinder.

Don't worry.  ENTHUSIASM will win the day!  Hurray, enthusiasm!

94

Talk Zone / Re: New Manager and New GM?

« on: August 28, 2007, 08:57:45 am »

*DING, DING, DING*

Ricky Bennett, Assist. GM
Cecil Cooper, Manager
Tal Smith, GM and the guy who once wanted to beat the crap out of JdJO for calling him a racist.

Which one of the three does not belong, Pam?  I wonder if Bob Watson would want to come back into the fold... hmmmmmm.  See me working here Pam?

For GM, the way baseball has been trending in recent years?  Someone, anyone, who's young.  So the timing is good for Drayton, because by the end of the season most of his top candidates will be done with their midterms.

95

Talk Zone / Re: New Manager and New GM?

« on: August 28, 2007, 08:50:17 am »

Bingo.

And let me be clear in saying this - I do not believe Drayton McLane is a racist, or is guilty of any of the spurious charges JdJO and his ilk have made.

But I think the business side will encourage him to use these hirings to challenge that perception.

Oh yeah???  Well, just wait till Drayton finds out from one of the knowledgable fans sitting around him that Cooper is black.  Then it's on.

96

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 05:20:37 pm »

In HISD, you can choose your high school if your home school doesn't offer the program you're interested in.  Bellaire is a magnet for languages, and offers some strange languages that other schools don't.  I think it was apocryphal, but there used to be a running joke back in Bellaire's heyday that there were a tremendous number of high school baseball players studying Russian at Bellaire.

It may very well be, but the Russian program pre-dates Manuel.  Back in '77-'80, when ole Ray Knoblauch was still skippering the Cardinals (not that I played or even wore the uniform), we had Russian as a foreign language elective, IIRC.  It's been a magnet school for foreign languages for a looooong time.  Of course, that doesn't mean the magnet program isn't being exploited these days.

97

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 05:07:23 pm »

I don't have any kids, but if I did, they would go to Klein.  I think the school has a total enrollment of about 3500, or about $1 of my taxes per student.

My sons and I thank you.  Of course, we thank me too.

98

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 05:04:44 pm »

In Florida, where I started HS, we had only one team.  The "baseball team".  It was only varsity.  Most other boys sports (football, basketball, track, wrestling, etc) had JV, but baseball, for whatever reason did not.  And it wasn't due to a lack of interest or talent.  I knew one guy who couldn't make the HS team, but played Div1 college ball.  Kind of a freak occurence as he was a middle infielder who was blocked by a couple of guys, both HS All-Americans, one a 1st round MLB draft choice.  Of course, HS was only 10-12 grades.  Freshmen were still technically in Jr High, and couldn't play HS sports (though academically they were considered HS).  And if I'm not mistaken, only sophomores could play JV.  Juniors and Seniors could not.

I think that's the way they do boys soccer at Klein.  You're either good enough for varsity, or you're not playing this year.  They may have a jv but that's the lowest level.  And again, it's not for lack of interest.  Those guys either win state or compete for state practically every year.

99

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 04:57:17 pm »

How big is the high school?  As I recall, Bellaire has about 4000 students, Lamar about a 1000 fewer.

I don't know, to be honest.  Maybe someone can look it up.  I didn't mean to be furtive; it's Klein HS.

100

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 04:49:43 pm »

There is also a jv team and 1 or more sophomore teams?

I was speaking strictly about varsity rosters.  The entire high school program holds 45-50 players maximum on a yearly basis, spread out between sophomore, jv, and varsity teams.  The sophomore team in recent years has been comprised almost exclusively of freshmen with maybe one or two sophomores in a given year.  JV is mostly sophomores who moved up from the previous freshman class (some quit and decide to focus on football instead) and a few juniors who aren't deemed ready for prime time for one reason or another, but have potential to play varsity as seniors.  Typically the one or two other sophomores from the previous year's sophomore team will either quit on their own, get cut outright, or get told they can stay on the jv team but won't see much playing time, at which time they almost always quit.

101

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 04:35:05 pm »

I think I noted long ago that the whole notion of "select" was now nonsensical, and mostly I hear it referred to as just plain summer ball or tournament ball.  It's the team you play with in the summer.  Andy's team was put together by a "coach" of the sophomore high school team, who was a volunteer.  Maybe he did it to get rich, but I doubt he's getting very rich.  He played AAA.  He's getting his teaching certificate at UofH.  

As I said, we've never been in that loop at all until this summer.  Is it required?  No.  Is it pretty good baseball?  From what I've seen, it can be.  Is it the death of baseball as we know it?  It's certainly how a lot of baseball is now played in Houston, and I don't think it's hurt the quality of baseball.  Or raised anybody's expectations above where they already were.

It is the way things are in the Houston area (and probably throughout many parts of the country), for better or worse.  You will be hard-pressed to find enough non-select players above the age of 12 left over to field a league, much less a competitive one.

102

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 04:08:44 pm »

let me guess. her kid did not play.

Can't speak for Bellaire (even though I graduated from there 100 years ago), but my son's team in the Klein district usually has between 15 and 18 players, I think.  Usually at least three of those guys are pitchers only; one might be a backup catcher who sees limited time; and maybe one or two others that are reserve pitchers or infielder/outfielders who serve as courtesy runners.  Typically, the larger rosters mean they're grooming more underclassmen or they don't have enough seniors who are good enough to play regularly and don't have a choice but bring up sophomores/juniors.

103

Talk Zone / Re: More cold water from Footer

« on: July 17, 2007, 03:42:35 pm »

He'll be quite well prottected - if he survived the freezing process, that is.

The other day Zipp mentioned his brother Lingerings Milledge.  But I was checking the BA minor league rosters, and apparently they have a no-account cousin who's been hanging around the Devil Rays organization for eight years and just won't leave.  Goes by the name of Loiterings Milledge.

104

Talk Zone / Re: Pure Baseball (Non-Astros)

« on: July 17, 2007, 03:34:44 pm »

the real PONY league plays in the spring and summer. fall ball for 13-14 may be called PONY league, but it is not the regular league.

low key? how much do you pay? how many games? how much travelling?

when i coached (and played) in Austin, American Legion was summer ball for HS players. every team in the District had a Legion team so it was a mirror of the HS season. the fee was minimal. travel was no different than the spring season, unless the team reached the playoffs. they season was playing each team twice, as i recall, and there was plenty of time for other activities.

fall baseball is a fairly recent development. it results some folks' idea that one must specialize in one sport to be good and play year round.

My son is 17 and will be a Sr. this fall.  The way it's worked in recent years - at least in NW Houston/Spring/Klein - following the spring season, the area high schools hold the unofficial official summer league in which non-coaches essentially coordinate the "season."  No practices, just games.  In fact, starting this summer, we play Wednesdays only, doubleheaders.  Clearly that allows the players to go play Select tournaments all over creation throughout the week and weekends without conflict; otherwise, a bunch of kids just wouldn't make it to many games because they consider Select games a higher priority.  Their parents are certainly paying a lot more for Select than for summer ball with their own HS.

Since my son also plays HS basketball, and they have similar summer leagues (through the month of June), we (actually he) decided not to play any baseball other than his HS summer team.  It's a good thing.  He tends to get burned out when he plays year-round (we've been doing this on-and-off thing since he was 11), and if he's not having fun, what's the point?  Plus his decision not to play this summer has saved me a couple of thousand bucks.  Ironically, now that he's pared back his summer baseball to just the Wednesday doubleheaders, he's getting an appetite for more baseball again and actually making noise about playing fall ball.  As long as he really wants to do it, I'm all for it.

But the definition of Select has now been diluted to mean nothing more than pay-for-play.  True, there are elite teams that showcase top talent in their 18U and 17U tourneys, such as the Heat (Koby Clemens, for instance, played with them) and Kyle Chapman.  But there are so many levels of ability now that as long as mom and dad can write the check, there's a "Select" team out there somewhere for your special child.

Since my son has been in and out of the "Select loop" over the last seven years, I can vouch for the fact that politics ultimately can be overcome by a demonstrated ability on the field.  If an unknown kid can play, he'll be able to prove it in tryouts even if the odds are stacked against him going in because of the coach's unfamiliarity with his skills.  And, no, you don't have to play Select ball in order to play at our high school.  I know guys who didn't going in and ended up on varsity as juniors.  We won state 5A in '98 and have been to the final four several times in the past decade, all with the same coach, so it's not like the program is weak.

105

Talk Zone / Re: NYCU follow-up

« on: July 17, 2007, 02:35:08 pm »

Reader's Digest

Thanks for the summary.  Incidentally, I was actually listening to that fateful episode, and after Berkman was safely in the dugout where he belonged, one of them said he even seemed confused on the basepaths on Lee's walk.  That's confused.

Maybe they can get Bruntlett or Bagwell to give some of them a refresher course.

106

Talk Zone / Re: Misheard Lyrics (Void-Filler)

« on: July 13, 2007, 02:13:43 pm »

Make Me Fries

I think I finally figured it out.  Eddie Vedder is speaking in his native Babelfish.  I could've sworn I heard something about a central gardener.

107

Talk Zone / Re: And some people say watching baseball is borning (non bb)

« on: July 13, 2007, 01:57:48 pm »

You must have missed TNT's showing last night of the Borning Supremacy then.

108

Talk Zone / Re: "Interesting" rundown and baserunning

« on: July 13, 2007, 01:47:17 pm »

It looks to me like he touched the base, in which case there's no reason to compliment Froemming.  I paused the video and it looked like he grazed it with his fingers.

I think Guillen caught a break; he had plenty of time to toss it over to Inge but kept trying to sell the umpire on the tag play he never made.

109

Talk Zone / Re: I don't see...

« on: June 27, 2007, 12:52:18 pm »

During the Game of the Week broadcast of the Rangers/Astros, Eric Karros was talking about the type of manager Garner was.  The conversation was about Hunter Pence actually and the things that Garner had said to Karros about him.  Karros came away with the impression that Garner is a total player's manager type.  Meaning he will deflect and defend players from media scrutiny and try to focus on the good things a player brings to the table.  Even his criticism of the player are soft peddle type of slams.  And Karros ended his statement with "and that is why players love to play for Phil Garner."

That's one of the reasons I found it odd that he would say that Ensberg wasn't injured, and this was well past the midpoint of the season, so there was no more information to uncover.  It sounded as though he was saying Mo didn't need any excuse, he just needed to start hitting.  It was weird.  But no, I don't have proof - I heard it on a radio show.

110

Talk Zone / Re: I don't see...

« on: June 27, 2007, 12:08:01 pm »

you're going to have to find a link to this before i'll believe it.

what i recall is that he got in trouble with Garner and management for saying he was ok when he was hurt.

I never saw it in the paper, but I distinctly recall Garner telling Charlie Palillo on his radio show last year that Morgan wasn't hurt.  It surprised me because just about everyone in the media, here, and indeed the Astros organization was stating otherwise.

111

Talk Zone / Re: Astros trade for Jennings

« on: December 13, 2006, 12:31:13 am »

Quote:

Quote:
The problem is Jennings was a better pitcher, ERA-wise, at Coors last year than he was on the road.  In the past, Coors has inflated his ERA, but not by much.
I don't know how valid of a concern this is, but theres also the possibility that attempting to adjust to Coors has screwed with his mechanics a bit.

Jennings' road ERA last year was 3.97 and was better than Pettitte's overall ERA in 2006. Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me considering many hoped Pettitte would return to fill the role of #2 behind Oswalt.

I'm in the camp of Purp not being done. I don't think Huff will be back and Ensberg is the likely player to be shipped for additional pitching. Frankly, I'm fine with Lamb and Bruntlett sharing 3B if it means Houston can get another quality innings-eater for the rotation.

As an aside - hopefully Ascencio can stay healthy and be productive for Houston but I sure would have liked to have had Ian Stewart.

So you don't think Purpura is preparing to pencil in Ensberg as the everyday guy?  He may have just been dissembling, but on the radio today he was talking about how Morgan deserves (yes, he used that word) a shot to prove that he can be the Ensberg of 2005 again.

And as far as quality innings-eater, are you in the pro-Suppan camp, if he comes in at a reasonable price?

112

Talk Zone / Re: Hey Admins...

« on: December 13, 2006, 12:23:18 am »

Quote:

Quote:
And that's with a good firewall, virus detection, etc.

Eggszactly!!!  I trusted the very good firewall I had a friend setup (Linux RedHat) and the McAfee virsus detection I installed that was rated the best.

IE still let a lot of crap flow through and neither the firewall nor the virsus detection were able to keep up with it.  Since Firefox, nothing, nada, zip, zlich.  It may be as HH says, the lack of a Firefox community... doesn't matter to me, the browser is very clean and efficient when it comes to protection and that works for me!

I can testify to the same trouble-free experience once I switched all my home pc's to Firefox.  I was skeptical at first, but that was months ago, and I have yet to have one single adware, spyware, worm, virus, or any other issue whatsoever.  As long as the hackers are focusing over there on IE, I think I'll stay right over here and hope it's years before the malevolent programming community turns its attention to Firefox.

113

Talk Zone / Re: NYCU Understandable misunderstanding

« on: December 12, 2006, 11:39:29 pm »

Wow, and I thought it was me, one of the unprivileged.

114

Talk Zone / Re: Suppan

« on: December 12, 2006, 11:38:14 pm »

Quote:
The Link says Houston has made an offer on Suppan.  Otherwise, no idea if this is true or another case of agent spin.

I hope not.  The Astros already have a #4 in Williams.  I'd rather see them continue to look elsewhere for a #3, or go after a third baseman, but Purpura was singing Ensberg's praises today.  I really don't see him seriously looking to move him, unless he's a better poker player than I give him credit for.

115

Talk Zone / Re: Other possibilities at third?

« on: November 29, 2006, 03:13:23 pm »

Quote:
good thing you were not advising Berra or Clemente.

Morgan Ensberg never met a pitch he didn't dislike.

116

Talk Zone / Re: Purpura interview on MLB radio

« on: November 29, 2006, 03:06:16 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
I'm no batting expert, but his swing has always seemed awkward and flawed to me.

Someone in here described it as if he's trying to hit himself with the bat.  That's both funny and perfect.

Have you ever seen the hammer throw competition?  That's Lane, without the spinning.

117

Talk Zone / Re: I Been Thinkin'

« on: October 17, 2006, 02:28:21 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
Forget Lee.  Forget Soriano.

Wheeler closer.  Trade Lidge, Ensberg, and Lane for decent, "cheap" role players.

Pitching.  Not hitting.

A whole-hearted agreement here.  I'd like to see Lidge stay with the team but you may have to duct tape one or both of the other two to him to get them moved.

I like Wheeler as closer if Lidge can bring enough value in return for what he was and I think can be again.

Is the organization high on Nieve still?  I can envision him as closer by the middle of next season if Lidge is gone and Wheeler falters.  Unless, of course, they see him as a starter.

118

Talk Zone / Re: PSYCHO LYONS FIRED! Everything Going As Planned.

« on: October 17, 2006, 02:21:19 pm »

Quote:
Lyons said: "My joke was about a wallet. It had nothing to do with race. We were all laughing at the time. I'm being painted as a victimizer of Lou. At dinner later (with Fox announcers and production staffers), we all thought it was one of our better exchanges."

There's the real reason, not FOX's reason maybe, but the critics were getting increasingly pointed about Lyons. That he thought that garbage was "better" or even an "exchange" is embarassing. Even FOX can only take so much ridicule.  But, here is even better news, next season

"Fox will not carry any first-round playoff games and just one LCS rather than the current two"
The Link

From what I can tell, the bar has been set so low for the all-important color commentator role or in-studio analyst on ESPN/FOX that the major qualifications seem to be
1) former jock

and

2) semi-literate - "He should have went to first with that throw" or "If he had did that they might have won the game" are acceptable comments.

Eric Karros can barely pronounce his words.  He seems to be a graduate of the Lynn Swann school of elocution. (No offense to Greeks, blacks, Californians, Pennsylvanians or the Swann or Karros families.)  Sutcliffe, whether sober or not, is not much better (No offense to alcoholics).  Gonzo is horrible.  Tino Martinez is no good.  I have to admit I like Eric Byrnes simply because he has something to say and isn't afraid to say it.  I agree with whoever mentioned Al Leiter; he was very competent, I thought.  The whole "fraternity" is so bad that John Kruk seems to be the standardbearer.  Predictably, the large majority of these guys have transitioned into broadcasting about as successfully as most of us would into the major leagues.

119

Talk Zone / Re: They did it

« on: August 18, 2006, 10:10:14 pm »

Quote:
I know there's good reason to do this now but it'll be a looong month and a half if we do a daily PW watch. Let's don't.

His pulling the ball today notwithstanding, I think he'll prove that he's basically unable to hit for power consistently anymore, save the occasional oppo double or homerun.

The only PW watch could very well be his K-rate.

120

Talk Zone / NYCU Garner Quotation

« on: August 18, 2006, 09:59:44 pm »

1. "To Lance's credit, he's trying to expand the zone. And it makes him look like he's in a slump. He's trying to make something happen."

Noteworthy that Berkman is doing this in part because Ensberg either can't or won't.

A couple more observations:

2. More significant than the concern that Everett and Ausmus are dragging the offense down is the weakness of the Biggio/Taveras duo at the top.  They can probably live with one or the other heading up the lineup but not both.

3. What makes Wilson's homerun more amazing today is the location - left center.  Since the first week of the season, he probably hadn't hit even a deep flyball to that part of the field.  Other than singles through the 5/6 hole and some doubles down the line, virtually no power to the pull side.  Until today.

121

Talk Zone / Oh, I forgot to mention...

« on: August 16, 2006, 08:00:30 pm »

Quote:
The Reds added more bullpen help on Wednesday by acquiring lefty Scott Schoeneweis from the Blue Jays for a player to be named later or cash considerations
The Link

They signed me as a situational lefty today too.

122

Talk Zone / Re: Morgan Ensberg

« on: August 15, 2006, 08:44:10 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
who would have thunk at the beginning of the year that moberg on the dl would be a blessing to the team..

I don't dislike MoBerg.  I think he's hurt and he's trying, but he can't do what he did in July and try to work his way through a painful injury.  If he's not ready to perform everyday, then he needs to rest the shoulder until he can.

Houston could use either Bruntlett or even JR House on the 25 man right now instead of a half armed man trying to swing a stick.  Nothing in what I say is because I dislike him or agree with some of the idiotic vitrol I often read about MoBerg.  He's not a bad person, he's just able to perform to his best abilities right now and because of that, I'm thinking he's not ready to be an everyday player.

I would tend to agree with your assessment that he's injured.  But Garner was emphatic on the radio today that he is not hurt.  He is "feeling for the ball" but not because of injury.  That's what Garner plainly said on his radio show today.  I think he's frankly put out with Ensberg, regardless of the cause of his ineffectiveness.  He also was careful not to throw him under the bus, giving him credit for having some good at-bats to help the team win in the past week.  But no doubt, Garner can't let him stay in there if he's not producing.

123

Talk Zone / Re: Morgan Ensberg,

« on: August 10, 2006, 11:25:49 pm »

Quote:
Ok, 3 ABs so far tonight (through 5), and one swing of the bat (which resulted in a fly out).  The third AB he watched three strikes, including the last one which sure looked like a meatball from my rocking chair.

His approach redefines the term "selective" at the plate.  Normally that would mean he doesn't swing at a lot of bad pitches, gets on base with walks and waits for his pitch.  But the fact is that he doesn't seem to know what pitch to actually "select," as he looks simply frozen at the plate when he has a pitch to drive.  Then he compensates by swinging hard at a pitcher's pitch.

I think moving him to 2nd and Bidge down to six is worth trying.

Edited to add that I clicked Submit right as Mo hit his 3-run bomb.  My timing is impeccable...I love being wrong.

124

Talk Zone / Re: JD is Full of Shit

« on: August 06, 2006, 10:52:02 pm »

Quote:
"Talladega Nights" is one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time.  Ricky Bobby will make you forget Rin Burgundy, and Reese Bobby will make you forget (for a little while) Lumburgh.

I laughed my bollocks off throughout the whole movie.
That is all.

I'm siding with JD on this one.  I wanted to laugh more, but despite my disappointment I'd give it a stand-up double.  The beginning line, the written quotation by Eleanor Roosevelt, was probably the funniest one, and Gary Cole, who played Reese Bobby, was the best thing about the entire movie.  The "outtakes" and the real outtakes at the end were worth staying around for.

125

Talk Zone / Re: Did You Guys Know This?

« on: August 05, 2006, 07:57:49 pm »

Quote:
Did you know there was a team in Major League Baseball that had Adam Everett and Brad Ausmus hitting 7th and 8th most of the season last year?  That team managed to make the World Series.

Is that amazing or what?  It goes against everything we know about lineups and defense.

Yeah, and we helped them get there, and without a tote board in sight.  Vanity of vanities.

126

Talk Zone / Re: last nights game

« on: August 05, 2006, 07:48:35 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
load em up lidge..

That's great.

That is good.  I was thinking the other day that maybe he should be called "Motel 6" instead of "Lights Out" since he leaves the light on for ya.

127

Talk Zone / Re: last nights game

« on: August 05, 2006, 07:43:20 pm »

Quote:
Oswalt gave up FOUR two out run-scoring hits. that is why he needs to keep his Wagneresque mouth shut.

W. F. Woswalt's my name, whinin's my game.

128

Talk Zone / Re: ESPN reporting Andruw Jones claimed on waivers?

« on: August 04, 2006, 04:26:57 pm »

Quote:
Seems a slow news day.

 

Slow news day, huh?  I've heard at least two ESPNRadio hosts insist that the Yankees and Dodgers are on a roll now because of the trade deadline moves, and that the Red Sox are not (what are they, 2-1?) and the Angels are reeling because they didn't "do anything."  When a 3-game sample size yields that much predictive value, now that's NEWS!

129

Talk Zone / Re: ESPN reporting Andruw Jones claimed on waivers?

« on: August 04, 2006, 04:16:41 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
we've hidden that discussion here, The Link

Yeah, thanks, I just saw it a few minutes ago.  Interesting that this is the only one Olney was talking about.  I know the wire is flooded every year, and that players are claimed then pulled routinely, but why would ESPN expect anything different is going on here?  Or are they just trying to create a story on an otherwise slow "news" day?

Olbermann is saying that if there's any truth to it the Braves are stupid and Schuerholz must have a gun to his head by his bosses.

Two years ago, Jayson Start wrote that the Astros had put Roger Clemens and Jeff Kent on the waiver wire and that several teams, including the Boston Red Sox made claims on both.

Houston simply pulled them back.  So why the report?  Because both Clemens and Kent were in the last year of their contract and one can extrapolate that maybe... just maybe... the club is thinking about dealing those players.

It is worth a shot to speculate just in case the blind squirrel did find an acorn.

Fair enough, but they sure go all out with "Now for some breaking news, let's bring in ESPN Insider Buster Olney to share his completely baseless, misleading and disingenuous story about a big time star possibly being dealt!" fanfare.  Except their version doesn't include that last part.

130

Talk Zone / Re: ESPN reporting Andruw Jones claimed on waivers?

« on: August 04, 2006, 04:03:44 pm »

Quote:
we've hidden that discussion here, The Link

Yeah, thanks, I just saw it a few minutes ago.  Interesting that this is the only one Olney was talking about.  I know the wire is flooded every year, and that players are claimed then pulled routinely, but why would ESPN expect anything different is going on here?  Or are they just trying to create a story on an otherwise slow "news" day?

Olbermann is saying that if there's any truth to it the Braves are stupid and Schuerholz must have a gun to his head by his bosses.

131

Talk Zone / ESPN reporting Andruw Jones claimed on waivers?

« on: August 04, 2006, 03:49:44 pm »

Didn't see this anywhere else on OWA, but Buster Olney is saying the Braves are deciding whether to keep him since he becomes a 5/10 (or is it 10/5?) guy on 8/15.  Could they be negotiating for a huge haul - they wanted Lester, Crisp and at least one other prospect from Boston - before he gets the upper hand?

132

Talk Zone / Re: The Pinwheel just spun off its base

« on: August 01, 2006, 03:16:04 am »

The Chronicle Sports section is nothing more than a blog portal.  The columns, as infrequent as they are, always appear further down the online page, which equates to below-the-fold placement.  They don't even pretend to purport to journalism anymore.

133

Talk Zone / Re: Thank God We Didn't Trade Roy

« on: August 01, 2006, 02:54:27 am »

Quote:
To me the series versus Arizona showed the difference between this team and years past.   Friday:  Astros fall down 3-0.  Tie it.   Backe gives up a run.  Tied again.  He gives up ANOTHER RUN.   But then chad qualls does him one better with the homerun to quentin.   The team came back 3 different times to only have the pitching not do its job.

Then yesterday, are you kidding me.  That was a cincinnati reds gas can bullpen of the last few years kind of meltdown.  Or see the Braves bullpen this year.  5-1 after 7, and you blow it in 2 innings.

Right now they don't have a viable closer, and the two setup men while posting good numbers, have had moments this year that just make you scratch your head.  See qualls this weekend.  

You can get away with a mediocre offense, you cannot get away with mediocre pitching.  The last two seasons, those are both games that would have been in the win column for the good guys.  But not this year, not so far.   To me if they want to go ANYWHERE this year, you have to get better starts from guys not named Oswalt or Clemens, and you need to get better results from this bullpen somehow.

Now see, I would take that series as the aberration not the pattern.  I was thinking how ironic that they had finally mustered up a bunch of runs in two of the three games to cover a whole week of normal offense, but those ended up being the losses.  Bad starting pitching in one case, bad relief in both.  But I'd take 6 or 7 runs in each of Roger's other starts and in maybe five or six of Roy's and Andy's, and probably transform them to into a wildcard-leading, division-threatening club.

134

Talk Zone / Re: Thank God We Didn't Trade Roy

« on: August 01, 2006, 02:46:15 am »

Quote:

Quote:
Dude, I was paying you a compliment.

I understand that, but I wanted to make sure it was understood *by others* who sometimes feel I walk around with some sort of superiority complex that I... well... don't.  Only wiht certain people though who are really idiots, then I feel okay about my knowlege of the game.

But as far as knowing more than anybody else here, I don't.  I just post a lot and hope to find a nut or two that a blind squirrel left behind!

So I just thought it was time for me to once again let folks know I totally suck and feel no remorse in saying so.  But I will argue my own delusional opinion nonetheless.

Quote:
I just happen to disagree with you on this one point, that's all.  I was rebutting Arky's argument that my explanation of intangibles (not an exhaustive list by any means, mind you - I could add numerous others) was just "smoke and mirrors" and that all offense was completely quantifiable.

I hope you understand I am in no way arguing for Arky's sake.  He can do that on his own.  I merely stand by my opinion... Houston needs the pitching, especially the bullpen to settle down and get back to where they were the last few years before anything else, most especially the offense, takes precident (sp?).

Understood.  Arky argue good, real good.  And having read your posts in here and in the BFT for the last six years or so, I can assure you that you come across as both insightful and informed, not at all arrogant.  I can still recall the first time I challenged your statement that Steve Kline had supplanted Dave Veres as the Cardinals' closer.  They had both been used up to that point, but I felt like Veres was still the guy.  You said otherwise; you turned out to be right.

You'd think I'd learn my lesson.  But, somehow, I still find myself disagreeing with you.

135

Talk Zone / Re: Thank God We Didn't Trade Roy

« on: August 01, 2006, 02:25:56 am »

Quote:

Quote:
You and Noe know a lot more about baseball than I, on that point I heartily concede.

Well, for the record, I never said anything remotely close to this.  I don't claim to have any superior knowledge of the game than you.  Others?  Well, maybe a handful of people in the TZ that I find amusing, but that's besides the point.  Plus, they'd beat me in a spelling bee for sure, so all things are even in a way.

But back to the point.  I want to clarify the point a little more.  I believe the Astros greatest need, not necessarily the *only* need, to be pitching, most especially in the bullpen.

Hitting, situational or otherwise, I believe is modal.  It comes and goes during a long season.  Contenders don't have pitching slumps.  They usually have guys performing consistently for the entire season.  It is a commodity on a team that you need to anchor on. IMHO, you don't anchor on the offense, because again IMHO, that is foolish to do.

So in that regard, I've felt good about the Houston teams in the last few years because the pitching has been rock solid.  Even when you lost a Billy Wagner, you had an Octavio Dotel to pick up the slack and then later a Brad Lidge.  All I'm basically saying is that Houston needs to find that one missing piece to the bullpen to be the guy.  It settles everyone else down and into a role they can get used to.

I know it's hard for me to explain or even articulate correctly, but if I may, an example may be Trever Miller.  At one time, he's a long reliever, then he's a left specialist, now he's a 8th inning setup man that may even face an occasional right handed hitter.  Why?  Because this pen is still trying to find it's identity.

Dude, I was paying you a compliment.  I simply invoked your name because I disagreed with your assertion that shoring up the pitching was the key to fixing this team's ills.  I never stated nor meant to imply that you were lording it over me.  I learn a lot from both yours and Arky's posts.  There's no question in my mind you guys have greater baseball acumen than I.  I just happen to disagree with you on this one point, that's all.  I was rebutting Arky's argument that my explanation of intangibles (not an exhaustive list by any means, mind you - I could add numerous others) was just "smoke and mirrors" and that all offense was completely quantifiable.  Other than disagreeing with you about the pitching and paying you both a compliment, I had no objective in mentioning you.  Trust me on that.  Nothing more.

136

Talk Zone / Re: Thank God We Didn't Trade Roy

« on: August 01, 2006, 01:45:54 am »

Quote:

Quote:
Success in offense is not completely quantifiable.  It's all about the mix: timing of hits, "productive" outs, working pitch counts to wear down opposing pitchers both physically and mentally, a building of confidence that permeates through the clubhouse, ability to move runners over by whatever means, balance of power not so heavily concentrated into a single batter.  Just for starters.

Not so. It is quantifiable in the number of runs the team scores. All of the things you are talking about matter because they increase the number of runs the team scores. If they don't increase the number of runs the team scores, then they are meaningless. Period. This year's team is scoring more runs than last year's team. Period. No amount of intangible smoke and mirrors is going to refute that fact.

And it hasn't been all in bunches.

Through the same number of games, last year's team had scored five or more runs 44 times. This year's team has done that 49 times.

Through the same number of games, last year's team had scored four or more runs 60 times. This year's team has done that 63 times.

The bottom line is that if this offense were paired with last year's pitching, they'd be roughly as good as last year's team. But the pitching has fallen apart a lot, and it shows.

Through the same number of games, last year's team had allowed five or more runs 34 times. This year's team has done that 50 times.

Through the same number of games, last year's team had allowed four or more runs 46 times. This year's team has done that 66 times.

In other words, the offense has been providing run support about as much as last year, but the pitching has provided ample performances at a markedly lesser rate.

All the timing of hits, productive outs, working pitch counts to wear down opposing pitchers both physically and mentally, a building of confidence that permeates through the clubhouse, ability to move runners over by whatever means, balance of power not so heavily concentrated into a single batter in the world aren't going to make up for the fact that the pitching has allowed 98 more runs than it surrendered last year through the same number of games.

Not so to your "not so."  Honestly, do you consider everything that can't be lined up in a spreadsheet column to be "smoke and mirrors" (your words)?  Beware of always analyzing by parsing things into tiny chunks that would seem to make up a whole.  They do not.  You are attempting to quantify what I consider to be intangibles.  We have no basis for a discussion if you insist that everything I just named can be boiled down to numbers.  It cannot.  

You and Noe know a lot more about baseball than I, on that point I heartily concede.  I don't disagree that the pitching needs to improve.  But this is common sense.  Metrics don't tell the story of most things in life, and the baseball things I'm talking about can only be observed in a game-by-game experience.  It's much the same way you can't determine the quality of a book by evaluating individual sentences.  In the real world of live baseball, the aspects of offense, defense and pitching performed by humans are all inextricably linked to each other in the attempt to outscore the opponent by a single run.

Please tell me, for instance, how you would prove that a different, more propitious blend of hitting, walking, flying out, grounding out and striking out would not help turn a 2-1 loss into a 2-1 win? Or even a 3-1 win into a more preferable 6-3 win because of the circumstances leading to the same won-loss result, namely, that the offense was productive early enough to allow some mopup pitching, which, believe it or not, surrendered a couple more meaningless runs but also allowed the starter to hit the showers earlier and saved the setup and closer for the next night?  In that scenario the winning team gave up more runs, but because the right mix of batters actually put the pitching in better shape for the remainder of the series, the team is in a more advantageous position even though all the team pitching stats are inflated.  The numbers would tell you the pitching wasn't as effective in the second scoring scenario, but anyone watching that game would have to admit the team was better off with the higher-ERA game.  Finally, do you completely discount that the members of a pitching staff's perceptions' of their offense's ability to score runs to support their individual outings often figures into the way they approach those outings, in the way they pitch early in the game, for instance, when there's a man in scoring position?  Does that not in turn have the possibility of affecting pitch counts and increasing fatigue in certain innings, in turn leading to a worse pitching performance because of the pitcher's sense that he can't be as free to challenge as much?  In fact, that's not even up for debate.  It is true and it is wholly unquantifiable.

Look, I readily admit I'm wrong about a lot of things in and out of this board.  But if you're saying that the things I'm referring to as intangibles are quantifiable, this is one case in which you're just wrong.

The story of a baseball team or its season isn't completely contained in a finite set of statistics.  It never has been and never will be.  An infinite set of permutations involving offense, defense and pitching is available to a team trying to score at least one more run than its opponent each game.  In observing this team's 2006 story I think the greatest need right now is to try to match the scoring threat they had in the middle of the lineup over the balance of 2005.  And I think finding that mix of hitting and slugging dynamics could actually do wonders for the pitching.

137

Talk Zone / Re: Thank God We Didn't Trade Roy

« on: July 31, 2006, 08:49:48 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
I'm gonna disagree with you on that one.  They sure need to shore up the bullpen, but I think they desperately need to figure out how to get on base and move runners around.  Whether that's through walks, singles and doubles, or homeruns, steals and sac flies, that task seems untenable for this current roster.  They don't have enough speed and OBP to leverage in a pitching-and-defense-first strategy; their power is too limited to mash with other teams; and all their possible top-six hitter combinations appear to be too weak to carry the offense consistently.

They have a lot to figure out besides the pitching.  What they're dealing with is a bad product mix.  But I don't know how anyone in the front office could have predicted this.  Who would have thought it would turn so quickly after a glorious World Series run?

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the offense this year is actually slightly better than the offense last year, but the pitching, both in the rotation and the bullpen, is markedly worse?

Success in offense is not completely quantifiable.  It's all about the mix: timing of hits, "productive" outs, working pitch counts to wear down opposing pitchers both physically and mentally, a building of confidence that permeates through the clubhouse, ability to move runners over by whatever means, balance of power not so heavily concentrated into a single batter.  Just for starters.

138

Talk Zone / Re: Thank God We Didn't Trade Roy

« on: July 31, 2006, 08:31:30 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
Agreed on Lidge.  I'm surprised they didn't DL him a long time ago.  Maybe now that the deadline is passed, they will.

You know, if Scott continues to hit at his current and projected level, Berkman comes back from the transmission ok, and Ensberg is ACTUALLY fixed at ALL, it really isn't a bad team.  

It's just a shitload of IFs.

I mean really, it's not like Wheeler can't close games or like we don't have plenty of fucking starters.  We haven't even mentioned Sampson, who's already on the 25 man.

The key to anything happening for Houston this season is pitching.  Plain and simple.  It was so in 2004, it was so in 2005.  People rip Dan Miceli in 2004 and rightfully so.  His arm was tired by the time they reached the NLCS, but for a rock solid set up man on the team *down the stretch* there was no better pitcher.  Miceli's work in late July, August and parts of September were outstanding and made heros out of Roy Oswalt and Roger Clemens, not to mention keeping guys like Pete Munro on the winning side of things.

In 2005, Lidge, Wheeler and Qualls took over at the end of the season, making guys like Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens look really good too, not to mention Roy Oswalt.  One needs only to look at the game on Sunday for a snapshot at what seperates a contender from a pretender.

A bullpen.

A lock-down, game-over, don't-even-think-about-it, store-away-the-bats, get-on-the-bus, this-game-is-O.V.E.R! bullpen.

Houston sure could use one right about now.  It will help them leap frog the other wild card contenders, who themselves did not make any appreciable moves (except maybe the Dodgers, and even then who knows what they added other than Maddux to the team).

So for Houston, they have to find a magic bullet to propel the pen into contender again, else it's over for the season.  That means Lidge, Qualls and Wheeler gets back to 2005 status, somehow, someway... or they find a bullet or two from the young kids in the minors.  Or make a trade soon for a waiver wire guy.  Who knows, but I worry about this pen more than I do the offense, the bench or the starters.

I'm gonna disagree with you on that one.  They sure need to shore up the bullpen, but I think they desperately need to figure out how to get on base and move runners around.  Whether that's through walks, singles and doubles, or homeruns, steals and sac flies, that task seems untenable for this current roster.  They don't have enough speed and OBP to leverage in a pitching-and-defense-first strategy; their power is too limited to mash with other teams; and all their possible top-six hitter combinations appear to be too weak to carry the offense consistently.

They have a lot to figure out besides the pitching.  What they're dealing with is a bad product mix.  But I don't know how anyone in the front office could have predicted this.  Who would have thought it would turn so quickly after a glorious World Series run?

139

Talk Zone / Re: "I got a bad taste in my mouth"

« on: July 31, 2006, 08:02:31 pm »

Quote:
JDJO on Oswalt

JDJO's blog had indicated a 5-year deal would be necessary; now he's saying 6 at $15M per.

Why do we torture ourselves?  Where have you gone, Harry Shattuck and Dick Peebles?

140

Talk Zone / Re: So, Is Drayton "Furious"?

« on: July 31, 2006, 07:59:43 pm »

Quote:
Yep, furious like a FOX.

If there was any Justice in sports, Richard Justice would be served papers by Sheriff Blaylock and be incarcerated in Coca Cola Corner where people would be able to throw cans of Goya Beans at his face.

BTW, he is changing his blog to SportsSybil.

He'd be nothing more than another nonentity on the blog mall that is chron.com if ESPN didn't elevate him to such Woodward & Bernstein-type relevancy.

141

Talk Zone / Re: Ken Rosenthal on Astros

« on: July 31, 2006, 07:52:46 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
THIS is the single DUMBEST fucking thing I've read today.  And I had a real fucking dumb day.

The Astros aren't mad because Angelos flipped an Oswalt/Tejada deal, they're mad because Angelos stepped in when an Ensberg/Everett deal for Tejada got killed by Angelos after his baseball men agreed to it.  Oswalt was what Angelos said he wanted thrown in.

Kenny R. is a real good reporter with strong ties to major league offices, but he's listening to the Baltimore side of things way too much on this one.  Houston was furious at Angelos, and rightfully so.  He is a menace to his own team much less to the way things are done in the majors.

If it's true as so many have reported here that this is Angelos' history then why would they deal with him any more than they would with Boras?  Did they convince themselves that this time Uncle Peter would play nice and stay out of the way?  Fool me once...

The brass needs to keep their pique to a minimum on this one.  The Astros should be kicking themselves that they allowed yet another party in a negotiation to completely waste their time, especially one with such a pattern as the Orioles'.

142

Talk Zone / Re: No More Brad Lidge. Please.

« on: July 30, 2006, 11:26:08 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
Lidge should never have been in that position.  Astros were up 5 to 1 in the 8th, when Qualls gave up 4 runs.  True, Lidge did not do his job, but to pin this loss on him is BS.

Officially, Revert Miller got the loss.  A little harsh to give it to him alone.  And...yes...this is how bad things are when I'm defending Trever Fucking Miller in the TZ.

Wait, he's was going to be my next choice as closer!

Oh well, Qualls then.  Let's see, he was given what almost amounted to mopup duty this afternoon and coughed it up, although he was able to get an out prior to doing so.  And of course Friday night he hangs one to the EyeBlack Acrobat.  Wheeler, maybe?  He would be my choice right now if Lidge is gone by tomorrow.  Or if Lidge is still here on Tuesday, I'd have to wait and see the matchups if I'm Gar.

143

Talk Zone / Re: No More Brad Lidge. Please.

« on: July 30, 2006, 10:45:31 pm »

Quote:
Yeah, I don't share your enthusiasm.

Can someone with better records than me please show us Lidge's history of incredible arm injuries and problems?

Granted, but when was the last time he was hurt?  Or do you think he's hiding some sort of injury now and his compensating for it is leading to such bad results?  He's been a rock, but maybe with his awkward motion he's headed for a major reconstructive surgery.  If that's the general consensus I wonder why other teams would covet him?

144

Talk Zone / Re: Looks like a fun night at RR

« on: July 30, 2006, 10:40:27 pm »

So is Morgan now playing shortstop?

145

Talk Zone / Re: No More Brad Lidge. Please.

« on: July 30, 2006, 10:38:16 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
He's far more likely to carry greater value than Brad Wilkerson over the next two to three years, either in trade or retained in the Stros relief corps.

What do you base this off of?   I'm being quite serious.

Nothing other than personal opinion based on their histories and what I perceive to be their potential over the next several years.  I think Lidge is more likely to be The Lidge again.  If Wilkerson maximizes his potential he'll never be The Wilkerson.  But he is a very good hitter, no denying that, and has demonstrated success over a longer period than has Lidge.

146

Talk Zone / Re: Rosenthal's Latest

« on: July 30, 2006, 10:31:03 pm »

Quote:
The Link

Astros third baseman Morgan Ensberg remains the Padres' primary trade target, but Cubs right-hander Greg Maddux could represent Plan B, FOXSports.com has learned.

The Padres' plans hinge on two unrelated scenarios ? the prognosis for right-hander Chan Ho Park, who went on the disabled list Sunday, and the Astros' pursuit of Orioles shortstop Miguel Tejada.

Ensberg, currently on the DL with a bruised right shoulder, is part of the Astros' offer for Tejada, according to major-league sources.

The Astros, however, are unlikely to trade Ensberg in a lesser deal. They were not enthused by the Padres' initial offer of right-handed reliever Scott Linebrink and either infielder Mark Bellhorn or Geoff Blum ? and probably would want a more substantial regular, such as Padres shortstop Khalil Greene, in return.

Yeah, Greene and Barfield at third and second and Linebrink for the pen.  They can have Burke, Lidge and Ensberg.  Sounds like a perfect match.  We can play for next year and they can play for next decade.

I don't see any fit there if the Padres aren't more serious than Bellhorn or Blum to go with Linebrink.

147

Talk Zone / Re: Soriano?

« on: July 30, 2006, 10:15:34 pm »

Quote:
I keep reading from "the experts" ESPN, Rosenthal et al, that we're making a big push for Soriano.  Anybody have any insight about what package we're offering?  And I assume he would play outfield.  He is a helluva player, but could we sign him long term?  That alone makes him less attractive than Tejada.  (Although I might have concerns about Tejada's attitude)

Knowing Bowden he's demanding two of the top prospects in the system and a major-league ready outfielder.  I'm sure if their names aren't Berkman, Oswalt, Hirsh, Patton or Pence they're probably available.  

Actually, Soriano was grousing early on, so he may not be any better in the 'tude department.  Besides, if he is only a rental who cares if Tejada doesn't want to play third?  Soriano reluctantly took to the outfield and I'm sure Tejada will move over a few feet to the right.  But I would hope he's a long-term move.  Wouldn't it be great to see a guy in the Bagwell/Biggio mold of durability, where you pretty much count on him 160 games?  I wonder whether Ensberg will ever be able to do that.  And he's almost a year older than Tejada, so you're actually getting younger at the position.

148

Talk Zone / Re: No More Brad Lidge. Please.

« on: July 30, 2006, 10:00:26 pm »

Quote:
Because as-is, Brad Lidge is worth, what?

I have no idea.  But I'd rather keep him and have him SUCK the rest of the season than give him up for a glorified utility player.  I'd take my chances that in the meantime he can work out his mechanical/control issues and maybe work on that cut-fastball, or whatever it is he tried against Griffey.

He's far more likely to carry greater value than Brad Wilkerson over the next two to three years, either in trade or retained in the Stros relief corps.

149

Talk Zone / Re: No More Brad Lidge. Please.

« on: July 30, 2006, 09:48:22 pm »

Talk about selling low.  Lidge for Wilkerson? No.Freaking.Way.

150

Talk Zone / Bad day for closers...

« on: July 30, 2006, 09:44:21 pm »

...and would-be closers and former closers.  Turnbow, Ryan, Jenks to name a few.  Lidge and Qualls have company today.

Nevertheless, the Astros clubhouse is probably in need of a serious emotional enema right now.  They need to change the mix of personnel in a way that can shake a bunch of them to the core.  They're playing each series as if they're no more in it than the Orioles are.  The Astros are basically still in the WC race by default alone but don't seem capable of taking advantage of their position with the current make-up.

Tejada makes sense if he's able to be restructured.  Scott in left (for now - he scares me in right) and Huff in right.  I'm ready to see them give Wilson a long rest if they can't unload him.  And yes, of course it's all my opinion.

151

Talk Zone / Re: Garner in 07?

« on: July 30, 2006, 08:30:29 pm »

Quote:
Yes sir, Drayton and Gar have been a disgrace to this city and the franchise.  

Bring back the old days!  I want to know from DAY ONE that our team has no chance to compete this year...or next.

And yet, that site gets all kinds of recognition by Brownie and Greg Lucas.  Not so much JD, who seems to prefer this one.

152

Talk Zone / Re: Abreu to the Yanks (Maybe)

« on: July 30, 2006, 07:13:24 pm »

Quote:
Don't know if this is a "deal imminent" like the Soriano to the White Sox, or if it is really imminent.  

The Link

Edited to fix spelling of Abreu's name  

This deal is so official now that you can hear the hallelulias raining from Bristol without even turning to Sportscenter.  They're drooling all over themselves now.  Witness Karl Ravech: "Well, at least now we know what it feels like to die and go to heaven."

153

Talk Zone / Re: Day Game After a Night Game, or is Wilson Gone?

« on: July 30, 2006, 06:47:48 pm »

For whatever reason, he seems no longer capable of driving an inside pitch.  His ability to go the other way consistently is about the only way he can stay semi-productive.

154

Talk Zone / Re: No More Brad Lidge. Please.

« on: July 30, 2006, 06:45:05 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
are you fucking kidding me? I went to the HEB to get some BBQ supplies thinking this was an easy Astros win before the big deal goes down. I return to Big Bad Brad giving up another game-winning homer.

So what was it this time? Flying open again? Bad location? Or did he throw his pitch and just get beat by Conor Jackson?

Fastball up and in that Jackson tomahawked into the first couple of rows down the left field line.  The pitch wasn't bad.

Fact is, though, hitters just don't seem bamboozled and intimidated by the threat of the *nasty* slider anymore.  Most right handers sit fastball and ignore anything that breaks outside.  And lefties are feasting on the once-unhittable pitch that too often breaks right into the inner half.  Even if he is *fixed* he may need a third pitch, as batters have adjusted their overall approach to the slider, trying to take it out of the equation.

155

Talk Zone / Re: Why Two TBAs In a Row??

« on: July 30, 2006, 06:37:30 pm »

Quote:
Did I miss something?  Is Backe hurt again?

Hirsh?  Rodriguez?  Taveras?

156

Talk Zone / Re: heard a rumor tonight at the ballpark

« on: July 30, 2006, 06:33:16 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I think he is polarizing, but I think the blustering gets out of hand whenever someone starts the "Everett is not a good shortstop because he can't hit" line of thought.

That's really not the problem.

No, sadly, surprisingly, the problem this weekend has been the pitching rather than the hitting.  Maybe they need to stock up a few more situational guys and another starting pitcher.  When they score 7 and 6 runs on Friday and Sunday, respectively, and lose, well, who cares about the hitting?  Perhaps Roger needs a 160-pitch limit just to make sure he can finish the ones where his teammates manager to score for him.

Surprising?  Hardly.  The bullpen is inconsistant.  Every key reliever has had meltdowns.  Worst of all, Lidge's meltdown is ongoing.  I'm not so concerned with Qualls he has shown he'll work on whatever is wrong and bounce back.  Lidge has shown a complete inability to address his problem and show consistant improvement.  

He was falling off from the start.  I'm no expert but it looked to me like he was tryng to over-power guys with his fast-ball which, by the way, he can't control.  Hitters are laying off the slider and the fastball is nothing but straight.  When Lidge places it right in a guy's wheelhouse, expect a major leaguer to put a hurt on the ball more often than not.  Astros mgmt has to be asking if Lidge would not benefit with an extended stay in AAA to get mechanics in line.    

As for Friday, did Backe give them a chance?  Hardly.  Buchholtz in how many starts?  Nope.  Pettitte?  Barely...  Pitching is this team's number 1 problem.  I'm not going as far as Jim, calling offense nothing but gravy, because sometimes a team does has to outscore the other team.  But, good teams win with pitching and defense more often than not.  What's more frustrating to me, than anything else, is that the offense is producing yet they still take the blame.

I was referring to the snapshot of the weekend series, in which the pen had run off 27 innings of scoreless relief.  That's why it was surprising, the way it collapsed so completely, and simultaneously with the scoring explosions.  Seven and six runs in two separate games, and those are the ones they lose??

157

Talk Zone / Re: No More Brad Lidge. Please.

« on: July 30, 2006, 06:21:16 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
I would kill to find out what exactly happpened.  How did he go from literally unhittable to literally useless in a matter of months?

No idea.  All I know is he will soon be forgotten everywhere except for his association with Albert Pujols.  You will not be able to think of Lidge without Pujols or Pujols without Lidge.  Lidge's legacy: "Hey, isn't he the guy Pujols hit that ballistic blast off in the playoffs?".  He'll be lucky to be a trivial pursuit question.

I'm not even saying that Pujols is what happened to him.  Lidge was on the decline by the time he faced Pujols (the blown save to the cubs, the gritty innings in the playoffs to that point).  But that, my friends, is what he will be remembered for.

Edited to add: oh, and also for the walk-off homer to Podsednik in Game 2.  

That may be his legacy, and that would be fair if he doesn't turn it around and lead some team to a World Series championship, a la Eckersley.  Yeah, he's connected with Kirk Gibson forever, but I think he sleeps ok at night.

What I can't abide are the idiots - mostly made up of lazy reporters/pundits/talk-show hosts, who would rather pyschoanalyze than do any research - who are convinced the Pujols bomb *changed* him instantaneously.  If anyone would care to look back at the final clinching series against the Cubs, they'd see that he was already headed downhill.  He gave up his first save in 3 months in the last week of the regular season and looked pretty mortal against the likes of Michael Barrett and Matt Murton.  I think he was fairly shaky in the Braves series as well.  Pujols just exposed him for what he was turning into during that final stretch of appearances.

158

Talk Zone / Re: heard a rumor tonight at the ballpark

« on: July 30, 2006, 06:09:00 pm »

Quote:
I think he is polarizing, but I think the blustering gets out of hand whenever someone starts the "Everett is not a good shortstop because he can't hit" line of thought.

That's really not the problem.

No, sadly, surprisingly, the problem this weekend has been the pitching rather than the hitting.  Maybe they need to stock up a few more situational guys and another starting pitcher.  When they score 7 and 6 runs on Friday and Sunday, respectively, and lose, well, who cares about the hitting?  Perhaps Roger needs a 160-pitch limit just to make sure he can finish the ones where his teammates manager to score for him.

159

Talk Zone / Re: heard a rumor tonight at the ballpark

« on: July 29, 2006, 02:54:43 pm »

Quote:
He's suggesting the groin issue isnt likely to go away soon.  Affects Lamb too.

Now that's what I call sympathetic pain.

160

Talk Zone / Re: heard a rumor tonight at the ballpark

« on: July 29, 2006, 02:04:09 pm »

Quote:
My "source" works for the Astros in a undisclosed function...he's right about what he tells me I'd estimate 7 out of every 10 times to be correct.

Just curious if this is the same guy who had the trade with the Tiggers a couple of years ago for Urbina as a done deal  Either way, I hope this goes through.  Seven out of 10 is a pretty reliable source.

161

Talk Zone / Re: ESPN: Lee a Ranger

« on: July 28, 2006, 09:29:00 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
What a steal.  They get rid of the double digit blown save guy Francisco Cordero and also improve an offensive position.  Great trade for Texas.

I disagree.  Milwaukee got a pretty good haul.

For the record - I would not do the Astros' version of the deal.

Is it just me or is it deliciously ironic that the Rangers have once again traded pitching for yet another bat?  That's sort of like the Astros trading a top hitting prospect for another pitcher.

And I can't wait till the Milwaukee team physician discovers the cause of Mench's power outage: his shoes are too big.

162

Talk Zone / Re: Huff speaks

« on: July 13, 2006, 05:26:40 am »

Quote:

Quote:
I don't think anyone's suggesting walks, and lots of 'em, are bad. It's about approach, mindset, intent.  I don't think it's all that complicated.  He doesn't need to start "hacking more" if by hacking you're implying undisciplined swings without regard for the strike zone.  He needs to demonstrate consistently that his offensive make-up is one of a run producer first and foremost.  The same way David Eckstein's goal as a leadoff hitter is to get on base any way he can for the batters hitting behind him, Ensberg's goal should be to drive in runs any way he can, and secondarily to draw walks if pitchers don't give him anything to accomplish that task or if he can't get an extra-base hit to start an inning.  And on second thought, he does need to go up there hacking a little more than he does, because he needs to risk a few more chances at failing to drive pitches that aren't exactly in his perfect, tiny happy zone, in the hopes that he'll be able to keep the traffic on the bases moving a little more frequently ALL THE WAY around.

It's not a matter that can be quantified.  You only have to watch him take *suitable* pitch after pitch, and it's pretty obvious he's not doing the job Garner is begging him to do.

Suitable pitches are pitches in the strike zone. Unsuitable pitches are pitches outside the strike zone. That's the purpose of having a strike zone.

If Ensberg were taking significantly more suitable pitches than he did when he was hitting well, then he'd have a big increase in strikeouts. But that's not the case. His strikeouts are up only marginally.

Whatever his tiny happy zone may be, the umpire does not appear to be disagreeing with it, because the pitches Ensberg is taking are increasing his walks total considerably, meaning they're outside the strike zone, meaning they're unsuitable, meaning he shouldn't be swinging at them.

Swinging at pitches outside the strike zone would fundamentally increase his chances of making an out and reducing the team's chances of scoring. If you want to see him really lose all value as a big-league hitter then watch what happens when, in desperation, he starts swinging at pitches outside the strike zone.

The issue is at least partially quantifiable, and the data points to what Ensberg's doing with the pitches he's hitting, as opposed to the pitches he's taking, as being the problem. How is taking too many suitable pitches the cause of him batting 50 points lower on balls in play this season?

His eye is the only thing he's got going for him right now, and yet people are complaining about him using it.

No, that's not what I mean by suitable.  I mean they're strikes that he would rather not swing at.  Arky, I can't make my point to you unless you're willing to acknowledge that an AB that results in a walk with RISP may/should have resulted in a sac fly, double, single, HR, RBI groundout with a less finicky approach.  Those results are unknowable, but one only need observe his lack of aggressiveness (defined as willingness to take up to two strikes that could have been opportunities to drive the ball somewhere and score runs as a result, and instead work the count for a less immediately productive walk) game after game to see that he is not offering the team the *slugging* they need from him.  He's offering walks, so that someone else further down the order and typically less potent is given the burden of driving in the runs.  He's merely extending the inning and passing the heavy lifting to someone else.  That is not what he's asked to do.  We can argue about stats all day long, but he's failing to achieve the objectives his boss has given him.  If you listen to Phil Garner, he says repeatedly that he needs Morgan Ensberg to drive in runs.  He's hitting .194 since May 1 with 25 RBI in about 240 plate appearances.  With numbers like that, no one on the club is going to care that he has 47 walks during that period.  He could have 10 fewer walks and 12 more RBIs for all we know and maybe the team would have won a few more games.  As for his wonderful OBP during that period, he's only been able to score 19 times through the help of others during that stretch.

And incidentally, I strongly disagree that swinging at pitches out of the strike zone is a bad idea.  It really depends on the location out of the zone.  Good RBI-minded hitters know they can drive an inside pitch they're looking for a loooooong way, or punch an outside pitch the opposite way and bring in runs.  Pujols, Berkman, Ortiz, to name a few, do this quite routinely.  In fact, I've seen each and every one of them hit these types of pitches out of sight, and you have too.  Yes, these are pitches that would be called balls, and pitches that Ensberg would likely take.  And yes, he might indeed draw a walk eventually.  Me, I'd rather have the hits than walks with RISP.  It's all about approach and understanding the *hitting zone*, not the strike zone.  Overly selective hitters don't belong in the middle of the order.  Frank Thomas, as great as he was, used to drive his team crazy because he would refuse to loosen his standards, say, with the tying or winning run on third and one out, opting to take a walk by passing up borderline but eminently hittable pitches.  Then of course his BB would eventually lead to no further runs being scored.  It's indefensible for a designated run producer in the lineup to take that approach, and it doesn't go over well in the organization.

163

Talk Zone / Re: Tavares and the Marlins

« on: July 13, 2006, 04:28:40 am »

Quote:
What are the comparisons to other organizations over a reasonably demonstrative period of time?

If I take 5 organizations, two in the AL and three in the NL, here's what I find:

1. Atlanta - We shouldn't waste time on this one.  Obviously they've proven to bring prospects up to the big leagues earlier than the Astros in recent years.  With a quick glance, not counting Furcal, there's Andruw Jones, Chipper, Smoltz, Francoeur, McCann, Davies (still 22 and has logged 130 ML innings and likely would have more if not for injury), all under 23.  In fact, other than Chipper at 23, they were all each 22 or younger at the point they had more than a cup of coffee.

2. Minnesota - Among the 23 or under group: Hunter (23), Liriano (22), Radke (22), Santana (130 innings by 22; and yes, he counts, because the point to be made is that we can't say for certain whether he would have found his way to the Astros that quickly or not had he stayed in the org.  We only know he did for the Twins, just as Taveras became an everyday CF for the Stros at 23), Lohse (reached 90 innings with 16 GS at 22), Crain (23; roughly same as Nieve), Morneau (already over 400 ABs at 23) and Mauer (600 ABs at 22).  I didn't bother looking at the rest.

3. Mets - Wright (263 ABs at 21; full season at 22), Reyes (300 ABs at 20) and Pelfrey (22, but just made his ML debut).  That's about all I could find among home-grown talent on the current roster.  Heilman at 24 with 13 GS is about the only other one.  Bannister (25 but barely any service time) and Feliciano (27) are two more.  Looks like the rest came up with other orgs.  Clearly, Wright and Reyes are younger than any Astro cited, and Pelfrey is probably right there with Houston's youngest examples.

4. Yankees - Jeter (21 with approx. 250 ABs), Rivera (26), Proctor (29), Williams (22), Posada (26), Cabrera (21), Cano (22), and that's about it among the 26 and under.  They're all over the map, but at least they've demonstrated even through greater major league success than the Astros that they're not averse to bringing up top prospects at 21 or 22.  Don't forget Soriano in recent years either.

5. St. Louis - Pujols (21), Ankiel (20; like Bagwell, on the roster.  Maybe not the best example for arguing the merits of earlier call-ups but demonstrates at least the organization's willingness to do it), Molina (22), Reyes (projected at 100 innings by 24), Luna (25).  The rest is stocked with veterans acquisitions or older young guys still not proven.

I could also check the trends of the Rangers, Mariners, Dodgers, Marlins and Tribe...pretty sure what the results would show.

164

Talk Zone / Re: Huff speaks

« on: July 13, 2006, 02:45:18 am »

Quote:

Quote:
I think there's too much credit given to Ensberg's being injured as the primary cause for his woes.  He has an approach problem that he needs to work through, or not work through - that may be his problem, thinking too much about how to compensate for a soreness or a slump and throwing himself into all sorts of mental and physical contortions.  Either way, he needs to be more aggressive at doing something other than looking at pitches.  He heeds that internal take sign of his and attacks the almighty check swing with uncommon gusto.  Even with a hale and hardy shoulder he watches too many strikes go by and weakens the middle of the lineup, and, by extension, the organization's and his teammates' confidence in him by repeatedly doing so.  He's 31 in another month.  He's no longer a kid the organization can build around for the next five years.

Is the problem that Ensberg puts himself through contortions or that he takes too many pitches? They're not necessary the same problem. It seems that a healthy Ensberg who is willing to take advice and stops fidgeting with his stance can be productive even if he's taking a lot of pitches.

Among major-leaguers, Ensberg is currently third in walks per plate appearance, 11th in pitches per plate appearance and 21st in walk/strikeout ratio. With 68 walks and 70 strikeouts, Ensberg has improved his walk/strikeout ratio to the best rate in any season of his career.

Last season, Ensberg walked 85 times and struck out 119 times in 624 plate appearances. This, season, he's on a pace to walk 122 times and strike out 125 times in that number of plate appearances. That's an additional 37 walks traded for an additional six strikeouts.

The last thing Ensberg needs is to start hacking more.

I don't think anyone's suggesting walks, and lots of 'em, are bad. It's about approach, mindset, intent.  I don't think it's all that complicated.  He doesn't need to start "hacking more" if by hacking you're implying undisciplined swings without regard for the strike zone.  He needs to demonstrate consistently that his offensive make-up is one of a run producer first and foremost.  The same way David Eckstein's goal as a leadoff hitter is to get on base any way he can for the batters hitting behind him, Ensberg's goal should be to drive in runs any way he can, and secondarily to draw walks if pitchers don't give him anything to accomplish that task or if he can't get an extra-base hit to start an inning.  And on second thought, he does need to go up there hacking a little more than he does, because he needs to risk a few more chances at failing to drive pitches that aren't exactly in his perfect, tiny happy zone, in the hopes that he'll be able to keep the traffic on the bases moving a little more frequently ALL THE WAY around.

It's not a matter that can be quantified.  You only have to watch him take *suitable* pitch after pitch, and it's pretty obvious he's not doing the job Garner is begging him to do.

165

Talk Zone / Re: Tavares and the Marlins

« on: July 13, 2006, 02:11:28 am »

Quote:
So, of the Astros developed players on the team currently we have Buchholz (24), Nieve (turns 24 tomorrow), Lidge (26 at first callup, injury plagued), Oswalt (23 when he came up), Qualls (26 when he came up), Wandy (26 when he came up, but how old was he as Eny Cabreja? - hardly a good example), Berkman (23), Biggio (23), Burke (ripe old age of 24), Taveras (22), Ensberg (26), and Adam Everett (25).

(I've tried to make sure that I didn't start them when they got a september call-up but a mistake or two is possible).

For those scoring at home, that's 7 in the 24 and younger crowd, and 5 in the 25 and up crowd. That also includes injury plagued lidge and the incredible aging Eny. I guess I define the word exception differently than you do.

That's why I made the point that the age at which they were able to make a full season's contribution at this level is what counted more.  I also defined the young range as 21-23, so that paints a different picture as well.

Now, looking at your list, a few observations:

1. Taveras was 23 before he had solid service time.  

2. I'd say Burke's first year is this year, so his age of readiness is 26, certainly no earlier than 25 if you count the 108 games he played last year.  

3. I'll give you Biggio since I mentioned the past two decades.  

4. But throw in Lane even though he was demoted today since he's still in the organization.  He was 27.  

5. Berkman was 24 before he received significant playing time.  

6. Bruntlett, whom you excluded, was 26 or 27.

To summarize, in the Under-24 category, you have Biggio, Oswalt and Taveras, whose primary development time was in another org., a fact which may account for his readiness at an earlier age.  And I'll even throw in Bagwell, since he was a stud at 23.  So besides the two graybeards, who became valuable at 23, only Roy and Willy T. on the current roster fit that category.  That leaves Buchholz and presumably Nieve at 24, and the others 25 or older. And by the way, not a single one comes in at under 23.

That's not a fast-tracking trend; with a few exceptions from your list, that indicates a rather slow development process.

166

Talk Zone / Re: Tavares and the Marlins

« on: July 13, 2006, 01:25:07 am »

Quote:

Quote:
Take Ensberg, Lane, Burke, Rodriguez as just a few examples.  Granted their slower, more conservative philosophy (even the Astros admit this) has worked for them, but that doesn't mean it's the only way, or that I have to like it as an Astros fan since the mid-60s

Who is Rodriquez?  Wandy or Wilfredo? And the conservative route was a staple of Hunsicker's regime and not necessarily an across the board philosophy of the organization.  The most shocking callup I think I ever heard Hunsicker make was Kirk Saarloos.

Purpura is a different cat.

Wandy.  And I hope Purpura is a different cat in that regard.  It's hard to argue with the Astros' recent track record with player development translating to success at the major league level, but I would certainly like to see them "risk" bringing up a prospect too soon more frequently than they do.  It's not like the Braves haven't been able to do it consistently over the last 15 years.  There are others such as the Dodgers who seem to get their stud prospects major-league ready at earlier ages than do the Astros.  There are other teams as well.

The Astros don't deserve, need or want any defense on this front.  They seem ok with having institutionalized the more deliberate approach.  I still think they would be better off if they allowed more flexibility for special players who warrant fast-tracking.

167

Talk Zone / Re: Tavares and the Marlins

« on: July 13, 2006, 12:57:21 am »

Quote:
Just like they did with Roy Oswalt, Kirk Saarloos, Willy Taveras, Fernando Nieve, Wade Miller, Adam Everett and for old times' sake Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell.

Are you actually refuting this admittedly blase and hyperbolic statement with a sampling of exceptions?  Because that's what they are, exceptions.  I think you might want to look at the track record of the past two decades.  I think you'll find that there are far more guys in the 25-26 range than in the 21-23 range making their debuts with the Astros.  And it's not just when they make their debuts as when they seem ready to make solid contributions over a full season.  Take Ensberg, Lane, Burke, Rodriguez as just a few examples.  Granted their slower, more conservative philosophy (even the Astros admit this) has worked for them, but that doesn't mean it's the only way, or that I have to like it as an Astros fan since the mid-60s.

Oh, and you left out Carlos Hernandez, who was only 21 when he came up.  Yes, 2001 was a wonderful time, but those phenoms were exceptions.  Plenty of organizations find a way to bring up more guys who are ready at a younger age, for whatever reason.  I would like to see this happen with the Astros more often, that's all.  It would be great to have a core of players accumulate significant playing experience before their mid-30s.  It's all too rare with this franchise.

168

Talk Zone / Re: Lame showing by astros slugger at ASG HR Derby

« on: July 13, 2006, 12:30:33 am »

Quote:
...but they at least tie him to the train...

No, I think that would be the province of one Penelope Pitstop.  I don't see her fitting into the Astros motif, either.

169

Talk Zone / Re: Tavares and the Marlins

« on: July 13, 2006, 12:24:18 am »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Burke definitely is not a long term CFer, imo. he has some of the same problems WT has in taking a good angle/path to the ball. why shouldn't he? he is a 2B.

Whaddya think?  If Taveras can fetch a quality bullpen arm would Burke be good enough for you for the rest of this season in CF?

Wasn't there a report in the Minor League forum indicating Josh Anderson has shown significant improvement at the plate?  Between him, Burke not having a position for another season next year, and Wilson's ability to play CF, I would guess that Taveras is not indispensible.

Anderson is improved.  But, he's not ready for the majors.

Besides, he's not 26 yet, which is the organizationally approved optimal time to bring up AAA prospects.

170

Talk Zone / Re: Huff speaks

« on: July 13, 2006, 12:12:29 am »

Quote:

Quote:
Purpura says Ensberg, but down the road, Mike Lamb.  He's not a starter.

Ensberg to the DL? Also, Lane has to clear waivers to be sent down, right?

I think there's too much credit given to Ensberg's being injured as the primary cause for his woes.  He has an approach problem that he needs to work through, or not work through - that may be his problem, thinking too much about how to compensate for a soreness or a slump and throwing himself into all sorts of mental and physical contortions.  Either way, he needs to be more aggressive at doing something other than looking at pitches.  He heeds that internal take sign of his and attacks the almighty check swing with uncommon gusto.  Even with a hale and hardy shoulder he watches too many strikes go by and weakens the middle of the lineup, and, by extension, the organization's and his teammates' confidence in him by repeatedly doing so.  He's 31 in another month.  He's no longer a kid the organization can build around for the next five years.

171

Talk Zone / Re: Huff and Options for Garner

« on: July 12, 2006, 02:11:45 pm »

How about his patent inability or unwillingness to realize his approach should be as a middle-of-the-order guy who's supposed to drive in runs, period?  Even when he was perfectly healthy last year he drove me crazy watching him take so many called-third strikes.

Clearly, his problems are not strictly injury-related.

172

Talk Zone / Re: Step on a Crack

« on: July 11, 2006, 03:03:35 pm »

Quote:
Lidge's mechanics are fucked? Who knew!!?? Just don't anyone dare suggest that his mechanical problems might have anything at all to do with his state of mind because a professional athlete like Brad Lidge could never be considered anything but psychologically sound or he wouldn't be where he is today. What the dumbasses not graced with JimR's intuitive knowledge of the game don't get is that Brad Lidge still doesn't really know he's flying open. He's certainly been told this upteen million times by Phil Garner and Jim Hickey, but that stubborn fool is just not honest with himself about his real problem. Maybe if Lidge would just listen to JimR and be honest with himself and stop blaming his problems on anything but JimR's solution....

As usual, it's probably a combination of things: mechanics, confidence, and maybe even injury.  One fault begets the other, begets still the other.  It doesn't matter how it originated, because he's off and needs all three to be effective.  As far as Lidge's acknowledging that his mechanics are off, that process can be parsed further as well.  A former pro scout for the White Sox and Cardinals recently told me that one of the reasons one organization relied on videotape analysis more than the other is that the latter believed the player had to see a flaw correctly in his mind before he could ever translate it to the plate or mound.  Otherwise, all the videotape in the world clearly diagnosing his mistakes would never lead the player to actually make the necessary corrections.  Maybe that's where Lidge is right now.  He knows he's flying open but can't keep himself from doing it when he's in the stretch in crucial situations.

And it's about as silly to reflexively blame Jim Hickey for Lidge's problems as it was to anoint Don Baylor for Hidalgo's "success."

173

Talk Zone / Re: So to recap..............

« on: July 10, 2006, 01:47:20 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Oswalt touched the bag.

Every replay clearly showed that he missed it.

I'm not bitching about the umpiring. Davidson was standing exactly where he was supposed to be. But it would be difficult from where he was standing to tell whether Oswalt's toe touched the front of the bag. And it was difficult to tell from the replays, either, which made it far from clear whether he missed it or not.

Which is all immaterial as to the Astros losing the game.

In fact it would be physically impossible for Davidson to know whether he touched the *side* of the bag unless he were standing directly over the base or to the front side of it.  All he and the entire world knew with certainty is that he didn't touch the *top* of the bag.  Every replay I've seen so far has been inconclusive.  We'd need to see a magnified still of that foot and the front edge to determine whether there's any daylight between Roy's cleat and the side of the base.  Which is to say it's ridiculous for Oswalt to argue even if he knew he did make contact.  Bad baserunning to leave any doubt and force the umpire to decide.  Too bad.  I felt sure Willy T. would have scored him from second on an infield single.

174

Talk Zone / Re: worth a rental

« on: June 10, 2006, 01:46:29 am »

I saw the subject line and thought you were channeling Todd speculating on who was available at the trade deadline.  After all, it's only 52 days away.  What a relief to find it was only about an X-rated movie.

175

Talk Zone / Re: What Happened to Ensberg?

« on: June 10, 2006, 01:36:02 am »

Right, the portion of the neck commonly referred to as the shoulder.

176

Talk Zone / Re: Rumor on cards board...

« on: June 10, 2006, 01:33:55 am »

Quote:

Unreliable? Okay.

But here is confirmation of Burke's status as day-to-day.

The Link



He'll be "day-to-day" only as long as it takes to process the paperwork and put him on the DL.  Anyone who was actually at the game and saw the whole thing (not just the ESPN clip) will likely agree.  I hope we see Hobbs again and that the third time will be the charm.

Well, he seemed ok on *this* day.  Even Garner didn't expect him to play, but maybe they should go ahead and put the paperwork aside for now.

177

Talk Zone / Re: Rumor on cards board...

« on: June 10, 2006, 01:28:44 am »

Quote:

Quote:

-Ann Coulter has a huge Adam's apple and is really a man,

Neither men nor women want to claim that waste of molecules.

I think she's great usually.  Not sure what to think about her latest comments.

178

Talk Zone / Re: Steroid names starting to leak....

« on: June 10, 2006, 01:03:35 am »

Quote:
But until there's the slightest bit of actual information to surpport such wild ass speculation, that's all it is.  And I will reserve judgement until then.

But to each his own.

Of course it's wild ass speculation.  Check out the color of the whoopass in that can.  We can't see past it; we don't want to see past it.

You can't sip this stuff.  It makes red and all other colors taste like wormwood.  Wormwood is the devil, and we want the devil not only to lose but to be utterly humiliated in the process.

That's true religion.  That's what we're sellin' here.

179

Talk Zone / Re: Ausmus play at the plate

« on: June 10, 2006, 12:48:57 am »

Quote:
I don't know anymore when people are kidding about this kind of stuff, it's gotten so ridiculous.  Who needs to watch the game?  Just run a query or download a spreadsheet.  You can find a spouse that way now too.  Try it.

Quote:
Obviously that's a joke.

Obviously I was fairly sure that it was.

180

Talk Zone / Re: I like Milo.........

« on: June 10, 2006, 12:40:27 am »

Quote:
surely you jest. this is the biggest break of their lives. don't be silly.

McMullen did not think Elston was homer enough.

I remember thinking at the time that Elston had started to sound like he was mailing it in, that he had crossed under the line of journalistic objectivity and had become bored.  My brother and I listened all the time and both felt the same way back then.  Not that he was ever a homer, nor would we want him to be one.  We did want him to at least sound like he was happy to be calling the game, but for some reason to us his voice projected a certain amount of ambivalence.

I realize many feel otherwise, but that was our impression at the time.  When I heard him many years later on CBS radio he sounded like he had recaptured the energy he had lost.  Maybe having to deal with McMullen drove it right out of him for a period of time.  I had the old 45 with all the great plays in Astros history, with Elston on most of the calls.  "Seven double plays!!" was one that still rings in my ears.  Where had *that* Gene Elston gone?

181

Talk Zone / Re: Ausmus play at the plate

« on: June 09, 2006, 01:17:24 am »

Quote:


According to my Blocking Plays At the Plate metric (BPAP), Officer Brad rates at a 3.726, which ranks him 21st in the league among regular catchers over the past five years.  Of course, this figure is not calibrated for the quality of  the throws, or the weight of the opposing baserunner.

I don't know anymore when people are kidding about this kind of stuff, it's gotten so ridiculous.  Who needs to watch the game?  Just run a query or download a spreadsheet.  You can find a spouse that way now too.  Try it.

182

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: Round #50

« on: June 09, 2006, 01:08:45 am »

Quote:

Quote:
Tyler Henley, CF  

Draft-eligible sophomore from Rice.

Uhh, doubt we can get him, but if we can he was .339/.440/.576 this year with Rice.

 Rice Team stats
 Tyler's profile on Rice site

Pretty amazing freshman stat: "Threw out four base runners from centerfield in one game vs. San Jose State (Mar. 18): two at home plate and two at third base"

183

Talk Zone / Re: Ausmus play at the plate

« on: June 09, 2006, 12:52:08 am »

Quote:

Quote:
Wow.  How many other catchers bobble that, allow a run to come in while the ball squirts off who knows how far, and consequently extend the inning with Giles?  Not because of a bad play they would have made, but because of a great play they didn't make.

Huge play.  And yes, nice throw by Berkman.

it's weird with officer brad because he usually appears to be one of the worst when it comes to plays at the plate, but he's one of the best when it comes to blocking pitches.  the throw by berkman had a definite "blocking pitches" kind of bounce to it.

You think he's one of the worst when it comes to plays at the plate?  I think he's solid, more than solid.

184

Talk Zone / Hershiser on Pettitte's mechanics

« on: June 09, 2006, 12:37:18 am »

Interesting analysis on BBTN some of you may have seen.  He contends that AP has been struggling because at times he's been 1) holding his hands too far from his body, which somehow is forcing his pitching arm to come across at the wrong angle on his delivery such that he's not able to have proper pitch placement; and 2) landing on his heel rather than the ball of his foot.

If it's that easy to diagnose why isn't it that easy to fix?

185

Talk Zone / Ausmus play at the plate

« on: June 09, 2006, 12:27:40 am »

Wow.  How many other catchers bobble that, allow a run to come in while the ball squirts off who knows how far, and consequently extend the inning with Giles?  Not because of a bad play they would have made, but because of a great play they didn't make.

Huge play.  And yes, nice throw by Berkman.

186

Talk Zone / Re: The old reverse show-up...

« on: June 09, 2006, 12:19:46 am »

And Wheeler's pitch was only about a foot off the plate, so it was pretty obvious he felt guilty for still being in the batter's box.

187

Talk Zone / Re: Draft...

« on: June 06, 2006, 03:49:30 pm »

Didn't know them back then.  FWIW, Jeremy is a big-time power hitting outfielder, with the Jesse-like cannon.  Much bigger than dad, though: 6'5", 240.  Bats right, throws left.  A bigger, perhaps better-hitting/throwing Jason Lane?  Right field and first base are the only possible positions I can envision.

188

The Bus Ride Discussion Forum / Re: Astros take Max Sapp

« on: June 06, 2006, 03:36:51 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
MLB.com commentators indicating he won't stick at C.

Greg had the lowdown on Sapp the other day.  The Link

Looks like the prototypical lefty power bat swing to me.  Leg kick, high hands, swings through level with a slight upper cut at the end.  

Just me, but I don't like that swing much.  He's not balanced at all.  Way out on his front leg on every swing.  He'll get big time fooled by good breaking stuff.  Lot's to work on.  Got an arm though.

Swing reminded me a little of Jeromy Burnitz's.

189

Talk Zone / Re: Draft...

« on: June 06, 2006, 03:22:23 pm »

Quote:
I went to school with tbe Barfields for a year. Nice bunch.

Klein?  Kleb?

190

Talk Zone / Re: Draft...

« on: June 06, 2006, 03:10:31 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
UH pitcher Brad Lincoln went #4 to Pittsburgh.

Surprised he went that low.  I thought for sure the DRays would take him if the Royals didn't at #1.  I'm sure he's glad not to be a DRay.

Be interesting to see where our neighbor, Jeremy Barfield, goes.  Jesse has been told somewhere around the 4th round or later.  Which I think is about where Josh went in 2001.

191

Talk Zone / Re: Draft...

« on: June 06, 2006, 02:38:17 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Anyone doing a draft thread today?

Draft? Never heard of it...

Link

Wow, that thread wasn't showing up for me.  Bizarre.  Thanks

Me neither

192

Talk Zone / Re: Draft...

« on: June 06, 2006, 02:33:38 pm »

Stros just picked Max Sapp, catcher Bishop Moore HS, Florida.  MLB pundits saying he won't stay at catcher due to defense.  He's 6' 2", 220.

He's a left-handed stick.

193

Talk Zone / Re: Schadenfreude

« on: June 04, 2006, 08:23:35 pm »

Quote:
what was the % of the Cards "O" driven in by Pujols? therein lies the truth.

Let's see, I think he accounts for just under 1/2 of their team's HRs and a little less than 1/4 of their run production.  Losing him is like the Cavs without Lebron: a different team.

With Carpenter and others being of questionable health and durability right now, anyone not named the Pirates has a great opportunity to close the gap.

194

Talk Zone / Re: Race for the Lid????

« on: March 24, 2006, 05:35:58 pm »

Their record will be 103-57-2.  I'm confident of the win total but not the other two.

195

Talk Zone / Re: Our new PBP announcers suck...

« on: March 24, 2006, 05:06:01 pm »

Quote:
Dolan & Raymond have been switching pbp duties in the spring so I haven't yet gotten to the point where I match a name with a voice.  Anyhow, one of them, has this annoying habit of ending his sentences with his tone/pitch going up and traling off.  Actually, his tone/pitch is nearly always up and only slight comes down.  It's hard to tell by his voice whether he's in mid sentance or ending a sentance.  I don't know if any of you have noticed this, but it really bothers me.  I hope the other guy does the pbp once regular season starts.

Dolan's the one with the higher pitch.  Raymond is the one who sounds to me like Capt. B.J. Hunnicut from M*A*S*H.  Much more homespun, relaxed style.  But I think they're both pretty good at calling a game and keeping the listener informed and engaged.  Today, however, Bill Brown was in the booth with Milo.  Now that was nice.  Every aspiring broadcasting student should learn from Brown.  He has the perfect mix of warmth, professionalism, knowledge, timing and charisma in his voice and style.  And he never allows himself to be as big as the game he's calling.  I wonder whether Ernie Harwell was his idol.

196

Talk Zone / Re: Listening to Milo:

« on: March 20, 2006, 12:58:36 am »

Quote:

Quote:
Ash's voice wasn't great, and I agree the new guys sound better.  However, I think Ash's analysis stemming from his familiarity with the team and the opponents will be missed.  Back to the original post though, I listened to a little bit of the ballgame today and Milo was terrible - not from a "calling the game" stand point, but from a "every cheesy joke I can think of" stand point.  Ugh.  I hope its only because it is spring training.  However, the line about not going to Greg Zaun's super bowl party because he didn't want to get arrested was pretty funny.

I've only been able to listen to a couple games at any length.  I think both the new people are good at describing the action of the game.  I knew at all times where the ball was, where the runners were, how many outs, balls and strikes, who was up, who was pitching.  Their cadence and inflection were good, the midwestern twang only grated a couple times.  Because they haven't gotten to know the players, the call is pretty generic.  That will change in time.  One of them (?) said, when Drayton asked whether he'd met Wandy Rodriguez yet (who Drayton really likes, mostly because he's cocky, and won 10 games last season), he said, "probably, I've met about 70 people in the last few days.  

Milo has lost his mind.  He's playing the grizzled, crotchety veteran for all it's worth.  I think he thinks he's hazing the new guys.

I decided pretty early on that I much prefer Raymond's comfortable, easy-chair sound to that of Dolan's I'm-a-broadcaster-and-here's-my-voice voice.  Raymond almost sounds like B.J. Hunnicut, as if he's just talking without "affecting."  That's what I like.  And he and Dolan both know how to control their calls with the proper amount of excitement, clarity and range.  Range is something Ashby never mastered, which made his play-by-play difficult for me to listen to.  Funny, too, since he had several years training as the sportscaster at Channel 39 prior to the Astros gig.

Dolan would be fine if he would just speak into the microphone the way he talks to his buddies off the air (I'm guessing).  No one, absolutely no one, says "we go to the 5th inning" or "that makes the count 2 and 2" the way he does and makes it sound authentic.  I suspect it's a habit he picked up somewhere along the way trying to give his delivery more depth (just like when people change the way they pronounce the letter "s" for some reason), but he really doesn't need it.  His voice is fine until he finishes a sentence.

197

Talk Zone / Re: Phil Rogers: Still a no-talent assclown

« on: January 27, 2006, 05:28:21 pm »

Quote:
He said they were left-handed hitters.  He never said they hit left-handed.

You people...

'Course, he'd be wrong in that regard as well, since Lamb throws right.  He's got his bases covered.

198

Talk Zone / Re: Latest on the World Baseball Classic

« on: January 21, 2006, 05:33:40 pm »

Quote:
"It's very difficult to compete against us in any area ...  

True dat, Fiddy Cent.  You blow away most of the world in human rights violations.

199

Talk Zone / Re: Great news : Non BB

« on: January 18, 2006, 05:12:54 pm »

Ditto everyone else's comments!

200

Talk Zone / Re: World Baseball Classic to be cancelled?

« on: January 10, 2006, 06:49:16 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not using it as evidence that he still had some old Dow Chemical pesticide cans lying about the palace.  I'm saying that his propensity for acquiring and using WMDs was supported by a prolific track record.  If the only argument had been that the CIA had taught him how to use mustard gas in 1985, I might find that insufficient.  But it was one among many, many elements of the case.  The debate in 2002 and 2003 was over whether to let the inspections regime work to take care of Saddam's WMDs, despite his intrasigence, or whether to go to war.  It was never about Saddam having credibly foresworn any desire or efforts to acquire or develop WMDs.

One of the issues for me is that this debate in the international arena was not allowed to run its course.  The promise Bush made was to exhaust all possible means, using the UN, to disarm Iraq; with force being the last resort.

But instead of using the UN, the administration railroaded it, misled it and finally ignored it in a rush to war.  For this reason, I think the administration and people arguing on its behalf cannot tout UN ineffectiveness as a justification.

How exhaustive did you think would have been appropriate?  Hans Blix would still be there "inspecting" if the UN had had its way.  Let's see, Saddam had how many *years* to cooperate?

201

Talk Zone / Re: World Baseball Classic to be cancelled?

« on: January 10, 2006, 06:44:22 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

There were several countries, including some in the Security Council, as well as Kofi Annan, that were adamant that another resolution was required to invade.  Put forth any other justification for the war you like, the one that everyone else thought they had WMD and should be invaded is false.

It's ok, you can name France, as it was they who were going to block ANY resolution brought to the Security Council regardless of what the vote might be.  They quite publicaly stated as such, because that was their only option for stopping a new resolution from passing, the votes neccessary were already had.

How's that for diplomacy?

And it's not just any other justification,

Quote:
non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means

Seems to reference WMD's quite explicitly.  As opposed to some other phantom justification that you seem to be referring to.

And no the US didnt "pass" on the final vote, France had already stated they would veto ANYTHING passed by the Security Council thereby rendering any vote "mute".  If you want blame for no vote or resolution, go talk to Chirac, et al.

France, for whatever reason, had a different position on Iraq. Germany, Russia, just to name 2 more of many, werent going to vote for war.  There was no final resolution and most countries outside of the US and the UK think another resolution was necessary.  Not getting their way was the only reason the US didnt go forward with another resolution.  Obviously there weren't many other countries, including the US until 9/11, that thought the Iraq weapons program a threat.

Considering the US has long been propping up what's left of the UN's relevance, it was merely a courteous gesture of international cooperation by the administration to go through all those bureaucratic and, in many cases, corrupt channels.  Once it was clear the other members had too much at stake to risk the dethroning of one of their favorite tyrants, the Bush administration rightly stopped the charade and formed a coalition of willing partners.

But that mindless ordeal only reasserted in the minds of tens of millions of Americans that the whole resolution process resembled a mother asking her children for permission to decide what's best.

It's time to put the UN out of business, so the Kofi Annans and sons of Kofi Annans can go out and get real jobs.

As much as that so-called radicalism is the thinking shared by so many reasonable and like-minded people in this country, it's a sad state of affairs that it shocks so many in this forum.

202

Talk Zone / Re: World Baseball Classic to be cancelled?

« on: January 09, 2006, 05:14:33 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If an American citizen is getting phone calls from known terrorists, then by all means listen in on them.

This is a chilling definition of "liberty".

And your definition would include letting known terrorists have their cute little privacy while potentially discussing how they might bomb their next target?  That's more than chilling; right now I don't have words for it.

Is anyone else imagining a 50-year rewind and substituting "Communists" for "terrorists"?

Please.  Al Quaida's a little different.

Last time I checked, the war we're in now didn't have "cold" in front of it.  Wartime often calls for exigent circumstances.  If a temporary loss of my privacy (what law is really going to keep a government from engaging in this sort of thing without our knowledge anyway?  For all we know, it's happening now and has been for decades - certainly long before the Patriot Act) saves my childrens' school building from being blown to bits, I'm all for it.

203

Talk Zone / Re: World Baseball Classic to be cancelled?

« on: January 09, 2006, 04:52:18 pm »

Quote:
I do not have contempt for the institutions of the US government, only the current inhabitants who are making a case that they are above the law.  

Indeed.  This perfectly describes the pattern of governance and legislation by the congressmen and senators in the Democratic Party over the past 50 years or so.  But really, I think it's best if we keep the two-party system anyway.

204

Talk Zone / Re: World Baseball Classic to be cancelled?

« on: January 09, 2006, 01:52:19 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

This is a chilling definition of "liberty".

And your definition would include letting known terrorists have their cute little privacy while potentially discussing how they might bomb their next target?  That's more than chilling; right now I don't have words for it.

No, my definition would be letting American citizens have a little privacy.  I don't believ in sacrificing freedom for security.  Not at all.  You and I obviously have radically differnt ideas about liberty.

You and Ben Franklin.

No, not the same.  Americans get a "little privacy," but terrorists do not.  That's why the law allows for such exceptions.

205

Talk Zone / Re: OK

« on: January 09, 2006, 01:48:23 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
Although we wouldn't be throwing mere stones.

Vicious epithets?

Epithets, yes, or something like it.  Depending on whether the weapons depot stocks these epithet things of which you speak.

206

Talk Zone / Re: World Baseball Classic to be cancelled?

« on: January 09, 2006, 01:40:47 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
If an American citizen is getting phone calls from known terrorists, then by all means listen in on them.

This is a chilling definition of "liberty".

And your definition would include letting known terrorists have their cute little privacy while potentially discussing how they might bomb their next target?  That's more than chilling; right now I don't have words for it.

207

Talk Zone / Re: OK

« on: January 09, 2006, 01:03:26 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

OTOH, his wife is probably good people, just a bad judge of character.

She is.  She went to A&M

Yes, We know.  We know a lot about you.  We know where you live...a stone's throw from Klein HS.  Although we wouldn't be throwing mere stones.

208

Talk Zone / Re: OK

« on: January 09, 2006, 12:45:00 pm »

Quote:
You compared me to a Nazi, but I need to not react.  Fine logic that.

 

Gig 'im.  That's not a misspelling.  Seriously.  Gig. Him.

OTOH, his wife is probably good people, just a bad judge of character.

209

Talk Zone / Re: Miguel wants to stay in B'more

« on: January 09, 2006, 12:28:58 pm »

Quote:
Link

Not that we had a "serious" chance of landing him....

"Re: Miguel wants to stay in B'more"
This is the melodramatic but predictable conclusion to this winter's opus that is every disgruntled star's demand to be traded when he realizes he's not going anywhere.

210

Talk Zone / Re: about Carlos Hernandez

« on: January 06, 2006, 01:55:13 pm »

Quote:
He could be very useful if he can learn how to pitch and get some of his old stuff back.

This would be great, great news, especially if the "improvement" gets him close to what he was.  I loved that guy's stuff and makeup for the short time he was dealing pre-injury.

211

Talk Zone / Re: Rose Bowl Anticipation

« on: January 04, 2006, 04:18:17 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
As has been said, he's not a good interview.

On the other hand, he was offered and briefly accepted the HC job at the University of Colorado, and then flaked out and stayed with Shanahan.

He has declined to interview a few other places (even though he was named as a candidate) because he either wants to be coaching in Colorado or Texas and no where else.

He was supposedly miserable in San Francisco for a couple years as an offensive coach there...

I'd be curious to know what exactly makes him a "bad interview", especially considering he's a well know, and well respected coach.  

I like the idea of an offensive minded head coach because the offense is a problem.  But then again, so is the defense.  I wonder if part of the reason McNair went with Capers over Kubiak in the first place was the whole "expansion, need to get started out slow and steady" kind of deal, which was Capers' specialty.  Given that they're basically starting over, I wonder if that will be an issue with Kubiak again.

McClain described it as sort of an "aw shucks" style he gives off in the interview.  Not prepared, not asking the right questions, you know, like any job interview.  This phoniness you're supposed to carry off in the process is one of the big problems I have with most interviews.  Never mind can you do the job or not and do you seem like a guy they'd like to work with.

As far as Capers, he had prior NFL head coaching experience, which at the time was a preference of McNair's.  Now maybe not so much.

212

Talk Zone / Re: The Count on 610 this morning

« on: January 04, 2006, 12:13:52 pm »

Quote:
another quote I heard from Purpura, from a clip on 740, was that Wilson's agent called the Astros and told Purpura he was very interested in playing for them.  The odd looking contract, getting $2 million less than was is being reported for Burnitz from Pittsburgh, suggests players are willing to more than meet the Astros half way.  Of course, it could just mean that Purpura is Preston Wilson's agent Bob Bry's sweaty little hand puppet.

(For the record, Bry also called Boston The Link

And that apparently Burnitz isn't all about winning.

213

Talk Zone / Re: What the Orioles turned down

« on: January 04, 2006, 11:39:17 am »

Quote:
"Two Orioles club sources said Tuesday that Baltimore won't accept Boston's offer of outfielder Manny Ramirez, pitcher Matt Clement and cash for disgruntled shortstop Miguel Tejada..."

Yeah, apparently they want them to throw in Johnny Damon as well.

214

Talk Zone / Re: Astros reach tentative agreement with Wilson

« on: January 04, 2006, 11:36:22 am »

Our first American Negro in years.  I'm all giddy.

215

Talk Zone / The Count on 610 this morning

« on: January 04, 2006, 11:31:14 am »

On Wilson signing: We had to get another bat, everybody knew that.  Not sure what it means for Taveras and Lane at this point.

On Bagwell: Don't know what to make of his progress thus far.  He will be evaluated next week by Dr. Andrews at his throwing lab.  He's not behind schedule with his rehab, since the understanding was that he would not start to try any throwing drills until after the first of the year.  He's doing some limited throwing with the weighted ball, but that's about it.  We need to see what Andrews says and how he progresses with more extensive throwing.  At this point, we can't tell whether his progress is good or bad.

On Tejada: We've talked with the Orioles quite a bit.  They seem to want three major league-ready players in return.  His contract is reasonable as far as the going rate is concerned, but he could demand a trade after one year.  We don't want to be giving up top players and not have anything to show for it if we can't keep him beyond one season, so there's more involved than just trading for him.  We had to give Moises Alou an extension to avoid that when we traded for him. (Me: sounds like they really, really want Tejada)

On Clemens: We have a great relationship with the Hendricks brothers, and we've talked a little bit with them.  Incidentally, I was walking through the clubhouse the other day and noticed all of Roger's stuff was still in his locker!  I'm not sure what to make of that, but I thought that was interesting.

On the game tonight: Longhorns all the way.  (Me: Guess he's trading both Ensberg and Lane to get another bat for Roger)

216

Talk Zone / Re: Rose Bowl Anticipation

« on: January 04, 2006, 11:07:20 am »

FWIW, Mark Berman reported last night that he is their leading candidate to replace Capers.

217

Talk Zone / Re: Rose Bowl Anticipation

« on: January 03, 2006, 06:39:51 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

As long as we're all talking football, interesting that Bob McNair plans to interview both Gary Kubiak and Jerry Gray for the vacant head coaching job.  Being an SC (South Carolina, that is) grad, he's a rather ecumenical sort for these here parts.

What I find interesting, and not in a good way, is that Kubiak's name has been coming up for head coaching jobs for years now.  Yet he never seems to get one.

According to John McClain's sources, he's a bad interview.  He's discussed it personally with Kubiak, telling him he should hire a professional interview coach or something.  But Kubiak doesn't seem to care.  He said if it's all because he's not impressive enough in the interview process, fine.  He'll just stay where he is; Shanahan seems to be grooming him as his successor.  He doesn't seem interested in going out of his way to change.

But apparently McNair's ready to give him another chance, even though he already interviewed him for the same job four years ago.

I've lost some respect for McNair with his rather meritless decision to keep Casserly (I think he just doesn't want the hassle of finding a new GM and starting over with building relationships, etc.), so I have no idea whether he'll pick the best man for the job this time.  Whoever that may be.

218

Talk Zone / Re: Rose Bowl Anticipation

« on: January 03, 2006, 06:23:55 pm »

The only "Texan" I'm interested in is Reggie Bush.  I don't really care where the next head coach went to college, I just thought it was kind of ironic that the first two prospective interviewees were ATM and UT alums, respectively.

219

Talk Zone / Re: Astros reach tentative agreement with Wilson

« on: January 03, 2006, 04:26:22 pm »

Quote:
The Link

See, Roger, they got themselves a bat, just like you hoped.  Impressed?  Ready to come back now?

220

Talk Zone / Re: Rose Bowl Anticipation

« on: January 03, 2006, 04:22:48 pm »

Whatever you do, just don't make my favorite future Texan go all Willis McGahee on his knees.  Other than that I don't care too much about the game.

As long as we're all talking football, interesting that Bob McNair plans to interview both Gary Kubiak and Jerry Gray for the vacant head coaching job.  Being an SC (South Carolina, that is) grad, he's a rather ecumenical sort for these here parts.

221

Talk Zone / Re: going rate for catchers

« on: December 21, 2005, 05:26:46 pm »

The world's getting insaner and insaner by the minute.  Ausmus must have really wanted to come back.  He's better than both of those guys.  Both meaning Pier.... and La Rue.

222

Talk Zone / Re: Ash off the Air

« on: December 21, 2005, 04:57:59 pm »

Quote:
Would telling him before the auditions have really been any different?

Probably not, unless releasing him early would have given him time to catch on with another club.  Ok, that's for players.  In the NFL.  And NBA.

Bottom line is Ashby was bad, just like Giff Nielsen.  I'm just saying that I would never have given him an interview or audition for the PBP job in the first place.  Even for Milo's sake.

223

Talk Zone / Re: Next year's offense

« on: December 21, 2005, 01:29:20 pm »

I presume nothing from Garner's statements other than that he's not going to say anything negative about the current makeup of the roster.  That's what managers are supposed to do.

224

Talk Zone / Re: Ash off the Air

« on: December 21, 2005, 12:59:56 pm »

Not that they owed him a courtesy interview/audition.  But why say he's a candidate when they know they're going in a different direction?

225

Talk Zone / Re: Damon to the Yankees

« on: December 21, 2005, 12:58:29 pm »

As much as he's improved as a leadoff hitter in recent years, $13 million a year is still way too much for a weak-armed CF.  Only the Yankees would consider him a bargain.  Then again, here's their "Monopoly" lineup with a rough estimate of 2006 salaries:

Damon - 13 million
Jeter - 19 million
A-Rod - 23 million
Sheffield - 11 million
Giambi - 13 million
Matsui - 13 million
Posada - 11 million
Cano - 320,000

How ridiculous is that?  I haven't even completed their *starting* lineup - to say nothing of the rest of the roster, including the pitching staff - and I've already run out of money for every other team's entire payroll.

226

Talk Zone / Re: Ash off the Air

« on: December 21, 2005, 12:26:59 pm »

Quote:
He also used the word destroyed.

He says they told him it was because he tried for the pbp job and didn't get it and they thought it might be a bad situation for him to work with the person who did.

I find this a little odd.  Did they have to hear him audition before they decided that he wasn't their choice?  He's been "auditioning" for years.  Why didn't they just let him go?

Some courtesy they showed him.

227

Talk Zone / Re: Anyone have an inside scoop on this?

« on: December 20, 2005, 06:55:51 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
Personally, I don't think Bagwell's expected contribution weighs heavily in any trade talks right now.  It's probably more about their willingness to give up Lidge or, who knows, maybe Patton, in the "right" deal.

I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about; it's just a vibe.  Jim or Andy could possibly enlighten us further if they chose.

Where do they play a "bat" player if Bagwell plays?  I'm not sure I follow your logic here but if Bagwell plays, who gets benched so they start a player acquired in a trade?  Or are you suggesting it will be a trade for pitching?

Ok, here's the logic:

Regardless of the outcome of his rehab efforts, the Astros will not expect him to produce beyond 2004 level.  If this is the case, there are basically two scenarios to consider:

1. Bagwell is ready to re-assume his starting role at first and provide 25-30 HR and 60-80 RBIs, along with 80 or so walks.

2. Bagwell is not up to 2004 standards, and Berkman, Lamb and others must take turns playing the position for a significant portion of the schedule.

Either way, they would still be seeking more offense.  They've said it over and over, long before they could get any read on Bagwell's progress.  Assuming they're gravely concerned that his rehab isn't going well, what about their offseason approach has changed in response to that concern?  Nothing that I've seen or heard.  Thus my contention that Bagwell's progress is not a major factor in formulating their strategy.

228

Talk Zone / Re: Anyone have an inside scoop on this?

« on: December 20, 2005, 01:16:33 pm »

Personally, I don't think Bagwell's expected contribution weighs heavily in any trade talks right now.  It's probably more about their willingness to give up Lidge or, who knows, maybe Patton, in the "right" deal.

I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about; it's just a vibe.  Jim or Andy could possibly enlighten us further if they chose.

229

Talk Zone / Re: Taveras vs. Ondarsen

« on: December 20, 2005, 12:58:43 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's *TAVERAS*

Why is this so hard for some of you knuckleheads to get right?

Perhaps it's intentional because they aspire to be like their favorite sportscasters?

Or perhaps it was just a mistake perdicated on laziness.  I actually had it spelled the other way then changed it.  I'm apologize for my laziness.  I should've just looked it up, but didn't.

Sad thing is, guys like Josh Lewin and Steve Lyons who should know better might be able to spell it but can't pronounce it.  That's worse in my book.  How long does it take to walk around the clubhouse and ask guys for proper pronunciation?  If you're not sure, just ask.  Especially if you're being paid for *talking* intelligently about the players?  Inexcusable.

Of course, one of the all-time worst with names is the great Vin Scully.  We all have our faults.

230

Talk Zone / Re: Rondell White

« on: December 20, 2005, 12:50:46 pm »

Quote:


No. A GM's job is to put the best team he can assemble in the hands of the manager.  Where does it say you have to shuffle players like a coked up baccarat dealer to achieve that? And you're completely wrong about Hunsicker.

I think Arky's earlier response describes succinctly what a GM is supposed to do:

"I thought he signed Oswalt to a two-year deal and Berkman to a six-year deal last offseason. And cleared the way for Taveras and Lane to play full seasons, with at least modest success. And stuck with Ensberg when he batted .246 with two home runs in April, rather than reverting to the platoon that existed in previous seasons. There was no good in any of those decisions?"

Raise your hand if you were among those wanting to give Ensberg more time when May rolled around.  Why must a "real" GM always have to look outside the organization for improvement?

231

Talk Zone / Re: Taveras vs. Ondarsen

« on: December 20, 2005, 12:35:32 pm »

Quote:
It's *TAVERAS*

Why is this so hard for some of you knuckleheads to get right?

Perhaps it's intentional because they aspire to be like their favorite sportscasters?

232

Talk Zone / Re: How is this guy employed as a journalist?

« on: December 20, 2005, 12:04:04 pm »

Dayn Perry wears a Charlie Pallilo watch.

233

Talk Zone / Re: Rondell White

« on: December 19, 2005, 04:56:23 pm »

Quote:


I wonder if they could sign White, put him at starting pitcher, move Ensberg to left field, and see if Bagwell's shoulder comes back enough to move him to third.

Yes, third base, his holy grail.  Then maybe, just maybe, he could finally live up to his potential.

234

Talk Zone / Re: Rondell White

« on: December 19, 2005, 04:06:44 pm »

Quote:
Hunsicker was notoriously adverse to playing young players.  An outfield of Lane, Taveras, and Burke (etc) would have been very unlikely with Hunsicker.

His patience in the system guys was perhaps his gutsiest "move," especially with the way Ensberg and Lane started out.  No way would I have had the same willingness to wait it out.  He had to know he risked looking like a yes-man/doofus to the media/fans (whether or not he really cared is a different matter) if 15-30 had turned into 45-90 like so many expected or feared.  Presumably, all he had done before the great turnaround was "sit on his hands" while Kent, Beltran, and everyone else went elsewhere.

Then again, all his detractors haven't had the same filial ties to so many of these players for their entire professional careers the way the Count has.

And isn't that the point?  He knows these players; he knows what he's doing.  It wasn't luck, and he didn't simply inherit Gerry's kids.

235

Talk Zone / Re: Fuhget about Stark, what did the Count say?

« on: December 16, 2005, 01:12:27 pm »

Quote:
I'm reading that Garciaparra's reoccuring injuries are scaring teams off from him at short. I've seen no mention of a team that wants him to play there.

Once again, he may have been filling up air time with gobbledygook, but Purpura said on the talk show the other night that he was able to play short, third or outfield.  It may be that they're surely targeting him for left, but the interview sound bite made it sound like he could see him at least filling in at any of those positions.

236

Talk Zone / Re: Fuhget about Stark, what did the Count say?

« on: December 15, 2005, 01:19:09 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but he was on 610's Night Shift last night.  Purpura, that is.  He said he could play short or third for the Astros, and that *Nomar* himself expressed interest in playing left field because he felt like he had the athleticism to excel in the outfield.

Did he mention anything about his health? That seems to be the main concern with Nomar at this time, but I haven't heard anything about what we can expect health-wise in 2006. I'm sure he'll go through a physical before signing a contract, but is there any word at this time?

I just heard the brief comment on replay; I haven't heard the entire interview.  It might be posted in their vault online or something.

237

Talk Zone / Fuhget about Stark, what did the Count say?

« on: December 15, 2005, 12:45:02 pm »

Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but he was on 610's Night Shift last night.  Purpura, that is.  He said he could play short or third for the Astros, and that *Nomar* himself expressed interest in playing left field because he felt like he had the athleticism to excel in the outfield.

238

Talk Zone / Re: am I crazy?

« on: December 14, 2005, 03:17:55 pm »

1)Yes, you're crazy.

2)Risk management, my dear boy. Risk management.

3)Ausmus love = Roger love.  Besides, I thought he was clutch down the stretch offensively, and sabermetrics can never calculate his value to Garner as the extra coach on the field, the stabilizing force for the pitching staff.  They probably want him in the organization post-retirement.

239

Talk Zone / Re: and/or?

« on: December 14, 2005, 03:08:50 pm »

I guess I would also interpret that as referring to Roger's possibly either retiring or signing with another club *prior* to May 1.

I heard a snippet from a Rosenthal interview played back on 610 a couple of nights ago.  He sounded like he expected Clemens to come back to the Astros, and contended that the fact that he never gave Drayton a figure to work with made him think he just wanted to stay in the headlines a little longer.

240

Talk Zone / Re: Roger to start for Astros on June 2 vs. Reds

« on: December 09, 2005, 05:56:48 pm »

Quote:
Let's see:

Complete Turn Around in opinion: Check

What part of this:

"McLane held out the possibility that Clemens will return to the Astros when rules allow in May. I doubt it. I'm convinced once the Yankees start romancing him over the next few days, he'll either sign or retire."
.
.
.
"Do I think he made the right call? No.""

contradicts this:

"Clemens isn't going to pitch for the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers or Mets. He's going to pitch for the Astros, or he's not going to pitch. And he's going to pitch for the Astros.
.
.
.
Because the Astros didn't offer salary arbitration, they can't re-sign him until May 1.

Perfect. The idea of a shortened season may appeal to Clemens. He was baseball's best pitcher for the first five months of last season."

The he'll-be-pitching-for-the-Yankees-no-he-won't part, or the not-offering-arbitration-was-a-good/bad-decision part?

The only writer who offers a counterpoint to his own point and pretends to have made the other prediction later when it turns out that one of them is wrong.  He must have been his own debate team in college.  The only feat remaning for him to accomplish is to contradict himself within the same paragraph.

Or has he done it already?

241

Talk Zone / Re: Lopez...

« on: December 09, 2005, 05:27:45 pm »

Abreu makes a lot more sense than Ramirez, for both teams.  Abreu isn't a knucklehead, for one, and can actually do other things besides hit.  If Lidge is the bait, then that makes sense too.  Who cares if they just signed Flash Gordon and paid him a lot of money?  That seems to be the going rate this offseason for a *good* not great reliever.  I don't think they're sold on him as their closer.

I hope Lidge is not really on the block, though.

242

Talk Zone / Re: No sympathy for the devil

« on: December 09, 2005, 12:54:52 pm »

Quote:
A few things:

I'd liken him more to BTK. I can live with Dahmer analogy. BTK seemed more brand oriented.

Also, I think some GMs give in to him if only to get away from the mountain of paper, 3 ring binders, and stats he throws at them in a hotel room. I know I would.

Also I think (hope) this guys act has worn thin. His draft picks are starting to get passed over or least drop with much more frequency and the Red Sox just recently called his bluff on a 5 yr 70mil mystery offer for Damon.  

Hopefully his black bag, strong arm, circus geek, shake down , mafia bust out tactics are catching up with him.  

As long as there are immature 22-, 27-, 35- or 40-year old immature boys capable of making terribly poor character judgment in their enlisting of representation, there will be Borases around to hire.  Especially with a proliferation of baby GMs now on the other side of the table to oblige him.  Given that, I think his kind is here to stay.

243

Talk Zone / Re: Team Clemens

« on: December 09, 2005, 12:29:16 pm »

I think Team Clemens has miscalculated the reaction by both Astros brass and fans to their PR ploy.  First, they didn't think Drayton/Purpura would ever refuse arbitration.  Second, if he really cares about his image he's boxed himself in now: either he retires or he comes back to the Astros in May.  He'll have overspent on any hometown hero capital he's accumulated the past two seasons if he goes to NY, Boston or Arlington.  He won't be able to spin it as Drayton's bottom-dollar outlook if he contradicts all his previous reassurances about really wanting to be close to his family.

Now, the Count has to go out there and actually do something "exciting" to show that he intends to improve the ballclub, with or without Rocket.  Then Roger, it's your move.

244

Talk Zone / Re: Taveras....

« on: December 06, 2005, 02:12:36 pm »

Ground balls - hard ones, soft ones, bunted ones - will be this guy's meal ticket.  Fly balls will lead to a quick demise similar to that of Gerald Young.

245

Talk Zone / Re: Farnsworth to the Yankees for 3 years and $17 mil.

« on: December 01, 2005, 07:17:12 pm »

Didn't they do basically the same thing a few years ago with Wohlers?  Maybe not as much money, but way overspent on him too.

Farnsworth, to be fair, was maybe more "lights out" than Lidge was down the stretch...until Game 4.  Of course, Brad has his own Game 4 memories to match.  Still, the Yankees throw around Monopoly money, not real dollars.

246

Talk Zone / Re: Astros interested in Dotel?

« on: December 01, 2005, 07:09:33 pm »

If he can return physically to past form, I think he's about as good a setup man as there is, assuming he can accept that role emotionally/mentally again.

Of course, someone out there will probably be interested in paying him a lot more as a closer.

247

Talk Zone / Astros interested in Dotel?

« on: December 01, 2005, 07:01:27 pm »

According to Ducky, they have inquired:

 link

248

Talk Zone / Re: Clemens on the Dan Patrick Show???

« on: November 18, 2005, 02:29:50 pm »

Quote:
says the same every year to build drama. he's pitching in the March tournament. if he feels good, why wouldn't he pitch? he just wants to be asked and begged. ego.

So let's say, for argument's sake only, because I don't think this will ever play out, that Drayton tells the Count to go out and get some more pitching and offense, Clemens be damned.  If there's still budget left to field the team that Roger supposedly wants, then they can offer that to him.  What does the Rocket think will be left to spend on him anyway?

They'll have the bat, or bats, he's calling for, but he won't get to be a part of it, since they would no longer be able to afford him.  So by asking them not to wait on him, if he's truly sincere, he's telling them in effect that, in order to get all these assets including him for '06, they need to raise their payroll to over $100 million.  There is no way he could sanely recommend to the Astros not to wait on him and at the same time maintain a fiscally responsible organization.

Regardless, Purpura needs to do just that: leave Roger out of the equation, and if he wants to come back, he'll have to beg his way on.  Drayton and Purpura can never win this through the media, they'll look bad whatever they do on this.  So they simply have to do what's right for the team.

The question is, will they?

249

Talk Zone / Re: Clemens on the Dan Patrick Show???

« on: November 18, 2005, 02:14:02 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So, we have at least one who believes the ability to throw is not a requirement for an NL player.

Well, it's not.

See Piazza, Mike.

Beautiful

250

Talk Zone / Re: Ryan Howard wins NL ROY

« on: November 14, 2005, 07:56:17 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

By the way, I'm new here and from reading some posts it appears to me that this is a pretty agressive place. If you don't do your homework and look up stats and read treatises on baseball history and strategy before you post, someone will call you out and rip you a new one. So, before you guys take me to task ... the paragraph above is just my opinion and the stats I quoted are estimates, I have not douuble checked them. If I got something wrong, I apologize.

Everyone has opinions.  But if you're going to throw yours out for public consumption, expect them to be scrutinized.  As long as you're cool with that, all will be fine.

But even if HH agrees with you, you won't know it.  He often argues with himself.  So expect to be scrutinized regardless.  Agreed, HH?  It's the love of the polemic almost more than the game itself we all share.  

Now, disagree with that.

251

Talk Zone / Re: Kenjie Jojima

« on: November 14, 2005, 07:44:07 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Let me channel HD for a moment:

Drayton McNeck will never allow a player of Japanese ancestry to play in Houston.

Didn't Bruce Chen play for a short time in Houston two years ago?  He sucked, we got rid of him. Yeah I know, Chen was not Japanese.

Chen is Panamanian. The Astros have had a few other Panamanians play for them. What's your point?

My point was that the implication that "McNeck" is a cross burning good ol'boy that wouldn't dare allow an asian on his team is bullshit.

'Course if he were black, Asian, and non-Southern Baptist all rolled into one, then you'd have the makings of a red flag.  Unless Tiger Woods were the guy.

252

Talk Zone / Re: Using Pecota predictions to predict OPS

« on: November 14, 2005, 07:37:01 pm »

Quote:
(branching out later to ESPN.com and now the Gray Lady).

So, you mean that esteemed socialist rag?

253

Talk Zone / Re: Question about Game 3 9th inning

« on: October 29, 2005, 06:13:29 pm »

I actually thought, during the 18-inning game with ATL, we would lose the game after failing in the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th.  They kept failing to do anything with opportunities.  

The White Sox failed repeatedly as well to put the Astros away.  In fact, they probably had as many failures as the Astros.  They just happened to have 4 more successes.

Garner had pinch hit for Willy repeatedly over the past few months.  He has never hesitated to do so when he felt the situation warranted.

254

Talk Zone / Re: Let's talk '06...will there be $$ to bring everyone back

« on: October 29, 2005, 05:39:25 pm »

And I don't how his reverse K's stack up to the other whiff-merchants in baseball over the last two decades, but it seems that an inordinate amount of Dunn's strikeouts were of the called variety.  Strikeouts are bad, period.  But what does it say, if anything, that a large percentage of his are not from wild swings and misses, but rather from taken pitches?  Perhaps it's easier to improve if so many are due to an overly-selective eye?  Or perhaps so many strikeouts looking is due to being fooled or caught napping way too often?

Just curious.

255

Talk Zone / Re: Friday, post-World Series, fandom thread.

« on: October 28, 2005, 08:47:59 pm »

It was built into the family structure from birth.  I picked Joe Morgan as my Astros Buddy.  After they traded him, I fell in love with SuperBaby, Cesar Cedeno.  A great role model he was not.  But I also followed Fred Gladding, Norm Miller, Sonny Jackson, Jesus Alou, Don Wilson, Larry Dierker.  Pretty much everyone from the late 60s to today.  I was/am so nuts about the Astros I wanted to follow them for a living.  

[Digression] A few years after I graduated from college I had to get the thought that I wanted to be a sportscaster out of my system, so I landed a 6-month stint as an intern for KLOL with the Sports Mouth, Barry Warner, in 1990.  It didn't take me long to realize I didn't want to starve for the next 5 years while asking losing pitchers why they threw that hanging slider.

That was not a banner year, as you may recall.  Gerald Young was sent back to the minors after he had decided he needed to be hitting the ball in the air.  Some guy named Ortiz was a 30-year old call-up who had a flash of success as an outfielder.  My main memories, though, were of the trips to the locker room.  Ken Caminiti and Mark Portugal were about the most cordial, approachable guys there were.  I also remember the shock of seeing Dave Smith and Larry Andersen pulling on heaters after a game.  Then came the Bagwell trade, but I was long gone from radio by then. [Digression over]

I'm happy to say I have infected my 16-year old son in recent years with this same disease.  Yes, I am afraid he has drunk deep from the chalice of rich, refreshing orange whoopass.  But he'll never know how much I envy the fact that he got to see our team reach the World Series -- THE WORLD SERIES -- twenty-eight years sooner in his fan life than I did.  These kids today -- you kids out there reading this -- you can never know the depths of suffering, anguish, despair to which many of us have sunk lo these many years, nor the unbridled joy, rapture, release we experienced when that Yadier Molina fly ball landed securely in Jason Lane's glove.  I had to hesitate just a second - did he catch it? - before I hurled myself off my son's bed and sped down the stairs in a spontaneous victory lap.  I woke my other son up, who couldn't figure out what I was doing making noise so late at night.

I called my dad, my 84-year old fellow-suffering Astro fan/addict of a dad, and asked him if he ever thought he'd see this day come.  He said no.  I said, neither did I.  My older brother, also unswervingly devoted to this team for the past four decades, called me a little later that night.  Before I could say anything, he blurts out "I just wanted to tell you I love you."  We laughed.  What a night.

But it did happen, didn't it?  It wasn't all a dream?  Clearly, many of us in here are lifers and there's no cure.

[fly, sacrifice]

256

Talk Zone / Re: Let's talk '06...will there be $$ to bring everyone back

« on: October 28, 2005, 07:04:43 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Strikeouts are clearly bad. But if he can mash and get on base, why focus on the fact that many of his outs come via the K?

I'm not passing judgment on Dunn's value one way or the other, but the answer to your question is in the baseball dictionary under fly, sacrifice. Some outs are definitely better than others, and it's no coincidence that he went about 2 trillion at bats between sac flies, spanning this season and last. Again, I'm not crapping on him as an option, just sayin'...

I wonder about the lack of sac flies - is it partially because if Dunn hits it in the air to the OF, nobody's catching it?

I shouldn?t have made the point about K?s in a vacuum. I?d restate myself by saying that, like Jackson, Dunn?s power (not to mention his walks) more than make up for his terrible K-habit.  

And I can?t for the life of me think of a better option than Dunn. It just seems to me that if we pass on Dunn simply because he K?s too much as opposed to getting his outs via ground-out or fly balls then we are being awfully picky.

Well, fortunately, prior to the trading deadline Arky "crunched" the numbers on Dunn's propensity for striking out and not hitting SFs, and the relative impact it has on his overall production.  So pour yourself a pot of double shot espresso and pore over the facts.  You can decide for yourself.  Personally, I think the numbers bear him out as a great addition to this club:

The Link

257

Talk Zone / Re: Morgan Ensberg

« on: October 26, 2005, 08:10:18 pm »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

But make no mistake, Ensberg isn't doing his job.  It's not just about getting on base, he is suppose to clean the bases.  Runners on 3rd with one or less out, get the runner home.

Look no further than game 1 with the tying run at third.  The cleanup hitter is up.  There must be a fly ball.  Period.  Instead. . .first of three straight losses.

Are you refering to the shot down the line that Crede made a play on?

Yeah, if he were doing his job his shots down the line would miss those gloves.  And he'd drive in every single run from third every single time.  And he'd never look bad for a pitch, an at-bat or a game.

Bottom line: Lance Berkman is the only person in the entire lineup whose driving in runs with any consistency.  And he's had his bad moments.  Really bad moments.  Hey, Mo isn't have a Crede-like postseason, but who else is?  Haven't we learned anything from Purpura and the way he stuck with these guys, and far longer than I would have, I might add?  Leave him in there right where he is and have a little faith.

258

Talk Zone / Re: Ausmus tonight

« on: October 26, 2005, 01:58:29 pm »

Here's what I expect from him tonight: Two singles to right and a Crawford Box special.  And I expect Chavez to continue to sit.  And sit.

What a great double play he started last night.  Like the lime green hatchback, a "thing of beauty."

259

Talk Zone / Re: Water is wet

« on: October 26, 2005, 01:53:52 pm »

Face it.  The Astros, to a man, are a bunch of turncoats.  The manager, coaches and players all blame themselves, when instead they should be blaming themselves.

The nerve.

260

Talk Zone / Re: Carl Everett

« on: October 26, 2005, 01:42:37 pm »

Crede clearly said "F'ing bitch!"  He lost his cool and should know better with the count at 2 strikes and Roy having walked four already, and Roy's reputation for coming inside on Mother Teresa if need be.  He needed to show more professionalism.  On the other hand, that hurts like crap and the sheer suddenness of that shooting pain can set anyone ('cept maybe Bags) off temporarily.  I would think part of his expletive was directed at Roy, and part of it was at the pain and the unexpectedness of the HBP in that situation.  Don't know what Crede's comments to the media, or to Berkman at first immediately after, were, but I would hope he would look back and realize that his emotions took over there, and he should have ducked his head (it's the stare alone that changes the dynamics there), dropped his bat and headed to first without incident.  Don't know whether it's warranted, but I'm going to give him a little benefit of the doubt -- not knowing hardly anything about him -- and assume that Crede is no Michael Barrett.

And I love Roy's reaction regardless.  Look away, spit and take the throw back from Ausmus.

261

Talk Zone / Re: Morgan Ensberg

« on: October 26, 2005, 01:25:26 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
What about the blast he hit fair (even if Fox didn't quite capture it all) two days before that?  And what about the Game 6 insurance RBI in St. Louis with the stroke up the middle?  Small sample size.  He was lost last night.  Give Garland and El Duque credit.  One pitched a complete game recently, and the other essentially finished off the Red Sox when they had the bases loaded and nobody out.

In the playoffs he is batting .226 and slugging .340.  Of the starting position players, only Everett has worse numbers.  In the World Series Mo's numbers don't look anywhere near as fat.

We can play this sample size game all day long:

After his RBI single last night, he definitely did not have good at-bats.  Granted.  But going into Game 3, his last 5 games looked like this:

BA .263
RBI 3
HR 1
K 4

Not outstanding, but not woeful either.  He probably had numerous 5-game stretches like this throughout the year, reasonable but not great production that we would expect from him in a given week.  Maybe he's run into some tougher than average pitching, maybe he's back to thinking a little too much.  But lost?

And at what point did he begin to be lost?  The day after he had the 5 RBIs in Game 1 in Atlanta?  Did Smoltz lose him?  Perhaps he's "choking" like Biggio and Bagwell did all those previous years?  Ok, that was sarcasm, and not directed at you.  I'm just finding it hard that you're piling on Mo like this.  The vaunted pitching, starting and bullpen, more than anything else has been the ultimate letdown this series.  That's almost indisputable.

Hey, I'm normally no Ensberg apologist, what with all the backward K's we have to endure.  But if Lidge, Wheeler, Qualls and Oswalt would have done what we reasonably expect of them in a given outing, Astros are up in this series 2-1.  Maybe the Chi-Sox are just as responsible for those outcomes as well.

262

Talk Zone / Re: Garner to Burke?

« on: October 26, 2005, 12:42:30 pm »

I think I saw him mouth "Ok, I want you to come close to getting picked off, then, when you get to second somehow, I want you to steal third.  Got it, kid?"

After he did that, I thought the game was over.  And how perfectly easy it would have been for a high schooler to squeeze him home on those floaters El Duque threw at the end of the Taveras at-bat right across the plate?  But who knew his control was going to return so suddenly after throwing the ball all over the place that inning?  A popup double play or a complete miss was more than a remote possibility up until then.  But I still would have liked to attempt the squeeze, just as I would have liked to see Burke squeeze Taveras home in Game 1.  But I'm a squeeze kind of guy.

263

Talk Zone / Re: Get Back To Chicago

« on: October 26, 2005, 12:30:31 pm »

Yes, all hands on deck for tonight.  Roy, Pettitte, Roger even.  They have to win 4 one game series, and they have to do whatever it takes each time.  Worry about who's gonna pitch tomorrow after you win tonight.  If you're out of pitching because you used it all up to win tonight, and that ends up being the death knell in Game 5, so be it.

264

Talk Zone / Re: Morgan Ensberg

« on: October 26, 2005, 12:23:53 pm »

Quote:

Quote:
Did you miss the 700' homerun he hit just foul, followed by a solid single for an RBI?  Sox pitchers are making adjustments from game to game, and at-bat to at-bat on certain hitters.

I thought the same thing about Lane before last night, that he was lost.  And Taveras looked lost last night after looking like a new man the first two.

Small sample size.  Nothing good or bad these guys do surprises me anymore.  I won't be surprised if they win in the bottom of the 9th tonight in fact.  And watch it be AE, despite his being 0 for 107 with RISP in the playoffs (thanks, Joe, for reminding us). This team truly has a short memory.  Correction: no memory.

What a postseason!

Yes, that was a mighty blast...foul.  But the RBI was a grounder in the hole which is only a couple of inches from being a rally-killing double-play.  It would be a good piece of hitting if it wasn't for the fact that Morgan is grounding everything to the left side, which makes the RBI just luck.

He's trying to pull everything, hence the grounders.  He's given up going to opposite field completely, and later on last night he gave up swinging at strikes.

Totally.  Lost.

What about the blast he hit fair (even if Fox didn't quite capture it all) two days before that?  And what about the Game 6 insurance RBI in St. Louis with the stroke up the middle?  Small sample size.  He was lost last night.  Give Garland and El Duque credit.  One pitched a complete game recently, and the other essentially finished off the Red Sox when they had the bases loaded and nobody out.

265

Talk Zone / Re: No matter the outcome tonight

« on: October 26, 2005, 12:15:16 pm »

Agreed on the toughness...for both these teams.  They deserve credit in the end for executing slightly better in each game.  But just like the Astros, they also offered Games 2 & 3 back to their opponent on several occasions.

It's silly to look at this series for its missed opportunities (not that you are) when both teams got here by capitalizing throughout the regular season and postseason in order to reach the finals.  There have been bad umpiring calls go against both teams, bad and good breaks for both, and bullpen meltdowns and clutch hitting and pitching on both.

Roy looked in control through four, especially having been spotted 4, then didn't.  The Sox looked like they would take Game 3 quietly, then Lane comes through, but the ball doesn't roll into the corner to allow Bruntlett to score.  Then a ton of walks and baserunners for the Stros, but they can't score once.  Then Blum, then a couple of rollers down the third base line, then Astacio can't find the plate.  Then Uribe flubs a sure game ender off of Ausmus' bat.  Then Everett has the chance to be the latest hero.  But isn't.  Oh, and 100 other "pivotal" moments that I failed to mention.

There were perhaps two or three dozen chances on both sides for players to step up, and some on both sides did.  And there were just as many chances for players to fail, and some on both sides did.

What a series.  I still can't believe the Astros are in the World Series.

266

Talk Zone / Re: Morgan Ensberg

« on: October 26, 2005, 11:54:19 am »

Did you miss the 700' homerun he hit just foul, followed by a solid single for an RBI?  Sox pitchers are making adjustments from game to game, and at-bat to at-bat on certain hitters.

I thought the same thing about Lane before last night, that he was lost.  And Taveras looked lost last night after looking like a new man the first two.

Small sample size.  Nothing good or bad these guys do surprises me anymore.  I won't be surprised if they win in the bottom of the 9th tonight in fact.  And watch it be AE, despite his being 0 for 107 with RISP in the playoffs (thanks, Joe, for reminding us). This team truly has a short memory.  Correction: no memory.

What a postseason!

267

Talk Zone / Re: Burke over Biggio tonight?

« on: October 13, 2005, 07:33:17 pm »

Quote:
lots of teams want Conrad, i hear.

how on earth can anyone criticise Berkman's DP AB? he was right on a hanging slider and hit the shit out of it. boggles my mind.

It was a made-to-order grand slam pitch.  He choked.  Should have swung up more or something.  He's been in a terrible slump since the 8th inning Sunday.  He was able only to double in the 10th after that, then double last night before predictably grounding into the DP.  This lack of production is maddening.  Can we trade him for Ortiz in the winter?  Ortiz is black, but he's a Hispanic black, so that should work for the Astros.

Thoughts?

268

Talk Zone / Re: Your Mouth Tastes Better Than McLelland's

« on: October 13, 2005, 07:19:18 pm »

Oh, and did you know Eckstein was scrappy, and a gamer to boot?!  I'm starting to think maybe these guys' insight will finally make Scooter's input somewhat superfluous.  I don't know, but personally I'm starting to lean that way.

269

Talk Zone / Re: StL Dispatch Forum

« on: October 13, 2005, 07:05:59 pm »

Or Bags looked at someone afterward who had done it and said...Well, he probably didn't say anything.  The look did it.

270

Talk Zone / Re: Why not Bagwell?

« on: October 13, 2005, 11:32:28 am »

Exactly.  Saving Bags to bat for Taveras, prolly, to drive in a run from 2nd or 3rd to tie or take the lead.  He's a tested, veteran singles hitter right now.

271

Talk Zone / 129 Things to Ponder

« on: October 13, 2005, 11:24:07 am »

Here are some of the facts:

1. The Cards had the best record in baseball over 162 games.
2. The Astros had the best record in baseball over the last 117 games, which comprises the final 70% of the season.
3. The Cards had the lowest bullpen ERA over the entire year but are not the same group right now.
4. The Astros' top 3 starters had the lowest combined ERA in the majors and will potentially pitch in all but one game.
5. The Cards beat the Astros 11 out of 16 over the season.
6. The Astros won 3 out of the last 5, including the final two at Busch.
7. The Astros don't seem to have an answer for Sanders.
8. The Cards don't seem to have an answer for Lidge.
9. The Cards have better situational hitting.
10.The Astros steal more by far but are not necessarily better baserunners.
11.Nunez made a nice play last night; he's no Rolen.
12.Eckstein is serviceable defensively; he's no Everett.
13.Pujols is very solid defensively.
.
.
.
127.Tit
128.Tat
129.Game 2, not Game 7, is tonight.

272

Talk Zone / Re: NLCS Umpiring Crew

« on: October 11, 2005, 01:03:13 pm »

McClelland is routinely voted by the players as the best overall umpire.  I don't see Bucknor, Hernandez, or Froemming listed.  Be thankful.

273

Talk Zone / Re: I was there. (My email to friends)

« on: October 11, 2005, 11:50:30 am »

Yeah, me too.  I was there.  Aisle 128, Row 7, Seat 11.  Sat right behind Larry and Judy.  Dierker that is.  They left after the 3rd inning.  Probably went to the press box for a better view or something.  From the first inning, the Wrangler was gently asking a lady sitting two seats to his left to not lean so far forward.  I guess he and his wife didn't like their view, what with all the hundreds of fans between us and the dugout standing up every five seconds, requiring everyone else to do the same.

So yeah, I was there.  Took almost as long as my recent Rita evacuation experience to get back home.  Nine and a half hours from the time we left the house till we got back at 7:30 Sunday night.

Worth. It.

274

Talk Zone / Re: possible squeeze?

« on: October 11, 2005, 11:38:53 am »

Cox has done it before.  Glavine squeezed against the Stros with the bases loaded years ago here.

It could have been a disaster, but it also could have worked.  I'm just glad it was McCann and not Furcal.  But he probably reasoned that McCann would be more likely to drive the ball somewhere than lay down a perfect bunt and avoid a double play or a force at home.

275

Talk Zone / Re: How the other half lives...

« on: October 10, 2005, 06:56:06 pm »

This whole "bandbox dimensions" argument is such a non-starter inre Minute Maid for anything but high loft fly balls that only reach the first couple of rows.  How often does that happen?  And for every one of those rare moments, there are probably 3 or 4 415 foot bombs that land in center fielders' gloves.

For liners that clear the front of the Crawford boxes, at that height they'd clear just about any other major league park's 12, 10, 8, or 4 ft wall anyway.  It's something to talk about for those who are more interested in legends and cliches than facts and analysis.