72-90 Encore?

[Bench]

As we head into the ceremonial second "half", the Astros are playing at a .438 clip which over 162 would accomplish only 71 wins. Mercifully, I was living out of the country for most of the 2000 season and missed the first two-thirds, coming back to see them play fairly decent ball the last bit of the season.

My question to you all is this: Is the 2007 team better than the 2000 team?

I think so. The team has gotten quality performances at one time or another from the starters, the pen, and the offense. They've even played passable defense at times. It seems the achilles heel of this year's squad is inconsistency across the board, but as I watch them I do not feel they are as bad as the record suggests, and are capable of winning more games than the 2000 team, maybe even flirting with .500 by September's end (that would require a doable 42-31 (.575) second half record). The team seems capable of getting on a hot streak, but just hasn't done it so far.

[Froback]

Much will also be affected by what Tim does prior to the deadline and just after it.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Are you hoping they make a move or actually think they will make a move?  I see alot of talk going nowhere.  Rent-a-players aren't garnering much in return.  Relievers not named Lidge are not going to fetch much in return either.  That pretty much eliminates and major impact trades, if you ask me (not that anyone did or anything...).

[Fredia]

Much will also be affected by what Tim does prior to the deadline and just after it.

artice in the online chronicle today addresses the issues of trades and as usual says nothing at all except lee oswalt and berkman have no trade clauses.
http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/sports/4961523.html

[Froback]

If I could wave my magic wand (and not be stupid with ideas), I would like to see them trade away people for close to major league ready talent, rather than the other way.  I would like to see them keep Lidge and the big 4 (Berkman, Lee, Pence and Oswalt).  Other than those, I have no issue with anyone else being traded for what ever they might get (within reason, of course).

So I am big on the reloading for next year side of the ledger at the moment.  And I think the Astros have more chips in the current market than most people give them credit for.  Problem is they also need to "unload" some chips that really are worthless at the moment.  At some point I expect them to cut their loses during the offseason, like the Braves did with Giles last year.

[Jacksonian]

maybe even flirting with .500 by September's end (that would require a doable 42-31 (.575) second half record). The team seems capable of getting on a hot streak, but just hasn't done it so far.

Doable?   At the ASB only 5 teams have a .575 or better winning percentage.  All of them are in the AL.

I don't expect the Astros finish with more than 76 wins.

[Bench]

Doable?   At the ASB only 5 teams have a .575 or better winning percentage.  All of them are in the AL.

I don't expect the Astros finish with more than 76 wins.

I didn't say probable, but 11 games over .500 is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility. It would certainly be a triumph to get close to .500 by season's end.

[Outlawscotty]

At the ASB only 5 teams have a .575 or better winning percentage.

I didn't believe you.  It sounds absurd, but it's true.

[Jacksonian]

I didn't believe you. 

And now you've learned your lesson.  I never lie when I've got stats to back me up.

[Outlawscotty]

OK how about I didn't want to believe you?  I knew you were a regular cherry tree cutter downer.

[Jacksonian]

I didn't say probable, but 11 games over .500 is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility.

Generally speaking ok.  But in the context of this season I would argue that 11 games over .500 is out of the realm of reasonable possibility.  Only 5 teams have been able to win at that clip in the first half.

[astrox]

OK how about I didn't want to believe you?  I knew you were a regular cherry tree cutter downer.

"Here's to you, Mister Cherry Tree Cutter Downer..."

[ybbodeus]

Would that qualify for REAL MEN OF GENIUS or REAL AMERICAN HERO?  Or both?

[WulawHorn]

Generally speaking ok.  But in the context of this season I would argue that 11 games over .500 is out of the realm of reasonable possibility.  Only 5 teams have been able to win at that clip in the first half.

I generally agree with just about everything that you post- but I don't agree with this.

The NL in general, and the Central in particular is pretty weak. I think that it's imminently possible that at least one, maybe 2 or 3 NL teams play 600 ball after the all star break.

You have to realize that it's easier to play quality ball in the back half of the season, b/c some teams will waive the white flag and trade guys for the future and bring up young kids. Some teams are going to get worse (see pittsburg every year seemingly) which will allow others to take advantage.

I'm not saying the astros will, but at least one team, maybe 2 or 3, will.

[Phil_in_CS]

And now you've learned your lesson.  I never lie when I've got stats to back me up.

and if you don't have the stats, you can always go to wikipedia and create them.....

[ybbodeus]

"Ain't that just fine? Vicarious entertainment, compliments of Wikipedia."

[JackAstro]

and if you don't have the stats, you can always go to wikipedia and create them.....

Good man.

[Fredia]

I will be so glad when tommorrow gets here and the astros play again. and that is all i have to say on the subject

[Arky Vaughan]

I generally agree with just about everything that you post- but I don't agree with this.

The NL in general, and the Central in particular is pretty weak. I think that it's imminently possible that at least one, maybe 2 or 3 NL teams play 600 ball after the all star break.

You have to realize that it's easier to play quality ball in the back half of the season, b/c some teams will waive the white flag and trade guys for the future and bring up young kids. Some teams are going to get worse (see pittsburg every year seemingly) which will allow others to take advantage.

I'm not saying the astros will, but at least one team, maybe 2 or 3, will.

Here are the best differences between first-half and second-half performance since 2000:

+20 2001 Oak
+19 2005 TB
+18 2000 Hou
+16 2006 Pit
+15 2001 TB
+15 2002 Tor
+14 2001 NYN
+14 2003 Min
+12 2001 StL
+12 2004 Atl
+11 2004 Hou
+11 2004 Mon
+11 2005 Col
+11 2006 Phi
+10 2002 Oak
+10 2003 TB
+10 2005 Cin
+10 2006 LAA
+10 2006 Oak

To reach .500 on the season, the Astros would need to go 42-31 in the second half, a +11 improvement over their 39-50 first-half record. Only slightly less than 7% of teams since 2000 have mangaged to make that kind of second-half improvement. Put another way, if the 2007 Astros were to match the kind of improvement that the 2004 Astros mangaged, they would still only be at .500.

For all teams at least 11 games under .500 in the first half since 2000, the best second-half record is 15 games over .500 (the 2001 Mets, who were 38-51 in the first half and 44-29 in the second half). If the Astros matched that, they would finish 83-79.

None of which makes a comeback impossible. It just means that it would be a fairly rare occurence. Let's see what happens.

[Arky Vaughan]

I didn't say probable, but 11 games over .500 is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility. It would certainly be a triumph to get close to .500 by season's end.

Getting to 11 games over .500 would require going 48-25 the rest of the way. Fewer than 5% of teams since 2000 (9 of 210) have accomplished that kind of winning percentage in the second half (the 2004 Astros being one of them). All but one of those teams had records of .500 or better in the first half (the lone exception being the 2003 Twins, who went 44-49 in the first half and 46-23 in the second half).

Again, it's in the realm of possibility, but not in the realm of what I would call reasonable possibility.

[strosrays]

As we head into the ceremonial second "half", the Astros are playing at a .438 clip which over 162 would accomplish only 71 wins. Mercifully, I was living out of the country for most of the 2000 season and missed the first two-thirds, coming back to see them play fairly decent ball the last bit of the season.

My question to you all is this: Is the 2007 team better than the 2000 team?

I think so. The team has gotten quality performances at one time or another from the starters, the pen, and the offense. They've even played passable defense at times. It seems the achilles heel of this year's squad is inconsistency across the board, but as I watch them I do not feel they are as bad as the record suggests, and are capable of winning more games than the 2000 team, maybe even flirting with .500 by September's end (that would require a doable 42-31 (.575) second half record). The team seems capable of getting on a hot streak, but just hasn't done it so far.

There were times I felt like leaving the country the first two-thirds of the 2000 season.  I ran it past the wife a few times, but no go.  For some reason, she wanted me to take her with me.

To answer your question (sort of), I am pretty sure this team is better than the 2000 squad.  I know it is less painful to watch.  That 2000 team had a lot of offense (at the time, almost all of it was attributed to the new ballpark), but as you say, this one has better starting pitching.  And a better bullpen.  Although they have faltered, Garner still has a reasonable expectation of success anytime he sends one of his relievers out there, except for maybe reverT and/or Moehler.  The 2000 version was so depleted that they were picking guys up off waivers and just running them out there and hoping for the best.  There were times Dierker went out to get Holt or Lima after yet another implosion, and it seemed like one could tell from the look on his face he knew it was hopeless and all was lost, as he motioned to the 'pen, bringing in Joe Slusarski or Mark Valdes in once again, to mop blow things up.

I don't ever want to go through a season like that again.

[BUWebguy]

Getting to 11 games over .500 would require going 48-25 the rest of the way. Fewer than 5% of teams since 2000 (9 of 210) have accomplished that kind of winning percentage in the second half (the 2004 Astros being one of them). All but one of those teams had records of .500 or better in the first half (the lone exception being the 2003 Twins, who went 44-49 in the first half and 46-23 in the second half).

Again, it's in the realm of possibility, but not in the realm of what I would call reasonable possibility.

I think Bench meant 11 games over .500 in the second half (which would be 42-31, as you discussed in your previous post) -- not 11 games over .500 on the season.

[WulawHorn]

Here are the best differences between first-half and second-half performance since 2000:

+20 2001 Oak
+19 2005 TB
+18 2000 Hou
+16 2006 Pit
+15 2001 TB
+15 2002 Tor
+14 2001 NYN
+14 2003 Min
+12 2001 StL
+12 2004 Atl
+11 2004 Hou
+11 2004 Mon
+11 2005 Col
+11 2006 Phi
+10 2002 Oak
+10 2003 TB
+10 2005 Cin
+10 2006 LAA
+10 2006 Oak

To reach .500 on the season, the Astros would need to go 42-31 in the second half, a +11 improvement over their 39-50 first-half record. Only slightly less than 7% of teams since 2000 have mangaged to make that kind of second-half improvement. Put another way, if the 2007 Astros were to match the kind of improvement that the 2004 Astros mangaged, they would still only be at .500.

For all teams at least 11 games under .500 in the first half since 2000, the best second-half record is 15 games over .500 (the 2001 Mets, who were 38-51 in the first half and 44-29 in the second half). If the Astros matched that, they would finish 83-79.

None of which makes a comeback impossible. It just means that it would be a fairly rare occurence. Let's see what happens.

Non- responsive to my point about teams getting worse (intentionally) in the second half while striving to make themselves better in the future.  I'm not saying the Astros are going to do it. I'm saying someone in the NL plays close to 600 ball post ASB, and I'd not be surprised if it was 2 or 3 teams.

[Bench]

There were times I felt like leaving the country the first two-thirds of the 2000 season.  I ran it past the wife a few times, but no go.  For some reason, she wanted me to take her with me.

To answer your question (sort of), I am pretty sure this team is better than the 2000 squad.  I know it is less painful to watch.  That 2000 team had a lot of offense (at the time, almost all of it was attributed to the new ballpark), but as you say, this one has better starting pitching.  And a better bullpen.  Although they have faltered, Garner still has a reasonable expectation of success anytime he sends one of his relievers out there, except for maybe reverT and/or Moehler.  The 2000 version was so depleted that they were picking guys up off waivers and just running them out there and hoping for the best.  There were times Dierker went out to get Holt or Lima after yet another implosion, and it seemed like one could tell from the look on his face he knew it was hopeless and all was lost, as he motioned to the 'pen, bringing in Joe Slusarski or Mark Valdes in once again, to mop blow things up.

I don't ever want to go through a season like that again.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

Following the 2000 season from reading game re-caps, looking at box scores, and just starting to figure out who these lunatics were in the "TZ" at Astrosconnection left me with a much more dismal view of that 2000 team compared to this year's squad.

[Arky Vaughan]

Non- responsive to my point about teams getting worse (intentionally) in the second half while striving to make themselves better in the future.  I'm not saying the Astros are going to do it. I'm saying someone in the NL plays close to 600 ball post ASB, and I'd not be surprised if it was 2 or 3 teams.

I wasn't seeking to specifically respond to your post, but now that you mention it, I don't see how it's not responsive. Wouldn't the effect you're positing ("teams getting worse (intentionally) in the second half") have applied in the seasons 2000 to 2006 as well as 2007? I would think so.

That being the case, then demonstrating the magnitude and frequency of teams improving in the second half for those seasons should reflect the same effect you're talking about for 2007. Unless you think the "weakness" factor is that much more pronounced in the 2007 National League, which I'd need to see data to support.

From 2000 to 2006, roughly a fifth of teams (43 of 210) played .590+ in the second half. Just five of those teams were sub-.500 in the first half, however. They were:

2001 Mets (38-51/44-29)
2006 Phillies (40-47/45-30)
2003 Twins (44-49/46-23)
2003 White Sox (45-49/41-27)
2006 Angels (43-45/46-28)

Again, I'm not saying the 2007 Astros won't be the sixth such team since 2000 to do that, since what a bunch of other teams did in the past is not determinative of what any team will do in the future. But based on recent history, the probability of a 39-50 team at the All-Star break playing something close to .600 ball in the second half isn't very high.

You are certainly correct that two or three National League teams are likely to play .600 ball in the second half, however. That happens virtually every season.

[Arky Vaughan]

You have to realize that it's easier to play quality ball in the back half of the season, b/c some teams will waive the white flag and trade guys for the future and bring up young kids. Some teams are going to get worse (see pittsburg every year seemingly) which will allow others to take advantage.

By the way, this effect does appear to exist. The standard deviation in winning percentage in the first half is .080, while the standard deviation in winning percentage in the second half is .096.

From 2000 to 2006, there were 26 sub-.400 teams in the first half, 31 sub-.400 teams in the second half.

The winning percentage for the bottom 10 percent of teams in the first half is .352. The same figure for the second half is .335. Over a 74-game second half, that translates to just over one game in the loss column, so the effect does not appear to be significant.

[Arky Vaughan]

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

Following the 2000 season from reading game re-caps, looking at box scores, and just starting to figure out who these lunatics were in the "TZ" at Astrosconnection left me with a much more dismal view of that 2000 team compared to this year's squad.

But the 2000 team had one of the best second-halves of any Astros team.

[Bench]

But the 2000 team had one of the best second-halves of any Astros team.

Were they 11 games over .500 in the second half?

[WulawHorn]

I wasn't seeking to specifically respond to your post, but now that you mention it, I don't see how it's not responsive. Wouldn't the effect you're positing ("teams getting worse (intentionally) in the second half") have applied in the seasons 2000 to 2006 as well as 2007? I would think so.

That being the case, then demonstrating the magnitude and frequency of teams improving in the second half for those seasons should reflect the same effect you're talking about for 2007. Unless you think the "weakness" factor is that much more pronounced in the 2007 National League, which I'd need to see data to support.

From 2000 to 2006, roughly a fifth of teams (43 of 210) played .590+ in the second half. Just five of those teams were sub-.500 in the first half, however. They were:

2001 Mets (38-51/44-29)
2006 Phillies (40-47/45-30)
2003 Twins (44-49/46-23)
2003 White Sox (45-49/41-27)
2006 Angels (43-45/46-28)

Again, I'm not saying the 2007 Astros won't be the sixth such team since 2000 to do that, since what a bunch of other teams did in the past is not determinative of what any team will do in the future. But based on recent history, the probability of a 39-50 team at the All-Star break playing something close to .600 ball in the second half isn't very high.

You are certainly correct that two or three National League teams are likely to play .600 ball in the second half, however. That happens virtually every season.

I was only talking about the last paragraph that you mentioned- at no point in time was I saying that the astros were likely to be a 600 team, so that makes data points about teams under 500 that go 11 games over in the 2nd half irrelevant to what I was getting at. I'm not saying that the astros are going to go 11 over 500 in the second half. I'm saying that even though no team in the nl is playing at a level above 580 right now, someone will do so in the second half, and probably more than 1 someone.

[Arky Vaughan]

I'm saying that even though no team in the nl is playing at a level above 580 right now, someone will do so in the second half, and probably more than 1 someone.

Agreed that this is likely. The NL had 2 teams play over .600 in the second half in 2000, 2 in 2001, 4 in 2002, 3 in 2003, 3 in 2004, 1 in 2005 and 2 in 2006.

[Arky Vaughan]

Were they 11 games over .500 in the second half?

No, they were just nine games over. I guess they were "relatively" better, given how awful they were the first half.

Here are their second-half games over .500:

2000 +9
2001 +14
2002 +10
2003 +6
2004 +22
2005 +15
2006 +5

In fact, from 2000 to 2006, the Astros were 300-317 in the first half and 299-218 in the second half. On a seasonal basis, that's the difference between 79-83 and 94-68.

Maybe they should petition the commissioner to begin play in mid-July every season.

[Bench]

No, they were just nine games over. I guess they were "relatively" better, given how awful they were the first half.

Here are their second-half games over .500:

2000 +9
2001 +14
2002 +10
2003 +6
2004 +22
2005 +15
2006 +5

In fact, from 2000 to 2006, the Astros were 300-317 in the first half and 299-218 in the second half. On a seasonal basis, that's the difference between 79-83 and 94-68.

Maybe they should petition the commissioner to begin play in mid-July every season.

I'm all for it. Maybe it's a product of La Voidita, but I'm excited to see how the Astros perform the rest of the season, both on the field and in the front office.

[BUWebguy]

No, they were just nine games over. I guess they were "relatively" better, given how awful they were the first half.

Here are their second-half games over .500:

2000 +9
2001 +14
2002 +10
2003 +6
2004 +22
2005 +15
2006 +5

In fact, from 2000 to 2006, the Astros were 300-317 in the first half and 299-218 in the second half. On a seasonal basis, that's the difference between 79-83 and 94-68.

How does that compare to the A's, who have earned such a reputation for their amazing second halves?

[Arky Vaughan]

How does that compare to the A's, who have earned such a reputation for their amazing second halves?

332-283 in the first half (87-75)

332-186 in the second half (104-58)

So for the last seven seasons, the A's have played .641 ball after the All-Star break. That's ludicrous.

[Jacksonian]

332-283 in the first half (87-75)

332-186 in the second half (104-58)

So for the last seven seasons, the A's have played .641 ball after the All-Star break. That's ludicrous.

So, the A's should switch to plaid uniforms after the ASB.

[MusicMan]

Maybe they should petition the commissioner to begin play in mid-July every season.

They just have to sign David Beckham, and their wish will be granted.

[Limey]

They just have to sign David Beckham, and their wish will be granted.

The Guardian's Fiver says (FYI: "wag" means "wives and girlfriends", the collective term given to the England national team's significant others after their brainless and debauched antics during the 2006 World Cup):

SUPER HIGHWAYS, COAST TO COAST

Oasis aren't the only class act to make their name in Manchester, set off to crack America and return a few weeks later with their tails between their legs. Brian Tilsley from Coronation Street famously tried too, and the last time the Fiver met him he was meeting and greeting us as we entered a far-from-trendy West End clip joint for post-work pints.

But one former MU Rowdies midfielder in his early thirties has refused to let such cautionary tales influence his decision to play out his twilight years in the American Soccerball League, and gnomic midfielder Terry Cooke was rewarded for this singlemindedness when he was voted Colorado Rapids Playmaker of the Year 2006.

(Limey, copyright protection please.... thanks!)

[Noe]

"Catweasel" Lalas?  Is that what they call him across the pond, a twin seperated at birth of a time traveling wizard?  Awesome!

BTW - watching the 20 World Cup USA squad play, there is some mighty fine talent in the horizon for the stars and stripes.  I am especially looking forward to the new regime of strikers/forwards that will be populating the Mens' World Cup squad in the future.  Adu and Altidore are really nice looking strikers that should meld well with Donovan soon.  I had no real impression of Clint Dempsey other than he didn't seem the type to create his own chances type or a finisher.  Adu and Altidore are much more refined around the box and this is going to bode well.

I'm not predicting a sudden surge of world class play for the USA, but the chances of being much more than a mid-class world cup squad is evident to me for the near future.