Rotation

[Towlie]

Any one else think that the move to having Moehler in the rotation over Sampson and the Wolf trade solidified our starting rotation? Our rotation definitely isn't top 5 in the league but is it good enough to help us reach that 90 win plateau Coop has set forth.

Wolf has an era of 3.63 since joining us and the Astros have won all 4 of his starts. Recently, compared to his first two starts (which were 4.1 and 5 innings), hes gone 6 and 7 innings which of course helps the bullpen have to pitch less innings (Compare that too Hernandez or Cassel's starts). He's pitched well and has always given the offense a chance to retake the lead. Wolf has simply been solid so far.

Moehler pretty much came out of no where for us at least. Kinda makes me wonder if he should have been starting from the beginning of the season instead of Sampson. Even Sampson kept saying that his stuff is better when he has a "tired arm". I'm not exactly sure how to discribe his (Moehler) pitching because at first I was under the impression that he was a groundball pitcher but after looking at his stats he could be either one depending on the day. I guess it would be easiest to simply say that hes just been all around solid and that his experience simply shows when he goes out there to pitch...he just knows how to do the job.

Of course there's Oswalt who has been pretty good since coming back from the injury. It looks like hes finally going back to his normal consistent self. Hes definitely our ace.

Wandy has been good this year but for some reason I can't go into a game where hes pitching and think "oh we have a good chance at winning". You kinda have to hold your breath during the first three innings or until you see how his curveball is working in the game.

The worse pitcher we have starting for us is definitely Backe. Though he has good stuff and its like the Wandy situation when it comes to watching him. Though, even if he does have his stuff crisp, he is always a possibility for exploding one inning with his control issues.


The rotation is better than it was at the beginning of the year most definitely. I want to say its good enough to lead us into stronger playoff wild card contention and Coop's 90 win plateau but I'm not sure yet. You can't really say its too early for Moehler he's pitched plenty of games and done well and I have faith that Wolf will put up good numbers for us.

Maybe our biggest question isnt our rotation anymore...maybe its our line up.

[JimR]

there is no ace on this team.

the lineup is a problem?

[Towlie]

there is no ace on this team.

the lineup is a problem?

Roy Oswalt isn't an ace? I would say he is even with the crappy start he had. Hes 6 and 2 in his last 10 starts..not to mention hes had a pretty swell career up to this point.

[Andyzipp]

90 wins is a pretty good team.

Recent results notwithstanding, the Astros are still not a good team.  The starting pitching is a problem.  So is the lineup, defense and bullpen.

Bench is pretty solid though.  As long as you don't look for power.

[Andyzipp]

Oswalts ERA is over 4.  Not an ace.

[Arky Vaughan]

90 wins is a pretty good team.

Recent results notwithstanding, the Astros are still not a good team.  The starting pitching is a problem.  So is the lineup, defense and bullpen.

Bench is pretty solid though.  As long as you don't look for power.

The starting pitching is still held together by chewing gum and duct tape. They'll hold for awhile, but when they let go, things get ugly. I'd love to see these guys make a run, but I fear we haven't seen the last of the losing streaks this season.

[Towlie]

The starting pitching is still held together by chewing gum and duct tape. They'll hold for awhile, but when they let go, things get ugly. I'd love to see these guys make a run, but I fear we haven't seen the last of the losing streaks this season.

You know I should try that. I wonder how long chewing gum and duct tape can keep something together.

[matadorph]

And before we go jacking each other off over the club's resurgence, we need the BBGs to fuck up the Brewers. All this winning and the Stros haven't gained a single game in the wild card race. Oh well, at least they're playing with effort and sticking it to the tittybaby fans who question every WadeSmith move.

[Arky Vaughan]

And before we go jacking each other off over the club's resurgence, we need the BBGs to fuck up the Brewers. All this winning and the Stros haven't gained a single game in the wild card race. Oh well, at least they're playing with effort and sticking it to the tittybaby fans who question every WadeSmith move.

Same number of teams between them and the wild card, and just one game closer than they were on August 1.

But it beats falling further behind.

[OregonStrosFan]

The starting pitching is a problem.  So is the lineup, defense and bullpen.

Defense is a problem?  Really?  Gotta call bullshit on that one...

[Andyzipp]

Defense is a problem?  Really?  Gotta call bullshit on that one...

With Matsui out, Quintero starting, Wigginton in left, and Bourn on the bench, yes the defense is a problem.

[OregonStrosFan]

With Matsui out, Quintero starting, Wigginton in left, and Bourn on the bench, yes the defense is a problem.

Specious argument there Zipp.  Your original comment was that this team was not very good and that defense is a problem.  I disagree.  Up the middle the Astros posses a plus defense with the combination of Ausmus/Q, Matsui, Tejada and Bourn.  Berkman is IMO playing gold glove caliber defense at first this year.  Hunter provides average/plus defense in right Wigginton/Blum provide league average defense at 3B.  Left is either below average (Wigginton) or gold glove caliber (Erstad). 

Sure there are certain lineups that leave much to be desired, but overall the Astros defense is not a "problem."

ETA: I also think, overall, that the bullpen is not a problem either.

[Andyzipp]

Specious argument there Zipp.  Your original comment was that this team was not very good and that defense is a problem.  I disagree.  Up the middle the Astros posses a plus defense with the combination of Ausmus/Q, Matsui, Tejada and Bourn.  Berkman is IMO playing gold glove caliber defense at first this year.  Hunter provides average/plus defense in right Wigginton/Blum provide league average defense at 3B.  Left is either below average (Wigginton) or gold glove caliber (Erstad). 

Sure there are certain lineups that leave much to be desired, but overall the Astros defense is not a "problem."

ETA: I also think, overall, that the bullpen is not a problem either.

I think there is no everyday lineup with Lee out.  So all I have is individual pieces.  Tejada is not a great defender any longer.  Matsui has what looks to be a chronic back problem.  Bourn plays every 3 or 4 days at this point, and I hate Quintero's receiving skills.  He's better than he has been behind the plate, but he's still not any thing close to a plus defender.

Corner defense is mostly bullshit, but since you brought it up...I disagree that Pence is a good fielder.  I think his speed bails him out.  Whoever is in left is poor (unless you're talking about Erstad).  Erstad is the defacto starter in Center.  Wigginton and Blum at third are capable, but hardly what anyone would consider more than average defenders.  And good for Lance Berkman.  He plays stellar defense at 1st...the least important defensive position on the field.

[Limey]

I think there is no everyday lineup with Lee out.  So all I have is individual pieces.  Tejada is not a great defender any longer.  Matsui has what looks to be a chronic back problem.  Bourn plays every 3 or 4 days at this point, and I hate Quintero's receiving skills.  He's better than he has been behind the plate, but he's still not any thing close to a plus defender.

Corner defense is mostly bullshit, but since you brought it up...I disagree that Pence is a good fielder.  I think his speed bails him out.  Whoever is in left is poor (unless you're talking about Erstad).  Erstad is the defacto starter in Center.  Wigginton and Blum at third are capable, but hardly what anyone would consider more than average defenders.  And good for Lance Berkman.  He plays stellar defense at 1st...the least important defensive position on the field.

Excellent job!  This team blows.  Don't even bother watching for the rest of the season.

[OregonStrosFan]

I think there is no everyday lineup with Lee out.  So all I have is individual pieces.  Tejada is not a great defender any longer.

Did not claim he was a 'great' defender, just that he was a 'plus' defender (and although he's no Adam Everett at SS, his play has been excellent).  And for those reliant on such things, I'll throw in some stats for good measure...  Of qualifying SS (19) this year (2 games played at the position per 3 team games) Tejada is #2 in zone rating (The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc.), #3 in assists and #6 in fielding percentage.  Would seem to fit the 'plus' defender category to me (even considering his #12 in ZR).

Matsui has what looks to be a chronic back problem.  Bourn plays every 3 or 4 days at this point, and I hate Quintero's receiving skills.  He's better than he has been behind the plate, but he's still not any thing close to a plus defender.

Matsui should still end up averaging 4 of 5 games through the rest of the year.  Admittedly it was a stretch to call him a 'plus' defender, but he is definitely league average.  Either way, is not a 'problem.'  Center field is still a plus defense position for the Astros as well.  As for Q, I'll let others more knowledgeable than myself opine as to his defensive skills.

Corner defense is mostly bullshit, but since you brought it up...I disagree that Pence is a good fielder.  I think his speed bails him out.  Whoever is in left is poor (unless you're talking about Erstad).  Erstad is the defacto starter in Center.  Wigginton and Blum at third are capable, but hardly what anyone would consider more than average defenders.

Although Pence looks like a Spaz in right, his speed does bail him out.  The numbers (ZR, RF and FPCT) show him as a 'plus' defender.  I added the 'average' to it because he simply does not look like a 'plus' defender.  As for Wigginton/Blum, I believe I referred to them both as 'league average.'  Again, none of which I would define as a 'problem'.

And good for Lance Berkman.  He plays stellar defense at 1st...the least important defensive position on the field.

You said the defense was a 'problem.'  I went position-by-position with my arguments as to why I thought you were full of crap.  Given first base makes up part of the Astros defense, thought it relevant to note.  Seems you disagree. 

[JimR]

With Matsui out, Quintero starting, Wigginton in left, and Bourn on the bench, yes the defense is a problem.

ok, wait. Quintero is a very good defensive catcher.

[Astroholic]

Did not claim he was a 'great' defender, just that he was a 'plus' defender (and although he's no Adam Everett at SS, his play has been excellent).  And for those reliant on such things, I'll throw in some stats for good measure...  Of qualifying SS (19) this year (2 games played at the position per 3 team games) Tejada is #2 in zone rating (The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc.), #3 in assists and #6 in fielding percentage.  Would seem to fit the 'plus' defender category to me (even considering his #12 in ZR).

Matsui should still end up averaging 4 of 5 games through the rest of the year.  Admittedly it was a stretch to call him a 'plus' defender, but he is definitely league average.  Either way, is not a 'problem.'  Center field is still a plus defense position for the Astros as well.  As for Q, I'll let others more knowledgeable than myself opine as to his defensive skills.

Although Pence looks like a Spaz in right, his speed does bail him out.  The numbers (ZR, RF and FPCT) show him as a 'plus' defender.  I added the 'average' to it because he simply does not look like a 'plus' defender.  As for Wigginton/Blum, I believe I referred to them both as 'league average.'  Again, none of which I would define as a 'problem'.

You said the defense was a 'problem.'  I went position-by-position with my arguments as to why I thought you were full of crap.  Given first base makes up part of the Astros defense, thought it relevant to note.  Seems you disagree. 

IMO, "Zone" rating is crap.

It does not account for outs in the inning or runners on base, which affects the          positioning of the players (possibly moving them out of their zone or to an extreme side of their zone).

It does not account for how hard the ball is hit.  (Harder hit balls might be harder to handle, where as softer balls might allow a speedy runner to get on).

It does not account for how fast the batter is.  (Ball can be hit into a player’s zone, but Willy T still beats the throw).

It does not give weighted adjustments for where the ball is hit within the zone (Balls hit directly at the player are easier to handle (sometimes) than balls hit to the extreme edges of the zone.

Player's do not receive “bonus points’ for making plays outside of the zone.



Fielding range is almost impossible to measure because there are so many variables that are unknown or immeasurable.


edited it to explain why I think it is crap.

[David in Jackson]

Same number of teams between them and the wild card, and just one game closer than they were on August 1.

But it beats falling further behind.

After eight straight wins!  We were spoiled by years of a weak NL Central.

[MusicMan]

ok, wait. Quintero is a very good defensive catcher.

If he weren't, he wouldn't be playing 4 of 5 ahead of Ausmus.

[Reuben]

If he weren't, he wouldn't be playing 4 of 5 ahead of Ausmus.

Clearly you've overlooked the obvious fact that Quintero has a .237 BA, while Ausmus is a paltry .232.

[JimR]

IMO, "Zone" rating is crap.

It does not account for outs in the inning or runners on base, which affects the          positioning of the players (possibly moving them out of their zone or to an extreme side of their zone).

It does not account for how hard the ball is hit.  (Harder hit balls might be harder to handle, where as softer balls might allow a speedy runner to get on).

It does not account for how fast the batter is.  (Ball can be hit into a player’s zone, but Willy T still beats the throw).

It does not give weighted adjustments for where the ball is hit within the zone (Balls hit directly at the player are easier to handle (sometimes) than balls hit to the extreme edges of the zone.

Player's do not receive “bonus points’ for making plays outside of the zone.



Fielding range is almost impossible to measure because there are so many variables that are unknown or immeasurable.


edited it to explain why I think it is crap.

zone rating is total crap. no one should rely on it for anything.

[jonbloozy]

Clearly you've overlooked the obvious fact that Quintero has a .237 BA, while Ausmus is a paltry .232.

Yeah, but I think his defense makes up for it

[Limey]

zone rating is total crap. no one should rely on it for anything.

Seems to me that some mathletes decided that they didn't like the wholly subjective nature of evaluating defensive prowess, so they devised their own set of rules to govern how such prowess is assessed, which are themselves totally subjective.

[Andyzipp]

ok, wait. Quintero is a very good defensive catcher.

I tend to disagree, because of the "noise" behind the plate.  He has been better this year.  In his prior (brief) MLB stops, he's been less than good, IMO.

[Andyzipp]

Did not claim he was a 'great' defender, just that he was a 'plus' defender (and although he's no Adam Everett at SS, his play has been excellent).  And for those reliant on such things, I'll throw in some stats for good measure...  Of qualifying SS (19) this year (2 games played at the position per 3 team games) Tejada is #2 in zone rating (The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc.), #3 in assists and #6 in fielding percentage.  Would seem to fit the 'plus' defender category to me (even considering his #12 in ZR).

This is completely subjective, and it's limited to my tiny little opinion, but he's "lost a step."  He has pretty limited range, and with Wigginton at 3rd, it exposes some things that lack in his ability to cover ground.  I still think Tejada, if he's here next year, would be better served at 3rd.

Matsui should still end up averaging 4 of 5 games through the rest of the year.  Admittedly it was a stretch to call him a 'plus' defender, but he is definitely league average.  Either way, is not a 'problem.'  Center field is still a plus defense position for the Astros as well.  As for Q, I'll let others more knowledgeable than myself opine as to his defensive skills.

In re: Matsui.  I think he's the best defender on the team.  When he's healthy.  I don't think he's healthy.  And I don't think he's going to get there this year.  Hope I'm wrong.  And I agree about Centerfield.  3 good options there, defensively.  However, for whatever reason, outside of a couple of instances this week, Cooper has yet to put Erstad, Bourn and Pence in the outfield together for any extended period of time. 

Although Pence looks like a Spaz in right, his speed does bail him out.  The numbers (ZR, RF and FPCT) show him as a 'plus' defender.  I added the 'average' to it because he simply does not look like a 'plus' defender.  As for Wigginton/Blum, I believe I referred to them both as 'league average.'  Again, none of which I would define as a 'problem'.

I guess this all goes back to what the Astros need to be successful (IMO).  With the rotation being what it is, the Astros need to be better than league average defensively.  With MMPUS playing the way it does, there's a premium on ground balls.  The Astros need to be better than league average.  Since I don't think they are, I think it's a problem.

You said the defense was a 'problem.'  I went position-by-position with my arguments as to why I thought you were full of crap.  Given first base makes up part of the Astros defense, thought it relevant to note.  Seems you disagree. 

Yep.  No harm in it. 

[Arky Vaughan]

Seems to me that some mathletes decided that they didn't like the wholly subjective nature of evaluating defensive prowess, so they devised their own set of rules to govern how such prowess is assessed, which are themselves totally subjective.

Which gets us where, exactly? Two wholly subjective means of evaluation?

[Limey]

Which gets us where, exactly? Two wholly subjective means of evaluation?

Exactly.

[Arky Vaughan]

IMO, "Zone" rating is crap.

It does not account for outs in the inning or runners on base, which affects the positioning of the players (possibly moving them out of their zone or to an extreme side of their zone).

It does not account for how hard the ball is hit.  (Harder hit balls might be harder to handle, where as softer balls might allow a speedy runner to get on).

It does not account for how fast the batter is.  (Ball can be hit into a player’s zone, but Willy T still beats the throw).

It does not give weighted adjustments for where the ball is hit within the zone (Balls hit directly at the player are easier to handle (sometimes) than balls hit to the extreme edges of the zone.

Player's do not receive “bonus points’ for making plays outside of the zone.

Fielding range is almost impossible to measure because there are so many variables that are unknown or immeasurable.

edited it to explain why I think it is crap.

Not to defend zone ratings, which have major deficiencies that are well known even among the mathletes, but you could also say batting average is crap, because it doesn't take into account how good the pitcher and fielders are, the ballpark, the number of outs and runners on base, the score and the inning, what the manager has instructed the batter to do, etc. Or home runs or RBI, or stolen bases, or ERA, strikeouts and wins by a pitcher, et al.

None of these are free from context that undermine their reliability, it's just a matter of degree.

[JimR]

Exactly.

watching games is not "wholly subjective." one can actually see where the player was positioned on the field before the ball was hit, exactly where on the field he caught the ball or made the throw, how hard the ball was hit and where balls are hit that he cannot get to given his alignment. in any particular "zone," it matters a great deal where the player was at the delivery of the pitch.

[Limey]

watching games is not "wholly subjective." one can actually see where the player was positioned on the field before the ball was hit, exactly where on the field he caught the ball or made the throw, how hard the ball was hit and where balls are hit that he cannot get to given his alignment. in any particular "zone," it matters a great deal where the player was at the delivery of the pitch.

Oh, I agree totally.  But that doesn't change the fact that your opinion on a player is based on your subjective judgement.  Other people see things differently, which is why Dereks Bell and Jeter make it into ESPN's web gems.  What the ZR crowd did was take the game situation out of the equation, which is what makes it unreliable.  Doesn't change the fact that one man's fabulous running/diving catch is another man's idiot outfielder with his head up is arse.

Even batting average is susceptible to subjective views.  In this last series, we saw a pitcher knock down a weak bouncer, and then kick it around like a hackey sack long enough for the runner to reach 1st, which was ruled a hit.  I've seen a ball go into, and out of, the glove of a perfectly positioned and planted (but asleep at the wheel) Hidalgo in RF, which was ruled a double.  Almost every stat in baseball is based on someone's judgement or other.  That doesn't make all stats equally valid, though, because some (BA) have much less subjectivity in them than others (ZR).

[Arky Vaughan]

Oh, I agree totally.  But that doesn't change the fact that your opinion on a player is based on your subjective judgement.  Other people see things differently, which is why Dereks Bell and Jeter make it into ESPN's web gems.  What the ZR crowd did was take the game situation out of the equation, which is what makes it unreliable.  Doesn't change the fact that one man's fabulous running/diving catch is another man's idiot outfielder with his head up is arse.

Even batting average is susceptible to subjective views.  In this last series, we saw a pitcher knock down a weak bouncer, and then kick it around like a hackey sack long enough for the runner to reach 1st, which was ruled a hit.  I've seen a ball go into, and out of, the glove of a perfectly positioned and planted (but asleep at the wheel) Hidaglo in RF, which was ruled a double.  Almost every stat in baseball is based on someone's judgement or other.  That doesn't make all stats equally valid, though, because some (BA) have much less subjectivity in them than others (ZR).

Subjectivity is not necessarily a bad word, it's just that while I would trust Jim's opinion on this or that fielder's skills, I trust the SportsCenter guys or most sportswriters no further than I could throw them.

[Limey]

Subjectivity is not necessarily a bad word, it's just that while I would trust Jim's opinion on this or that fielder's skills, I trust the SportsCenter guys or most sportswriters no further than I could throw them.

Again, not saying that it's a bad word, just saying that it's everywhere to a greater or lesser extent in baseball stats.  And the more subjective the topic, like defensive prowess, the more unreliable stats become.

[Astroholic]

Not to defend zone ratings, which have major deficiencies that are well known even among the mathletes, but you could also say batting average is crap, because it doesn't take into account how good the pitcher and fielders are, the ballpark, the number of outs and runners on base, the score and the inning, what the manager has instructed the batter to do, etc. Or home runs or RBI, or stolen bases, or ERA, strikeouts and wins by a pitcher, et al.

None of these are free from context that undermine their reliability, it's just a matter of degree.

I can agree with this to a certain extent.  A batter can knock the hell out of the ball all day but hit it right at someone where another can hit squibs and be 4 for 5.  Which is the better hitter?  This is why you watch the games.  This is why you have scouts watching games.  This is why you listen to Jim R and others who give outstanding evaluations of players whom they are watching play live and whom understand the game. 

ZR has many many more flaws (immeasurables) than batting average IMO.

[Arky Vaughan]

ZR has many many more flaws (immeasurables) than batting average IMO.

Absolutely positively.

[pravata]

Again, not saying that it's a bad word, just saying that it's everywhere to a greater or lesser extent in baseball stats.  And the more subjective the topic, like defensive prowess, the more unreliable stats become.

The "subjective" judgment of someone who has trained, coached, and maybe even played a position has an authority which is more legitimate than someone who has not.  No matter how "scientific" the results of their observations appear.

[BUWebguy]

Subjectivity is not necessarily a bad word, it's just that while I would trust Jim's opinion on this or that fielder's skills, I trust the SportsCenter guys or most sportswriters no further than I could throw them.

Limey'd it for you.

[VirtualBob]

watching games is not "wholly subjective." one can actually see where the player was positioned on the field before the ball was hit, exactly where on the field he caught the ball or made the throw, how hard the ball was hit and where balls are hit that he cannot get to given his alignment. in any particular "zone," it matters a great deal where the player was at the delivery of the pitch.

And for that matter, the same goes for the comment about batting average.

[MusicMan]

Limey'd it for you.

OK, so Racket was having roid rage in 95?