Overcoming a rough start

[BUWebguy]

A friend was trying to console me regarding the Astros' rough start, saying that every year some team starts poorly and makes the playoffs.  So, I decided to see how teams have fared in recent years after starting out 0-7.

Since 1990, only 8 teams (including the 2010 Astros) have started out 0-7. Here are the first seven, with their final records and placement within their division:

2009 Washington: 59-103 (last)
2008 Detroit: 74-88 (last)
2003 Detroit: 43-119 (last)
2002 Detroit: 55-106 (last)
1998 Montreal: 65-97 (next-to-last)
1997 Cubs: 68-94 (last)
1992 Kansas City: 72-90 (next-to-last)

Yikes.

[VirtualBob]

A friend was trying to console me regarding the Astros' rough start, saying that every year some team starts poorly and makes the playoffs.  So, I decided to see how teams have fared in recent years after starting out 0-7.

Since 1990, only 8 teams (including the 2010 Astros) have started out 0-7. Here are the first seven, with their final records and placement within their division:

2009 Washington: 59-103 (last)
2008 Detroit: 74-88 (last)
2003 Detroit: 43-119 (last)
2002 Detroit: 55-106 (last)
1998 Montreal: 65-97 (next-to-last)
1997 Cubs: 68-94 (last)
1992 Kansas City: 72-90 (next-to-last)

Yikes.

Just remember ... it always looks darkest just before it goes pitch black.

[Lurch]

A friend was trying to console me regarding the Astros' rough start, saying that every year some team starts poorly and makes the playoffs.  So, I decided to see how teams have fared in recent years after starting out 0-7.

Since 1990, only 8 teams (including the 2010 Astros) have started out 0-7. Here are the first seven, with their final records and placement within their division:

2009 Washington: 59-103 (last)
2008 Detroit: 74-88 (last)
2003 Detroit: 43-119 (last)
2002 Detroit: 55-106 (last)
1998 Montreal: 65-97 (next-to-last)
1997 Cubs: 68-94 (last)
1992 Kansas City: 72-90 (next-to-last)

Yikes.

So, clearly 0-7 teams are due, right?

[94CougarGrad]

A friend was trying to console me regarding the Astros' rough start, saying that every year some team starts poorly and makes the playoffs.  So, I decided to see how teams have fared in recent years after starting out 0-7.

Since 1990, only 8 teams (including the 2010 Astros) have started out 0-7. Here are the first seven, with their final records and placement within their division:

2009 Washington: 59-103 (last)
2003 Detroit: 43-119 (last)
2002 Detroit: 55-106 (last)

Yikes.

Those records are better than the one my fantasy baseball team scraped together the first year I was in the league. We ended up with 33 wins. They thought it was real cute to give the one chick owner the second-crappiest team in the league and see what she could do with it. I ended up having the last laugh for several seasons in a row.

Would that the Astros have the last laugh, and soon.

[MusicMan]

According to SI, the 1983 Astros are the only team of the "modern era" to ever start 0-7 and finish at least .500.

[austro]

So, clearly 0-7 teams are due, right?

Hey, I want to play cards with you! Oh, wait...

[geezerdonk]

But they are only 3 games out of next to last place.

[Lurch]

Hey, I want to play cards with you! Oh, wait...

Yeah, the trick is to say something like that when you sit down at the table.

"Have there been a lot of pocket aces dealt here recently?  No?  Good!  How much to buy in?"

[Waldo]

Just remember ... it always looks darkest just before it goes pitch black.

Are you saying we're already looking on the bright side of life?

[Bench]

According to SI, the 1983 Astros are the only team of the "modern era" to ever start 0-7 and finish at least .500.

They started 0-9 and went on to win 83 games, right?

[BatGirl]

Are you saying we're already looking on the bright side of life?

worse things happen at sea, you know

[Limey]

O'Reilly:  Oh, Mr. Fawlty, there's always someone worse of than yourself.
Fawlty:  Well I'd like to meet him.  I could do with a laugh.

[Noe]

A friend was trying to console me regarding the Astros' rough start, saying that every year some team starts poorly and makes the playoffs.  So, I decided to see how teams have fared in recent years after starting out 0-7.

Since 1990, only 8 teams (including the 2010 Astros) have started out 0-7. Here are the first seven, with their final records and placement within their division:

2009 Washington: 59-103 (last)
2008 Detroit: 74-88 (last)
2003 Detroit: 43-119 (last)
2002 Detroit: 55-106 (last)
1998 Montreal: 65-97 (next-to-last)
1997 Cubs: 68-94 (last)
1992 Kansas City: 72-90 (next-to-last)

Yikes.

I think the key to evaluating this club and their performance concurrently and then extrapolating it to how they will fair overall is predicated by asking yourself these key questions:

1. Is the team bad or did they just *start* bad?
2. 0-7 puts them in a hole to get to .500 at the mid-point of the season, so what would need to happen to get to a .500 record from now until then?
3. Is this *only* a product of great team as the opponent plus the team struggling meeting at the start of the season?
4. Would a 0-7 record in the middle of the season cause the same kind of angst for the team and it's fans?
5. Can the same team that at the start of the season went 0-7, somewhere in the season go 7-0 (or better) to wash away all this gnashing of teeth?

I think right now that I don't know really what to think about the team.  I will tell you that right now, having a rookie manager doesn't help because he's having to learn how to navigate through a rough spot as the skipper right off the bat and that may be part of the reason 0-7 has happened and may continue for a bit.  For example: if, as a skipper, you decide that hitting Hunter Pence third or using Keppinger as a bat off the bench and playing Blum instead is a good idea simply because you feel some obligation towards those players, then perhaps you're working as a first year skipper moreso than a seasoned veteran manager like, say, Jim Leyland who probably would have made the decision to change things because it's not about player loyalty at this point, it's about getting a win.

Just saying...

[MusicMan]

To answer your last question:

I think a team with 3 question marks in the rotation, and a struggle to score runs in the best of circumstances, is highly unlikely to have a 7-0 run at any point in the season.

[Fredia]

this whole thing is a non issue , remember the astros are a second half team

[Mr. Happy]

this whole thing is a non issue , remember the astros are a second half team

It'll quickly become an issue if the team digs itself a deep enough hole in the first half.

[JackAstro]

According to SI, the 1983 Astros are the only team of the "modern era" to ever start 0-7 and finish at least .500.

So you're telling me there's a chance...

[jester9450]

It's just to early to give up on them 0-7  with 155 left anything can happen.

[HudsonHawk]

It's just to early to give up on them 0-7  with 155 left anything can happen.

Except that you have to understand that this team is 0-7 for a reason.  Wins and losses are not random.  I'm not "giving up" on them, the Astros are my team and I'll follow them through the gates of hell.  But I've also seen enough baseball to know that they are simply not a good team.

[austro]

So you're telling me there's a chance...

"False hope is still hope." I can't remember where I first heard that, but I pull it out in situations like this.

[Andyzipp]

Except that you have to understand that this team is 0-7 for a reason.  Wins and losses are not random.  I'm not "giving up" on them, the Astros are my team and I'll follow them through the gates of hell.  But I've also seen enough baseball to know that they are simply not a good team.

IF Berkman comes back healthy and is inserted into the 3 hole
IF Lee and Pence start hitting


Then they'll score more runs than the current horrible showing. However, then you have to throw all your ifs on the pitching staff, which as a whole has also been bad.

[MusicMan]

Also account for the "dice have no memory" factor...

Essentially, this would have to be an 86-76 team coming into the season just to get to .500 at this point.  That would probably have been my most optimistic projection, and I see no reason to believe that Berkman will be 100% at any time soon, which alone rules out the best-case scenario.

[juliogotay]

They started 0-9 and went on to win 83 games, right?

The '83 team had better players. At least, players that were in a better phase of their career.

[OregonStrosFan]

The '83 team had better players. At least, players that were in a better phase of their career.

Speaking of the '83 team...  Garner has a couple of recollections about it. LINK

[HudsonHawk]

IF Berkman comes back healthy and is inserted into the 3 hole
IF Lee and Pence start hitting


Then they'll score more runs than the current horrible showing. However, then you have to throw all your ifs on the pitching staff, which as a whole has also been bad.

Right.  They're going to win some games.  I don't see how they can possibly avoid it.  But, this is simply not a .500+ team.  If all of those "if"s go their way, they should get to 70 wins, but not much more.  And if they don't get the breaks, this could well be the first 100-loss team in Astros history. 

[pots]

Right.  They're going to win some games.  I don't see how they can possibly avoid it.  But, this is simply not a .500+ team.  If all of those "if"s go their way, they should get to 70 wins, but not much more.  And if they don't get the breaks, this could well be the first 100-loss team in Astros history. 

Given
 - the stiffness in the competition (2 definite and possible 3 playoff caliber teams)
 - (3 aces in first 7 games).  Halladay, Lincecum, and Wainright probably make the top 5 pitchers in the NL you don't want to face. 
 - 3 out of 7 games against the ridiculous stacked (and hot) lineup of the Phillies.
 - Playing without your best hitter
 - The second best hitter batting .111 with no extra base hits. 
 - and just a whole lot of things not going right.

There is just no possible way to determine how good or bad this team is.   Well, we certainly know how bad it could be.  But have no idea how good it could be.

Too early


 

[HudsonHawk]

There is just no possible way to determine how good or bad this team is.   Well, we certainly know how bad it could be.  But have no idea how good it could be.

Too early

I've seen these guys play.  They do not exist in a vacuum.  They are not unknowns.  Yes, they've played some good teams.  But they're going to have to *keep* playing good teams, that's the deal.  Yes, Berkman coming back will help, and Pence/Lee will not sub-.100 all season.  But they simply do not have the talent across the board to compete with the Cardinals/Cubs/Brewers and even Reds, over 162 games.

[VirtualBob]

"False hope is still hope." I can't remember where I first heard that, but I pull it out in situations like this.

The Obama campaign, maybe?

[VirtualBob]

Also account for the "dice have no memory" factor...

Dice do not have memory but real people do have "good" and "bad" days ... or at least days that are better than horrible.  Real individual performance is likely to even out over the season.  Baseball is not a statistical simulation.

[austro]

The Obama campaign, maybe?

Well, if it had been a campaign, it probably would have been Hillary's, but I think it predated that.

[MusicMan]

I think it predated that.

Chicago Cubs, 1909-present

[Mr. Happy]

Except that you have to understand that this team is 0-7 for a reason.  Wins and losses are not random.  I'm not "giving up" on them, the Astros are my team and I'll follow them through the gates of hell.  But I've also seen enough baseball to know that they are simply not a good team.

I'll stand by my team through thick and thin. I stood by them during the disastrous 1975 season as well as the putrid 1991 campaign. Like HH, I'll follow them through the gates of hell.

[MusicMan]

1991 had nothing to do with this... that was a collection of kids getting ready to start their run.

Is there a player on this team that you honestly see being a part of a winner 5 years from now?

[austro]

1991 had nothing to do with this... that was a collection of kids getting ready to start their run.

Is there a player on this team that you honestly see being a part of a winner 5 years from now?

Bourn.

I suppose that Manzella or Johnson might be part of the team in 5 years. And if Pam's still around, Pence might be, too. But nobody else strikes me as likely.

[Mr. Happy]

Given
 - the stiffness in the competition (2 definite and possible 3 playoff caliber teams)
 - (3 aces in first 7 games).  Halladay, Lincecum, and Wainright probably make the top 5 pitchers in the NL you don't want to face. 
 - 3 out of 7 games against the ridiculous stacked (and hot) lineup of the Phillies.
 - Playing without your best hitter
 - The second best hitter batting .111 with no extra base hits. 
 - and just a whole lot of things not going right.

There is just no possible way to determine how good or bad this team is.   Well, we certainly know how bad it could be.  But have no idea how good it could be.

Too early

I understand from where you come, but I've also seen enough of them this season to agree that without some significant changes in the current hitting and pitching, this team could lose 100 games. Carlos Lee's bat has looked a little slower to me, and he certainly has no clue about an approach right now. He's swinging at horseshit pitches. Pence is a marginal player in my opinion. He has such glaring weaknesses at the plate that as a pitcher I'd never throw him a strike. Ever. I'd toss down and away, with an occasional coming in on his hands to keep things honest.

[MusicMan]

Bourn.

I suppose that Manzella or Johnson might be part of the team in 5 years. And if Pam's still around, Pence might be, too. But nobody else strikes me as likely.

Bourn is a good one.  I'll be surprised if Mier isn't the SS by then.

[Mr. Happy]

1991 had nothing to do with this... that was a collection of kids getting ready to start their run.

Is there a player on this team that you honestly see being a part of a winner 5 years from now?

I agree with your assessment of the 1991 club. My point, though, was that I stuck with them then, and I'll still be with them even through a 162 loss season. That's just how it is. I'm a fan of the Houston Astros and have been for over 40 years.

[Guinness]

Is there a player on this team that you honestly see being a part of a winner 5 years from now?

But couldn't you have asked the same question April 14, 1991?

[MusicMan]

But couldn't you have asked the same question April 14, 1991?

I think we were all excited about Biggio, we thought we had just robbed the Orioles in the Davis deal, Harnisch and Finley looked great, some kid was setting the world on fire in spring training and we moved him to 1b...

[Andyzipp]

But couldn't you have asked the same question April 14, 1991?

Biggio, Bagwell, Caminiti, Finley, Kile, Harnisch and Luis Gonzalez all had lots of promise April 14th, 1991.

Hell, I was still enthused about Mark Portugal at that point.

That April 1991 team would beat the crap out of the April 2010 team.

[Jacksonian]

Bourn is a good one.  I'll be surprised if Mier isn't the SS by then.

I look in the system and see a grand total of 2 position players today that are as close to locks as possible for the 2015 Astros: Castro and Mier.

[juliogotay]

I look in the system and see a grand total of 2 position players today that are as close to locks as possible for the 2015 Astros: Castro and Mier.

At least that's two more than BH. (Before Heck).

[Jacksonian]

At least that's two more than BH. (Before Heck).

And, don't expect this draft to yield much in the way of college position players (read quick to the majors).  College pitchers, maybe.

[MusicMan]

And, don't expect this draft to yield much in the way of college position players (read quick to the majors).  College pitchers, maybe.

Koby Clemens is our next great hope.

I hope nobody's eaten recently.

[Jacksonian]

Koby Clemens is our next great hope.

I hope nobody's eaten recently.

Did you know, Clemens, Castro, Steele, Shuck, and Gaston were all in the same H.S. graduating class?

Actually, I've heard whispers that Koby's bat may have become quick enough to hold a major league job.  His glove may limit him to the AL.

[Mr. Happy]

Koby Clemens is our next great hope.

I hope nobody's eaten recently.

Thankfully, I haven't.

[MusicMan]

He should be thankful he's in an org with absolutely no 1b.

[Rebel Jew]

A friend was trying to console me regarding the Astros' rough start, saying that every year some team starts poorly and makes the playoffs.  So, I decided to see how teams have fared in recent years after starting out 0-7.

Since 1990, only 8 teams (including the 2010 Astros) have started out 0-7. Here are the first seven, with their final records and placement within their division:

2009 Washington: 59-103 (last)
2008 Detroit: 74-88 (last)
2003 Detroit: 43-119 (last)
2002 Detroit: 55-106 (last)
1998 Montreal: 65-97 (next-to-last)
1997 Cubs: 68-94 (last)
1992 Kansas City: 72-90 (next-to-last)

Yikes.

interestingly, if you look at how many seasons it took these teams to get back to .500 the results are more encouraging.  the '93 royals won 84 games, the '98 sosa/wood cubs went to the playoffs.  the '09 tigers won 86 games.

on the other hand, the expos continued to suck until 2002, and the tigers sucked until 2006.

[moriartp]

Did you know, Clemens, Castro, Steele, Shuck, and Gaston were all in the same H.S. graduating class?

Actually, I've heard whispers that Koby's bat may have become quick enough to hold a major league job.  His glove may limit him to the AL.

He popped two homers last night and has three on the season.

[Noe]

Biggio, Bagwell, Caminiti, Finley, Kile, Harnisch and Luis Gonzalez all had lots of promise April 14th, 1991.

Hell, I was still enthused about Mark Portugal at that point.

That April 1991 team would beat the crap out of the April 2010 team.

Don't forget Ryan Bowen.  Never forget Ryan Bowen.

[juliogotay]

I look in the system and see a grand total of 2 position players today that are as close to locks as possible for the 2015 Astros: Castro and Mier.

Would you agree that Shuck and Austin are two of the more interesting prospects? Unfortunately both CFers.

[Jacksonian]

Don't forget Ryan Bowen.  Never forget Ryan Bowen.

Jeff Juden anyone?

[Jacksonian]

Would you agree that Shuck and Austin are two of the more interesting prospects? Unfortunately both CFers.

They're interesting in the sense that they both have talent (Austin more so), and that neither has been overwhelmed at any level.  They're main problem is that, to date, neither projects to be an upgrade over Bourn.  They both still have to prove they can hit well enough to earn a shot too.  In Austin's favor, over Shuck, is the fact that Bourn is 8 years older.  Shuck is 4 1/2 years younger than Bourn.

[Andyzipp]

Don't forget Ryan Bowen.  Never forget Ryan Bowen.

It's always painful to play "what if" with the Astros.  For instance, what if Spec Richardson never existed?

But in one of those exercises of "if I knew then what I know now", still wish they could have kept the core of that team together:

C Servais/Eusebio
1b Bagwell
2b Biggio
3b Caminiti
LF Gonzalez
CF Lofton
RF Finley

SP Kile
SP Harnisch
SP Schilling
SP Reynolds (comes up in 1992)
SP Portugal

RP Xavier Hernandez
RP Dave Veres
RP Al Osuna
RP Todd Jones

You'd have to find a shortstop (although Andujar Cedeno and Orlando Miller are in the system at this point) and shore up the bullpen (Wagner was drafted in 1993, first appeared in 1995).  You could still deal Eric Anthony for Mike Hampton. Hell, you could still sign Drabek to replace a rapidly declining Mark Portugal.

Sigh.

[homer]

Can someone refresh my memory as to why Caminiti was traded?

[MusicMan]

Can someone refresh my memory as to why Caminiti was traded?

I think his personal issues had a lot to do with it.

[Rebel Jew]

It's always painful to play "what if" with the Astros.  For instance, what if Spec Richardson never existed?

But in one of those exercises of "if I knew then what I know now", still wish they could have kept the core of that team together:

C Servais/Eusebio
1b Bagwell
2b Biggio
3b Caminiti
LF Gonzalez
CF Lofton
RF Finley

SP Kile
SP Harnisch
SP Schilling
SP Reynolds (comes up in 1992)
SP Portugal

RP Xavier Hernandez
RP Dave Veres
RP Al Osuna
RP Todd Jones

You'd have to find a shortstop (although Andujar Cedeno and Orlando Miller are in the system at this point) and shore up the bullpen (Wagner was drafted in 1993, first appeared in 1995).  You could still deal Eric Anthony for Mike Hampton. Hell, you could still sign Drabek to replace a rapidly declining Mark Portugal.

Sigh.

i think the greatest parallel to 1991 will be in a couple of years when the astros have a bunch of prospects come up to the majors, but pretty much no veteran leadership to set the scene for them.  assuming berkman continues to fade, and oswalt is traded, the castro generation will likely find themselves able to set the identity of the new astros in almost any way they want.  the only veterans i can realistically see on this team in a couple of years are wandy and bourn, and only wandy will have had any experience with the last astros playoff run.  should be interesting when it happens.

[austro]

I think his personal issues had a lot to do with it.

I always heard that the front office wanted to separate Caminiti from Bagwell and Biggio before he dragged them into the same hell. But I don't have any solid sources for that.

[juliogotay]

I always heard that the front office wanted to separate Caminiti from Bagwell and Biggio before he dragged them into the same hell. But I don't have any solid sources for that.

I know they (Bagwell/Biggio) had an "intervention" with Caminiti after one of his DUIs. I think Biggio was in the car during one of them.

[HudsonHawk]

I know they (Bagwell/Biggio) had an "intervention" with Caminiti after one of his DUIs. I think Biggio was in the car during one of them.

Don't know about that, but I know that Caminiti was in the car when Biggio got his DUI.

[Andyzipp]

I always heard that the front office wanted to separate Caminiti from Bagwell and Biggio before he dragged them into the same hell. But I don't have any solid sources for that.

It didn't help that he was going to be a FA the year (IIRC) after he was traded.

[astrosfan76]

And, don't expect this draft to yield much in the way of college position players (read quick to the majors).  College pitchers, maybe.

The top guys at this point are probably Zach Cox, Christian Colon, and our old friend, Derek Dietrich.  Cox would be interesting if he could figure out a way to hit for power and average, and not have to sacrifice one for the other.  If he sticks at 2B, he could be a good hitter for the position, but he'd probably start at Lancaster and take a couple of years to develop.  Colon's not really exciting and needs refining.  I wouldn't expect the club to shy away from drafting Dietrich based on the previous regime's experience.  He's raking this year and could become a decent player, but again, isn't a Dustin Ackley-type who you could stick at AA to begin his career.  

[juliogotay]

Don't know about that, but I know that Caminiti was in the car when Biggio got his DUI.

OK, that sounds right.

[Reuben]

I would love to see 5'5" Jose Altuve as the sparkplug 2B of the next great Astros team.

[HudsonHawk]

I would love to see 5'5" Jose Altuve as the sparkplug 2B of the next great Astros team.

Is he scrappy enough?

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Is he scrappy enough?

His VONSP (Value Over Non-Scrappy Player) is off the charts.