Thank God We Didn't Trade Roy

[Alkie]

That really ruined my morning.  If if it was totally untrue.

Funny thing is...there's nothing wrong with the 25 guys we've got now.  They just (as always) haven't put it together as a unit yet.  

Here's to Hirsh starting on Wednesday.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
That really ruined my morning.  If if it was totally untrue.

Funny thing is...there's nothing wrong with the 25 guys we've got now.  They just (as always) haven't put it together as a unit yet.  

Here's to Hirsh starting on Wednesday.

Don't be surprised if Albers get the nod.  They think he's ready.

[Alkie]

That's cool, too.

I wasn't kidding the other day when I said that if they decided to blow up this team and go with kids the rest of the way, that I'd be really excited.  

I hope we get to see Albers AND Hirsh starting.  Also, I wish Andy would stop lying and go on the fucking DL.

[MusicMan]

At least Andy has a chance at a good game.

Backe just gets pummelled.  LEt him get the rest of his arm strength back.

Rest of the way:
Oswalt
Clemens
Pettitte
Albers
Hirsh

2007:
Oswalt
Albers
Hirsh
Buchholz
Backe

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
That's cool, too.

I wasn't kidding the other day when I said that if they decided to blow up this team and go with kids the rest of the way, that I'd be really excited.  

I hope we get to see Albers AND Hirsh starting.  Also, I wish Andy would stop lying and go on the fucking DL.

And Lidge.  Throwing a fastball over the plate with no movement while opening up like he has sure looks like he's just trying to hump it in there and hoping he gets it by these major league hitters.

I think he's hurt, is compensating for it with his mechanics and won't tell anyone.  But I know jack shit about it, so I'm just Pinwheeling it with that one!

[Alkie]

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.

[No? in Austin]

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.

[astrox]

Quote:
You know, if ...Berkman comes back from the transmission ok...

What is the standard recovery time from a groin injury?  Wasn't Roy's groin the source of 2 trips to the dl?  Those seem to linger longer than others.  It's an injury that you really need to be 100% over before coming back otherwise you just keep re-aggravating it (like we're seeing Lance do everytime they put him in.)

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Amen...

Offensively, this team can't help but get better after the way Ensberg tanked after May and Lane since April.  Berkman needs to stay healthy for this to hold up, as well.  That said, an everyday lineup like this:

Biggio
Burke
Berkman
Huff
Ensberg
Wilson
Everett
Ausmus

Is not an impotent lineup, or, at least shouldn't be.

If they can get consistantly solid starts from 3 starters and solid play from the bullpen, this team will be back in it.  

I'm not overly impressed by Cormier or Lohse.  As far as I can tell, Cincy has more arms, not better ones, than they used to have.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Amen...

Offensively, this team can't help but get better after the way Ensberg tanked after May and Lane since April.  Berkman needs to stay healthy for this to hold up, as well.  That said, an everyday lineup like this:

Biggio
Burke
Berkman
Huff
Ensberg
Wilson
Everett
Ausmus

Is not an impotent lineup, or, at least shouldn't be.

If they can get consistantly solid starts from 3 starters and solid play from the bullpen, this team will be back in it.  

I'm not overly impressed by Cormier or Lohse.  As far as I can tell, Cincy has more arms, not better ones, than they used to have.

Shockingly enough, this team is on pace to score more runs than it did last season. Here's a comparison:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  4.25  .256  .322  .408  .730
2006  4.53  .256  .331  .404  .734

What's gotten worse -- significantly worse, in fact -- this year is the pitching:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  3.74  .246  .308  .389  .697
2006  4.80  .266  .326  .445  .771

This has been both for the starters:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  3.46  .248  .304  .392  .696
2006  4.53  .274  .329  .458  .788

and the relievers:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  3.63  .241  .317  .382  .699
2006  4.36  .250  .319  .401  .727

So maybe what this team needs is to swing a deal that gets past waivers for a reliever and to figure out the right mix of starters from among the eight or nine candidates.

[Froback]

I think to a large degree they are stuck with the guys you see.  The only revolving door seems to be 1 or 2 Bullpen spots and the 4/5 spots in the rotation.  But if they can't win everytime Roy and Roger start, it doesn't matter what else is going on, they won't win the Wild Card.

Personally I would rather see Hirsh and Albers than Buchholz and Backe, but I understand what the club is trying to do.

Next year I would be shocked if Andy and Roger were back.  But neither was really tradeable at this time, so the clubs hands were tied to a large degree.

So this is about what I expected, the offering clubs were asking for too much in return for what Houston wanted.  I have no hard feelings to management over this.

And I fully support signing Roy for big money for years to come.  How much easier would it be on Hirsh/Albers/etc to have a bonified Ace take all that pressure off them to perform.

[cc]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[cc]

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.

[Rebel Jew]

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?

full season of berkman, and wilson compared to the black holes that permeated LF for most of last year.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

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?

full season of berkman, and wilson compared to the black holes that permeated LF for most of last year.

You misunderstood the question. I wasn't asking why the offense was scoring more this year than last year. I was asking how the offense can be considered the culprit in the decline given that the offense has remained roughly constant, while the pitching from 2005 to 2006 has gone way south.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
Amen...

Offensively, this team can't help but get better after the way Ensberg tanked after May and Lane since April.  Berkman needs to stay healthy for this to hold up, as well.  That said, an everyday lineup like this:

Biggio
Burke
Berkman
Huff
Ensberg
Wilson
Everett
Ausmus

Is not an impotent lineup, or, at least shouldn't be.

If they can get consistantly solid starts from 3 starters and solid play from the bullpen, this team will be back in it.  

I'm not overly impressed by Cormier or Lohse.  As far as I can tell, Cincy has more arms, not better ones, than they used to have.

Shockingly enough, this team is on pace to score more runs than it did last season. Here's a comparison:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  4.25  .256  .322  .408  .730
2006  4.53  .256  .331  .404  .734

What's gotten worse -- significantly worse, in fact -- this year is the pitching:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  3.74  .246  .308  .389  .697
2006  4.80  .266  .326  .445  .771

This has been both for the starters:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  3.46  .248  .304  .392  .696
2006  4.53  .274  .329  .458  .788

and the relievers:

Year   R/G   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS
----------------------------------
2005  3.63  .241  .317  .382  .699
2006  4.36  .250  .319  .401  .727

So maybe what this team needs is to swing a deal that gets past waivers for a reliever and to figure out the right mix of starters from among the eight or nine candidates.

Eggszactly!

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Who would have thought it would turn so quickly after a glorious World Series run?

That "run" had pitching and defense as it's foundation.  From Lidge to Pettitte, Houston just does not have the *same* pitching they did last year.

Close?  Not really.

Really far away?  Not really either.

Somewhere in-between.  I say hope for a bullpen solution soon and go from there.  Oswalt and Clemens (at the very least) will give you the innings and quality starts you need.  Pettitte needs to step up, but at the very least provide more innings.  Backe and KidX needs to just hold on at 4 and 5.  That last three spots need a bullpen desperately to help them out.  And the former top two need a shut down top of the order bullpen (Closer and setup men) for sure.

That is a key IMHO, the rest of the stuff about OPS, OBP, et. al., comes and goes, but you can't have the pitching go any further south from last year than it has so far.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Eggszactly!

As you always say, pitching and defense something something something.

[cc]

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.

[No? in Austin]

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.

[DVauthrin]

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.

[cc]

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.

[No? in Austin]

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?).

[cc]

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.

[cc]

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.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
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.

I would say just off the top of my head that the bullpen's inability to be the shut down pen it was in 2005 cost Houston roughly a 10 game swing.  They'd be at least 3 over .500 right now instead of seven below.  The Cardinals series at home right before the All-Star break was telling to me.  Houston won the first game of the four game set.  They were within two games of catching the Cardinals in the division.  And then the starters and bullpen proceeded to blow the next three games.  Now the Astros are five out instead of tied or within one game of the Cardinals.  It was disheartening to watch how they lost too.  The offense battled all series long, but the pitching just could not hold leads nor shut down the Cardinals.  In days past, they would've done so.

Not this year.  I'm hoping that will change.

[WulawHorn]

At the begginning of the year I posted that the astros would be just fine without Clemens if Roy and Andy could combine to be about 20 or 25 games over 500 (or in other words as good as they were in 2005) and Backe could duplicate his ERA over the course of 200 innings.

None of the above has happened, and as a result the stros suck right now.  It's b/c of the pitching, period, end of story. The offense I expected to be better (by a little) with a full season of Berkman and Pdub and that's exactly what it has been, better by a little bit.  They are doing enough.  Andy and the bullpen, and Backe have not.

[JimR]

i have been saying pitching all year, too, Noe, and i agree with you.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
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.

It's not that I think the "intangibles" are wholly quantifiable (or wholly unquantifiable, for that matter) or that they don't exist because they can't be easily quantified. It's that they should manifest themselves in the team scoring more runs or, perhaps as you've better put it, scoring runs at more opportune times.

Let's take one way that we could partially glimpse at exploiting this more opportune brand of run-scoring. Last season, the Astros were 25-21 in one-run games. Now, I would think a team that practiced the kind of nuanced, intangible precision you're talking about, would suffer in one-run games. But the 2006 team is 15-12 in one-run games. That isn't as good as last season, but it's not awful, either.

And last year's team was 5-8 in extra innings. This season the Astros are 4-9. Not a big gap there, either.

Here's one set of stats that does support your point: the 2006 Astros are .222/.296/.323 in close-and-late situations. The 2005 team was a bit better, at .234/.309/.373. So that could indicate that the 2005 Astros were more efficient at converting in those opportunities.

It should be noted that the 2005 Astros drove in 96 runs in 853 close-and-late at-bats, however, while the 2006 Astros have driven in 65 runs in 554 close-and-late at-bats, which means that the 2006 team is actually driving in runs at a slightly better rate in those critical situations.

But whatever the case may be, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a team scoring the same number of runs as this team, but scoring them at more opportune times, could overcome the fact that the pitching staff has been about 100 runs worse this season.

In fact, what you're asking me to do is to ignore the most obvious, glaring difference between this year and last -- the pitching -- and focus with a microscope on offensive intangibles that we haven't even established are worse this year than last.

How do we know for sure that they're not doing the little things that they were doing last year? We don't. So even if I accepted that the intangibles were capable of making this difference, have we even established that the 2006 squad is that much worse than the 2005 squad in the intangibles?

I think what's happened is a matter of perception, not about the 2006 squad, but about the 2005 squad. The 2006 Astros have plenty of glaring deficiencies, which is why they're toward the bottom of the league in scoring.

But because they made the World Series last year, and because the pitching was so darned good and picked up the offense a lot, we forget how generally frustrating the 2005 Astros were at the plate for much of last year. It should take nothing more than to remember when the offense went back into the deep freeze in the World Series to recall how tenuous the offensive situation was in 2005.

As for baseball knowledge, we just see things differently. I don't think it's a matter of more or less.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
i have been saying pitching all year, too, Noe, and i agree with you.

I'm sure this will make both you and Noe sleep much, much easier at night, but I've been thinking about the notion about run-scoring, sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't, but that the pitching has to be there regardless.  (It's "modal," Noe says, or, as Jim puts it, it's "gravy.")

The way I think of it is this. Even Ruth made an out six of 10 times he came to bat. But the big-name starters put in a quality outing eight of 10 times.

In other words, you're hitting's going to have a hard time ever getting any better than 4-of-10, but if you build your pitching staff right, you're going to have yourself in the game the vast majority of the time.

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:

Quote:
i have been saying pitching all year, too, Noe, and i agree with you.

I'm sure this will make both you and Noe sleep much, much easier at night, but I've been thinking about the notion about run-scoring, sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't, but that the pitching has to be there regardless.  (It's "modal," Noe says, or, as Jim puts it, it's "gravy.")

The way I think of it is this. Even Ruth made an out six of 10 times he came to bat. But the big-name starters put in a quality outing eight of 10 times.

In other words, you're hitting's going to have a hard time ever getting any better than 4-of-10, but if you build your pitching staff right, you're going to have yourself in the game the vast majority of the time.

But if Ruth gets a hit or a walk 4 times out of 10 (or 2 times out of 5), and if 1 of those ten is a home run, then that means he's likely to either get a hit or get on base almost twice a game, and hit a home run nearly every other game.  Consider win shares or not, but guarantee a team two base runners a game from one spot in the lineup, and a home run every other game, and you've given that team a much better chance of winning right from the start.  And that's every game, not 1 game out of 5.  Good pitching or not, the Astros were 19-9 when Ausmus was producing like an all star at the bottom of the lineup.  Notice how much better they've been playing against decent NL teams over the past week since Scott's been producing.  Even with some horrid individual pitching performances, they've had a chance to win every game.

That being said, I definitely agree that nobody who watched this team last year can say that the offense was any better than this year.  I vividly recall the statistic showing how solid the '05 Astros record would have been by the All Star Break if they'd scored exactly 3 runs in every game (something like 5 games over .500), and how stellar it would have been if they'd scored exactly 4 in every game (something like 10 games over .500).  The turnaround last year came when they started scoring this minimal amount of runs on a consistent basis, a turnaround that can almost singlehandedly be attributed to Berkman's return to form.