Belive it or not the Astros have good starting pitching

[icp2]

I just wrote that thread title to get people's attention.

Nonetheless, I genuinely believe that the Astros starting although not stellar, is the time bomb that people seem to make it out to be. As it stands right now, other than Roy Oswalt, we're looking at several pitchers for four different spots:

Chris Sampson
Wandy Rodriguez
Brandon Backe
Woody Williams
Troy Patton

I will be the first to bash Woody, I don't think that last season was a fluke, however, consider this:

Chris Sampson's career ERA is 4.05. Last season before a minor injury that he played through the rest of the season, he had an ERA of 3.29.

Wandy Rodriguez has always been "full of potential" according to coaches. That seemed to mean ERAs above 5, but in 2007 with a KO/IP of .865, Wandy showed signs of potential and an ERA of 4.58.

Brando Backe's career ERA is 4.63 and last year was 3.77.

In limited action Troy Patton posted an ERA of 3.55, which hopefully is a sign of things to come. Also, being left-handed, if Wandy struggles next year, (as the management will probably will chose to start Woody regardless) then we can use Patton as a replacement.

I completely understand the critique: there is no one here that we are guaranteed to get a good year from like we are with Roy. However, very very few teams actually have the prototypical rotation with an ideal no. 1 followed by an ideal no. 2, etc...
In addition, with no pitchers in the free agent market that are the type of pitchers we are looking for (a legitimate "no. 2") the only way we would be able to get such a pitcher would be by paying an inflated price on the trade market due to the premium on pitching across the baseball world. In reality, there are few options that will legitimately improve the team.

Which brings me to my point, until a genuine solution presents itself, these pitchers make for a serviceable rotation.

[thacabbage]

This is reminiscent of when people in the GARM would list a depth chart of Alston/Lucas/Spanoulis/Head and cite that as evidence of depth at the point guard position. Just because you list a bunch of names doesn't mean any of it is of any quality.

[jopatmc]

I'm fine with Sampson and Patton/Albers/Backe as 4/5. But any of the rest of those guys as 2/3...............come on now.

[JunkyardDwg]

I think a good question is can these young guys keep the team in the game...Oswalt is a no brainer.

And I think the only guy that I would truly worry about walking out onto the mound would be Woody...he was flat out awful last year, with the exception one short, stellar stretch. But he seems intent on proving last year was a fluke.

The offense seems to have improved, and with that I think the team will be capable of winning more games in which their pitchers give up 3-5 runs. We don't have to hope for the perfect game every time.

So I think if no other move is made, the rotation could be ok...could keep the team in contention...but it's definitely not a given.

[ind0fo0]

backe was reallly bad last year. hopefully the off-season got him rest and he is ready to go.

[JunkyardDwg]

I'm fine with Sampson and Patton/Albers/Backe as 4/5. But any of the rest of those guys as 2/3...............come on now.

A number 2 no.....but I think you're over valuing the number 3 spot...Backe or Patton (maybe even Sampson) could probably fill that role just fine. It's very rare that a team has a Oswalt, Pettite, Clemens rotation....and before Clemens came back his last season with us, Backe filled in at the number three.

[JunkyardDwg]

backe was reallly bad last year. hopefully the off-season got him rest and he is ready to go.


Backe didn't pitch last year until September...when did get on the mound he was 3-1 with a 3.77 ERA...not bad for a guy still recovering from Tommy John.

Maybe you're thinking of Woody?

[ThePrivate]

I just wrote that thread title to get people's attention.

Nonetheless, I genuinely believe that the Astros starting although not stellar, is the time bomb that people seem to make it out to be. As it stands right now, other than Roy Oswalt, we're looking at several pitchers for four different spots:

Chris Sampson
Wandy Rodriguez
Brandon Backe
Woody Williams
Troy Patton

I will be the first to bash Woody, I don't think that last season was a fluke, however, consider this:

Chris Sampson's career ERA is 4.05. Last season before a minor injury that he played through the rest of the season, he had an ERA of 3.29.

Wandy Rodriguez has always been "full of potential" according to coaches. That seemed to mean ERAs above 5, but in 2007 with a KO/IP of .865, Wandy showed signs of potential and an ERA of 4.58.

Brando Backe's career ERA is 4.63 and last year was 3.77.

In limited action Troy Patton posted an ERA of 3.55, which hopefully is a sign of things to come. Also, being left-handed, if Wandy struggles next year, (as the management will probably will chose to start Woody regardless) then we can use Patton as a replacement.

I completely understand the critique: there is no one here that we are guaranteed to get a good year from like we are with Roy. However, very very few teams actually have the prototypical rotation with an ideal no. 1 followed by an ideal no. 2, etc...
In addition, with no pitchers in the free agent market that are the type of pitchers we are looking for (a legitimate "no. 2") the only way we would be able to get such a pitcher would be by paying an inflated price on the trade market due to the premium on pitching across the baseball world. In reality, there are few options that will legitimately improve the team.

Which brings me to my point, until a genuine solution presents itself, these pitchers make for a serviceable rotation.


You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just typing "Not!" :D

[Nick]

It is a problem... but people would rather talk for 20 pages about how terrible it is to have Adam Everett batting 8th, rather than talking about how this team will have a relative unproven as the #2 starter unless other moves are made.

[redgoose]

I couldn't agree with you more and have been thinking about this last year. Oswalt and Berkman aren't getting any younger. Teams are finally beginning to realize the importance of a solid #2 pitcher and fast base runners at the top who can actually steal bases. Someone who can eat up 200+ innings gives the bullpen an extra day to rest. Plus we still have plenty of other spots to fill.


My prediction is whomever comes out of the NL will then get swept by the Yankees, RedSox, or Tigers in the WS. The AL is like the NBA Eastern Conference or the NFC. :(

I heard the heard part of Wade or Drayton interview last week and he stated the team has around a 105 million budget to spend this year due to increased revenue. Surely we could get a couple good people with our excess money. Though, i doubt we will in this FA market. :mad: Drayton won't overpay or get into bidding wars for someone.

However, some unpradess need to be made if we want to at least finish in 2nd place.


I just wrote that thread title to get people's attention.

Nonetheless, I genuinely believe that the Astros starting although not stellar, is the time bomb that people seem to make it out to be. As it stands right now, other than Roy Oswalt, we're looking at several pitchers for four different spots:

Chris Sampson
Wandy Rodriguez
Brandon Backe
Woody Williams
Troy Patton

I will be the first to bash Woody, I don't think that last season was a fluke, however, consider this:

Chris Sampson's career ERA is 4.05. Last season before a minor injury that he played through the rest of the season, he had an ERA of 3.29.

Wandy Rodriguez has always been "full of potential" according to coaches. That seemed to mean ERAs above 5, but in 2007 with a KO/IP of .865, Wandy showed signs of potential and an ERA of 4.58.

Brando Backe's career ERA is 4.63 and last year was 3.77.

In limited action Troy Patton posted an ERA of 3.55, which hopefully is a sign of things to come. Also, being left-handed, if Wandy struggles next year, (as the management will probably will chose to start Woody regardless) then we can use Patton as a replacement.

I completely understand the critique: there is no one here that we are guaranteed to get a good year from like we are with Roy. However, very very few teams actually have the prototypical rotation with an ideal no. 1 followed by an ideal no. 2, etc...
In addition, with no pitchers in the free agent market that are the type of pitchers we are looking for (a legitimate "no. 2") the only way we would be able to get such a pitcher would be by paying an inflated price on the trade market due to the premium on pitching across the baseball world. In reality, there are few options that will legitimately improve the team.

Which brings me to my point, until a genuine solution presents itself, these pitchers make for a serviceable rotation.

[DoitDickau]

It is a problem... but people would rather talk for 20 pages about how terrible it is to have Adam Everett batting 8th, rather than talking about how this team will have a relative unproven as the #2 starter unless other moves are made.


Yea but in the regular season having good quality depth in your rotation is as important and, imo, perhaps more important than having a "proven #2". A #2 starter will have approximately 32-34 starters per season. The 4 and 5 slots will have about 60 starts between them. If you have quality at the 4 and 5 slots it can make up for not having a great #2 or a great #1 or whatever.

[Nick]

If you have quality at the 4 and 5 slots it can make up for not having a great #2 or a great #1 or whatever.

By that logic, why should a team ever get a #1? Just get 5 "quality" #4 or #5 starters, who will have ALL the starts between them.

Look... these guys are #4/5 guys for a reason... they're going to be inconsistent, not going to go very deep in many games, and unless the offense is on fire when they pitch, not going to win many games.

The Astros have a lot of guys who fit that picture. Filling out a quality rotation (with a proven #1/#2) with these guys would be great... but expecting them to be the majority of the rotation is asking for trouble.

[xcrunner51]

Yea but in the regular season having good quality depth in your rotation is as important and, imo, perhaps more important than having a "proven #2". A #2 starter will have approximately 32-34 starters per season. The 4 and 5 slots will have about 60 starts between them. If you have quality at the 4 and 5 slots it can make up for not having a great #2 or a great #1 or whatever.

The ideal #2 should make 32-34 starts, throw very close to 200 innings, have a sub 3.75 era and win 14-17 games.

The ideals for a 4/5 starter are much lower. Pretty much if the 4/5 gives you ~30 starts, with a sub 5 era and about a .500 win percentage, then its a good season.

My concern is having Roy and then 4 guys behind him who give 4/5 starter years. It that case, even depth wouldn't get us to the playoffs. Albers and Patton will be too inconsistent to produce over a 4/5 year. Sampson just isn't talented enough to do better than a 4/5 year over the course of the entire season and Backe's health will always be questionable. I think Backe could step up and have an ideal #2 season but I wouldn't bank on it.

[Aceshigh7]

backe was reallly bad last year. hopefully the off-season got him rest and he is ready to go.

Obviously you didn't even watch last year. Backe pitched great once he came back.

[Major]

By that logic, why should a team ever get a #1? Just get 5 "quality" #4 or #5 starters, who will have ALL the starts between them.


Well, if you make the playoffs, you want great 1/2 pitchers - that's the reason the Astros of 2004 and 2005 were better in the postseason than the regular season. But to just make the playoffs, an above average 4/5 is better than an above average 2. That was pretty much the Cardinals' strategy for most of the last several years - the 2-5 starters were all interchangable, but they were all pretty decent #3 or #4 types. Detroit had a similar strategy the last few years. You'll win a lot of games that way - probably more than having a great 1 and 2, but terrible 4 and 5 (like the Astros 2006, for example).

[DoitDickau]

By that logic, why should a team ever get a #1? Just get 5 "quality" #4 or #5 starters, who will have ALL the starts between them.

I think that's what the yankees do practically every year. They seem to do well in the regular season. Hell, the astros in 04 had a good defense, a great offense, great closer, and an all time great 1-2 punch in the rotation, but were basically a .500 team all year because the back of their rotation was garbage.

But to answer your question those nominations are essentially meaningless once games start. A win by a #4 starter is worth just as much as a win by a #2 starter. In the regular season you'll have many more games started by your 3-5 (and beyond once injuries start in) than with your 1 and 2 starters.

The reason you want a "#1" or a #2" is really simply because they are better than the other pitchers in your rotation. Simple as that. The better the pitchers in your rotation, the better the rotation. However, if you don't have an elite pitcher then that deficit can be made up for by having better than average pitchers at the back of your rotation.

Winning two games at the start of your rotation doesn't mean much if you lose the next 3 because you have hacks there. Just like losing the 2nd game in your rotation can be made up if you have win the next 3 because you're 3-5 is better than the other team's 3-5.

The playoffs, obvious are a different story.


Look... these guys are #4/5 guys for a reason... they're going to be inconsistent, not going to go very deep in many games, and unless the offense is on fire when they pitch, not going to win many games.


Exactly! Other 4/5's around the league typically aren't that good. Thus if you can get quality at the back end of the rotation you'll have a big advantage over the other team you are trying to beat.

[Nick]

Well, if you make the playoffs, you want great 1/2 pitchers - that's the reason the Astros of 2004 and 2005 were better in the postseason than the regular season. But to just make the playoffs, an above average 4/5 is better than an above average 2. That was pretty much the Cardinals' strategy for most of the last several years - the 2-5 starters were all interchangable, but they were all pretty decent #3 or #4 types. Detroit had a similar strategy the last few years. You'll win a lot of games that way - probably more than having a great 1 and 2, but terrible 4 and 5 (like the Astros 2006, for example).

The Cardinals and the Tigers had more talent/experience in their 2-5 than any of the guys the Astros are throwing out there this year (i'd take a Kenny Rogers or Jeff Suppan over Wandy).

We tend to overvalue our own... and the fact of the matter is, Sampson, Wandy, Backe, and Patton/Albers is a big-time question-mark all-around. Ideally, you'd like Patton/Albers to come into their own with some veterans anchoring the top spots... but right now, the most "experinced" pitcher other than Oswalt is Wandy.

Also, pitching was the only reason the 2005 Astros even sniffed the playoffs... it can definitely carry you during the regular season (and be that much more valuable in the playoffs).

[DoitDickau]

The Cardinals and the Tigers had more talent/experience in their 2-5 than any of the guys the Astros are throwing out there this year (i'd take a Kenny Rogers or Jeff Suppan over Wandy).

We tend to overvalue our own... and the fact of the matter is, Sampson, Wandy, Backe, and Patton/Albers is a big-time question-mark all-around. Ideally, you'd like Patton/Albers to come into their own with some veterans anchoring the top spots... but right now, the most "experinced" pitcher other than Oswalt is Wandy.

Also, pitching was the only reason the 2005 Astros even sniffed the playoffs... it can definitely carry you during the regular season (and be that much more valuable in the playoffs).

i'm not saying the astros have that right now. I'm just saying that IF the astros had good depth in their rotation that could make up for not having a good #2.

Starting pitching was clearly the strongest part of the 2005 team. However, the top of that rotation was one of the best top-three's of all-time. No one in baseball right now can match the top of that rotation. It's just not realistic to expect that. If the astros have a rotation in the top 5 in innings pitched and era i don't think it makes a huge difference where those numbers come from. In fact, during the regular season it may be better for the team to have 5 pitchers at 3.50-4.25 ERA's than to have two guys at with sub 3 ERA's and 3 other w/ 5+ ERA's.

[DoitDickau]

i'm not saying the astros have that right now. I'm just saying that IF the astros had good depth in their rotation that could make up for not having a good #2.

Starting pitching was clearly the strongest part of the 2005 team. However, the top of that rotation was one of the best top-three's of all-time. No one in baseball right now can match the top of that rotation. It's just not realistic to expect that. If the astros have a rotation in the top 5 in innings pitched and era i don't think it makes a huge difference where those numbers come from. In fact, during the regular season it may be better for the team to have 5 pitchers at 3.50-4.25 ERA's than to have two guys at with sub 3 ERA's and 3 other w/ 5+ ERA's.


And given the market for top-notch starting pitchers it may be much feasible for the astros to improve the middle and back of their rotation than it is for them to acquire a established #2.

[Nick]

For the record, I do feel that we have "above average" #4/#5 pitchers (whatever the hell that means... since I can't see any of them being a solid #3 right now... so essentially, they're a bunch of 3.5's)... but I don't forsee much success if you're depending on all of them to make up a #2-5 after Oswalt.

Yes, it serves us better if we only needed to round out the rotation with a #4 and #5 (which is better than most team's filler)... but that's not the case. We have no clear #2 or #3 either.

[magnetik]

kinda reaching with those pitchers other than Roy.

the one thing I am worried about other than pitching is to see if we get the "old" Lance back. The guy that hit for average AND power.

[Nick]

the one thing I am worried about other than pitching is to see if we get the "old" Lance back. The guy that hit for average AND power.

When it was all said and done... Lance had a pretty damn good year last year.

Sure, it wasn't near his career avg's... but most guys would kill to have a season like that... and its more a testament to how high of a bar Lance has already set for himself in the first half of his career thus far.

[haven]

Only one of those pitchers has a good resume. And he's probably in decline.

Sorry, no dice.

[AzCkR]

Has there been any news on where Jennings might sign? I know he had a horrific year last season, but I would not ming bringing him back as we could probably get him at a relatively cheap price.

[right1]

Has there been any news on where Jennings might sign? I know he had a horrific year last season, but I would not ming bringing him back as we could probably get him at a relatively cheap price.

I wouldn't want him even if he offered to pitch for free.

[MaxwellsTemper]

None of those guys is a #2. You can't make arguments based on ERA. Yeah, those guys are all decent, that's why they are in MLB. But beyond that, that doesn't make you a #2 pitcher because you have an ERA less than 4.50.

Those guys don't have the stuff, control, and can't eat innings to be a #2. Which of those guys can you mark down and say "this guy is getting me 200+ innings." None. They could, sure.. but will they? Probably not. A #2 has got to be able to get deep into games, not just have an ERA of 4.00. Plus, what about their walks, runners on, etc etc. I'm not gonna bother looking it up, because my intention is not to rip those guys up. Yeah, they are alright.. I particularly like Sampson. But they are not top of the rotation pitchers.

[jakedasnake]

Obviously you didn't even watch last year. Backe pitched great once he came back.

If Backe can stay healthy he should be a pretty solid pitcher at the top of the rotation. Hopefully he will have a healthy season because we need his excitement and attitude on the staff.

[NJRocket]

Backe can be a 3 imo. And the others would be as good as probably 90% of the 4/5's in the league. We need a #2...period.

[hatemavs4life]

The Cardinals and the Tigers had more talent/experience in their 2-5 than any of the guys the Astros are throwing out there this year (i'd take a Kenny Rogers or Jeff Suppan over Wandy).

We tend to overvalue our own... and the fact of the matter is, Sampson, Wandy, Backe, and Patton/Albers is a big-time question-mark all-around. Ideally, you'd like Patton/Albers to come into their own with some veterans anchoring the top spots... but right now, the most "experinced" pitcher other than Oswalt is Wandy.

Also, pitching was the only reason the 2005 Astros even sniffed the playoffs... it can definitely carry you during the regular season (and be that much more valuable in the playoffs).

I think Albers is probably best suited for long relief and perhaps a spot start in lieu of an injury to another pitcher in the rotation. Sampson looks a little bit more consistent but certainly has room for improvement. Patton? Haven't seen enough of him here in the bigs to form a yea/nay vote. Backe can step up into the #2 if no other options present themselves I think he can handle it sans the getting bit by the injury bug. Wandy showed grit last year and with a good showing in spring training, I think he deserves an opportunity for the #3. On thing for certain, the rotation will be appreciably better just not having Jennings back. God what a bust he was! :rolleyes:

Rotation: (if no better options out there ...)

Roy, Backe, Wandy, Sampson, Patton/Woody.

[NIKEstrad]

Backe can be a 3 imo. And the others would be as good as probably 90% of the 4/5's in the league. We need a #2...period.

Agreed. Roy's an obvious ace and Backe's a decent 3 if healthy. Wandy/Patton is respectable as 4/5. I don't really know where that leaves Woody/Sampson/Albers/Gutierrez et. al

The problem right now is Woody is our #2...

As for Albers, I think he has good enough stuff to be an 8th inning guy, and maybe even a closer.

[DOMINATOR]

As for Albers, I think he has good enough stuff to be an 8th inning guy, and maybe even a closer.
he's had good stuff for awhile but he is not consistent at all.

[Dr.Strangelove]

We need a quality inning eater,a proven #2+, and a closer.

[MaxwellsTemper]

If Backe is expected to be the #2 or #3 pitcher in our rotation, we can kiss next season goodbye. We'd be over .500, probably.. but that is not a rotation for a playoff contending ballclub.

[bobrek]

If Backe is expected to be the #2 or #3 pitcher in our rotation, we can kiss next season goodbye. We'd be over .500, probably.. but that is not a rotation for a playoff contending ballclub.

Over .500 is a playoff contender in the NL Central :)

[jev5555]

i'm down with what we got as SP...only because next year is the cream of the crop with starters. SAVE YOUR MONEY FOR NEXT SEASON! Santana will not sign an extension with anyone. Then theres CC Sabathia Jake Peavy and so many other great arms to be had next season.

[bobrek]

i'm down with what we got as SP...only because next year is the cream of the crop with starters. SAVE YOUR MONEY FOR NEXT SEASON! Santana will not sign an extension with anyone. Then theres CC Sabathia Jake Peavy and so many other great arms to be had next season.

Peavy is expected to sign an extension today (if not, he is still under contract through 2009). If Santana is traded he more than likely WILL sign an extension with that team.