And I thought some of you guys were bad (Astros related)

[Castor27]

Sometimes I read trough this forum and see a lot of the doomsday Astros fans we have here. A lot of the no matter what move we make it is the wrong one, mentality. However, nothing compares to this gem I found while looking up some info on John Patterson. I came across this news article in the Dallas Morning News. The article is just an information piece but you have to read some of the comments. Some of those things make the naysayers on this forum look like Drayton McLane's closest relatives. I would be worried that some of those guys could seriously be suicidal over the awfulness of the Rangers. Read and be glad we are at least around .500


http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/rangers-to-add-john-patterson.html

[tigermission1]

Sometimes I read trough this forum and see a lot of the doomsday Astros fans we have here. A lot of the no matter what move we make it is the wrong one, mentality. However, nothing compares to this gem I found while looking up some info on John Patterson. I came across this news article in the Dallas Morning News. The article is just an information piece but you have to read some of the comments. Some of those things make the naysayers on this forum look like Drayton McLane's closest relatives. I would be worried that some of those guys could seriously be suicidal over the awfulness of the Rangers. Read and be glad we are at least around .500


http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/rangers-to-add-john-patterson.html

I don't know, I've been to Rangers games and I could swear that every time I do I actually see more jerseys of not just the opposing team, but pretty much every single other team in the league BUT the Rangers (e.g. Devil Rays, Marlins, Padres). The Rangers don't really have many die-hard fans, probably a very handful.

Thank God for my Astros, I don't think most fans appreciate what they have here in Houston.

[Smokey]

My favorite is:

1-5 with a 7.47 ERA,are you sure that he isn`t auditioning for our Ace role here? What a total waste of money even giving this guy a bus ticket to AAA.One of these years the Rangers are going to draft a # 1 starter-stud before I die,but I am 49 and the clock is ticking and they still haven`t.

[weslinder]

Rangers' Fans? I've heard of them, but I've never seen any credible evidence that they really exist. Kinda like Bigfoot.

[The Cat]

On a related note, the offseason decisions made by Patterson and Jason Jennings to sign with Texas were two of the dumbest things I've ever seen. I guess short-term money talks, but it's amazing that these players don't think about the long-term benefit of their careers. With Jennings and Patterson, you have two pitchers coming off significant injuries who threw poorly in pitchers' parks in the NL. So, the solution... is to go to the AL and pitch in the bandbox in Arlington? :confused:

Stunning.

[MadMax]

Quite possibly the worst franchise in all of pro sports. Certainly in the discussion.

[blathersby]

Sometimes I read trough this forum and see a lot of the doomsday Astros fans we have here.
I'm a 'Stros fan. I stuck by the Astros even when Chron had their tombstone up. I knew that was a good team that could go far.

But this is NOT a good team. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. I'm not a doomsday fan; I'm a realistic one.

[DaDakota]

But this is NOT a good team. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. I'm not a doomsday fan; I'm a realistic one.


How can you make that judgement at this point of the season, they are just geting used to each other.

This is quite possibly the BEST offensive lineup in Astros history...and if they get some moderate pitching they may take off.

As I type this...5 in a row baby !

DD

[msn]

I'm a 'Stros fan. I stuck by the Astros even when Chron had their tombstone up.
You mean the tombstone they put up seven months after the Astros played in an NLCS, in year 9 of a 9-year stretch in which the Astros made the playoffs 6 times and had two Hall-of-Famers on their roster?

Dude, I stuck with them through the 70s and 80s.

I'm just sayin'. :p

[rocketballin]

Quite possibly the worst franchise in all of pro sports. Certainly in the discussion.

Atleast we have Nolan Ryan :p

You have Roger Clemens :D

[shsu33]

Atleast we have Nolan Ryan :p

You have Roger Clemens :D

Is that what your gonna say in Arlington when more than half the stadium is chanting, "Lets go Astros?" All Ranger fans could do last year was start booing to try and drown it out, lol.

[rocketballin]

Is that what your gonna say in Arlington when more than half the stadium is chanting, "Lets go Astros?" All Ranger fans could do last year was start booing to try and drown it out, lol.

It would be nice to see Houston support the Rockets as much as they support the Astros.

[MadMax]

It would be nice to see Houston support the Rockets as much as they support the Astros.

it would be nice to see the rockets get back to the continued string of success they once had and which the astros enjoyed from about 1997-2005. it would be nice to sniff the second round more than zero times in 11 seasons.

i don't blame ranger fans for their non-existence...they'll hop on the bandwagon in DFW the way they would in any other city if that team ever figures out: a.) how to win, and b.) how to build a roof on a stadium.

[Achilleus]

it would be nice to see the rockets get back to the continued string of success they once had and which the astros enjoyed from about 1997-2005. it would be nice to sniff the second round more than zero times in 11 seasons.

How many times have the Astros gotten beyond the NLDS?

[msn]

How many times have the Astros gotten beyond the NLDS?
Two more times than the Rockets since 1997... which was the point. The post to which you replied acknowledged the Rockets' great success prior to that.

[Achilleus]

Two more times than the Rockets since 1997... which was the point. The post to which you replied acknowledged the Rockets' great success prior to that.

Then only mention those two seasons...

[MadMax]

How many times have the Astros gotten beyond the NLDS?

Please. Getting to the playoffs in MLB is actually an accomplishment in and of itself. Only 8/30 teams do it each year. In the NBA, MORE TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THAN DON'T. Making the playoffs is no great feat in the NBA.

I love me some Rockets...but comparing the Astros and the Rockets over the last 11 years, it's not even close in terms of relative success.

[Achilleus]

Please. Getting to the playoffs in MLB is actually an accomplishment in and of itself. Only 8/30 teams do it each year. In the NBA, MORE TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THAN DON'T. Making the playoffs is no great feat in the NBA.

Right, getting home court advantage in the Western Conference of the NBA is really easy. I forgot...

[msn]

Right, getting home court advantage in the Western Conference of the NBA is really easy. I forgot...
How meaningful is that home court advantage now? You think Cowboy fans feel like their franchise is recently "successful" after last year's Round One debacle?

[Achilleus]

How meaningful is that home court advantage now? You think Cowboy fans feel like their franchise is recently "successful" after last year's Round One debacle?

At least they made the playoffs last year, eh? Do they play in a tough division (like the Rockets in the NBA, or even the Texans in the NFL)?

Do the Astros?

[msn]

At least they made the playoffs last year, eh? Do they play in a tough division (like the Rockets in the NBA, or even the Texans in the NFL)?

Do the Astros?
Were the Astros in the Rocket's conference with the same winning percentages, they would have made the playoffs in:
1996
1997
1998
1999
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

It's easier to make the playoffs in the NBA. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

[MadMax]

Right, getting home court advantage in the Western Conference of the NBA is really easy. I forgot...

Hey, I think it's awesome they were able to do that the last two years. Particularly this last season.

But again...making the playoffs in hoops ain't a real accomplishment. And over the past 11 years, the record for the Rockets isn't good in that respect.

[Castor27]

Please. Getting to the playoffs in MLB is actually an accomplishment in and of itself. Only 8/30 teams do it each year. In the NBA, MORE TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THAN DON'T. Making the playoffs is no great feat in the NBA.

I love me some Rockets...but comparing the Astros and the Rockets over the last 11 years, it's not even close in terms of relative success.


Also in the span between 1997 and now how many MLB teams made the playoffs with a record under .500? ZERO
How many NBA teams made the playoffs with a sub .500 record? 8 (3 of those were from the WC in '97)

[Achilleus]

It's easier to make the playoffs in the NBA.

That would be a strong argument to make if the Rockets were playing in the Eastern Conference and barely making the playoffs.

The Rockets play better teams than the Astros. They play in a tougher division. Grasp it, quickly.

If you like baseball better than basketball, that's one thing. No arguments... It's just preference. But to pretend that somehow the Astros have been overwhelmingly more successful than the Rockets is ridiculous. Both teams have struggled in the playoffs.

If the Rockets were not successful this year, with what they overcame to get home court, then the Astros never had a "string of success" for eight or nine years. Just two really good seasons with great players they rented (only to flame out in the end).

[rterry]

I'm a 'Stros fan. I stuck by the Astros even when Chron had their tombstone up. I knew that was a good team that could go far.

But this is NOT a good team. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. I'm not a doomsday fan; I'm a realistic one.

I hate blind optimism, but I also hate blind pessimism. The jury is still out on this Astros team. It sure looks like they will have a very good offense. So far there pithcing has been better than expected. It is pessimistic to say this is NOT a good team. It might not be, but we have won 6 in a row so the possibility of good ball is there.

Pessimism is often disguised as realistic or objective. I almost puked this morning when some moron called 790 and said he loved the show because the morning show was so objective. The constant pessimism on that show drives me crazy. Being negative or going against popular opinion does not necessarily mean someone is being realistic or objective. It is more often a reflection of their general outlook on life.

[MadMax]

That would be a strong argument to make if the Rockets were playing in the Eastern Conference and barely making the playoffs.

The Rockets play better teams than the Astros. They play in a tougher division. Grasp it, quickly.

If you like baseball better than basketball, that's one thing. No arguments... It's just preference. But to pretend that somehow the Astros have been overwhelmingly more successful than the Rockets is ridiculous. Both teams have struggled in the playoffs.

If the Rockets were not successful this year, with what they overcame to get home court, then the Astros never had a "string of success" for eight or nine years. Just two really good seasons with great players they rented (only to flame out in the end).

Over the last 11 years the Astros have absolutely, positively been more successful than the Rockets. I'm not talking about the last 2 seasons. I'm talking about the last 11. Whether you judge that by playoff series wins...division championships...playoff appearances...whatever.

And again...I'm not saying the Rockets weren't successful this season. I think they were. I think they had a very good season.

[msn]

The Rockets play better teams than the Astros. They play in a tougher division. Grasp it, quickly.
...and they can finish below .500 in their division and still make the playoffs. "Grasp it, quickly."

But to pretend that somehow the Astros have been overwhelmingly more successful than the Rockets is ridiculous.
It's neither pretense nor ridiculous. It's accurate. It's OK if you disagree, but I believe you're wrong.

If the Rockets were not successful this year, with what they overcame to get home court, then the Astros never had a "string of success" for eight or nine years.
I never said the Rocket's weren't successful this year.

[Achilleus]

...and they can finish below .500 in their division and still make the playoffs. "Grasp it, quickly."

Yet, the Rockets have not been below .500 in their division the last three times they've made the playoffs. Why have you given me air to grasp?

[MadMax]

Yet, the Rockets have not been below .500 in their division the last three times they've made the playoffs. Why have you given me air to grasp?

11 years. not the last 4, when they made the playoffs 3 times.

[bobrek]

Yet, the Rockets have not been below .500 in their division the last three times they've made the playoffs. Why have you given me air to grasp?

If success is measured by how often a team makes the playoffs, a baseball team has a much tougher time than a basketball team.

If success is measured by how well a team performs in the playoffs, again, a baseball team has a harder time simply because they do not have as easy an opportunity to make the playoffs and increase their opportunity for playoff success.

For example, had the Rockets been a baseball team, they would never have won their second championship. Had the Astros been a basketball team, they would have made the playoffs and had more opportunites for success from 1995 - 2005 (except perhaps 2000).

If success is measured by how well a team does in the regular season, I believe the Astros' record was second or third in the entire NL 1990 - 2005.

[msn]

Just deleted my entire post after seeing bobrek's response. Just read his three times and then write, "The Astros were better than the Rockets from 1996-2007" on the board 100 times. :D

[bobrek]

Just deleted my entire post after seeing bobrek's response. Just read his three times and then write, "The Astros were better than the Rockets from 1996-2007" on the board 100 times. :D

And I can add to that...

The #1 seeded baseball playoff team doesn't play the 8th best team in the league, they play the 4th (and somtimes 3rd) to open the playoffs.

The reward for the 4th seeded baseball team isn't the 5th seed, it is generally the best team in the league.

[Castor27]

Rockets:

1997-98 41 41 .500 Lost First Round Utah 3, Houston 2
1998-99 31 19 .620 Lost First Round LA Lakers 3, Houston 1
1999-2000 34 48 .415 No PLayoffs
2000-01 45 37 .550 No Playoffs
2001-02 28 54 .341 No playoffs
2002-03 43 39 .524 No Playoffs
2003-04 45 37 .550 Lost First Round LA Lakers 4, Houston 1
2004-05 51 31 .622 Lost First Round Dallas 4, Houston 3
2005-06 34 48 .415 No Playoffs
2006-07 52 30 .634 Lost First Round Utah 4, Houston 3
2007-08 55 27 .671 Lost First Round Utah 4, Houston 2


Overall
1997-2008 459 411 .527 6 Playoff Appearances 6 1st round losses; 5 Non Appearances; 12 Playoff wins; Average Playoff seed 5.8


Astros:
1997 84 78 .519 Lost NLDS (0-3) (Braves)
1998 102 60 .630 Lost NLDS (1-3) (Padres)
1999 97 65 .599 Lost NLDS (1-3) (Braves)
2000 72 90 .444 No Playoffs
2001 93 69 .574 Lost NLDS (0-3) (Braves)
2002 84 78 .519 No PLayoffs
2003 87 75 .537 No PLayoffs
2004 92 70 .568 Won NLDS (3-2) (Braves) Lost NLCS (3-4) (Cardinals)
2005 89 73 .549 Won NLDS (3-1) (Braves) Won NLCS (4-2) (Cardinals) Lost World Series (0-4) (White Sox)
2006 82 80 .506 No Playoffs
2007 73 89 .451 No Playoffs


Overall 955 827 .535 6 Playoff appearances; 4 1st round losses; 1 2nd round loss; one Championship Appearance; 15 total playoff wins; Average Playoff Seed 2.8

[Achilleus]

Had the Astros been a basketball team, they would have made the playoffs and had more opportunites for success from 1995 - 2005 (except perhaps 2000).

While more teams make the playoffs in the NBA, I don't think you can say there is greater opportunity for lower seeds to advance, given the playoff format.

I doubt teams like the 2006 Cardinals (a team that finished with a record below .500 in their division) could sustain a streak for four best-of-seven rounds and win a championship.

I don't remember too many upsets from sixth seeds (like the Rockets) in the NBA. A handful...

[bobrek]

While more teams make the playoffs in the NBA, I don't think you can say there is greater opportunity for lower seeds to advance, given the playoff format...

The 5th seed has advanced at least the last two years in the NBA WC. :)

[Achilleus]

Overall
1997-2008 459 411 .527 6 Playoff Appearances 6 1st round losses; 5 Non Appearances; 12 Playoff wins; Average Playoff seed 5.8


Overall 955 827 .535 6 Playoff appearances; 4 1st round losses; 1 2nd round loss; one Championship Appearance; 15 total playoff wins; Average Playoff Seed 2.8

.527 to .535? 6 to 6 (so far)? 12 to 15 (so far)?

Not very overwhelming...

[msn]

The 5th seed has advanced at least the last two years in the NBA WC. :)
The 8th seed advanced last year!

[MadMax]

.527 to .535? 6 to 6 (so far)? 12 to 15 (so far)?

Not very overwhelming...

how do you keep overlooking that it's easier to get in to the playoffs in the NBA?

if the Astros played in a league where more teams made the playoffs than not, i'm not sure they would have missed the playoffs at all in the last 11 years, save 2000. i'd have to go back and look at that to make sure.

[msn]

.527 to .535? 6 to 6 (so far)? 12 to 15 (so far)?

Not very overwhelming...
But better nonetheless.

[Achilleus]

The 8th seed advanced last year!

:rolleyes: I said a handful...

[Achilleus]

But better nonetheless.

Hmm...

But to pretend that somehow the Astros have been overwhelmingly more successful than the Rockets is ridiculous.

It's neither pretense nor ridiculous. It's accurate.

[Achilleus]

how do you keep overlooking that it's easier to get in to the playoffs in the NBA?

How many times have the Rockets barely made the playoffs?

The Rockets play in the Western Conference. That has been an extremely tough conference for a few years now. If it was the East, yeah, it would be easy. It's not...

But forget the playoffs then, if you want... Just look at the overall winning percentage. Not overwhelming...

[bobrek]

How many times have the Rockets barely made the playoffs?

The Rockets play in the Western Conference. That has been an extremely tough conference for a few years now. If it was the East, yeah, it would be easy. It's not...

But forget the playoffs then, if you want... Just look at the overall winning percentage. Not overwhelming...

Here is your first post in this thread:

"How many times have the Astros gotten beyond the NLDS?"

It seems you are basing success on the Astros getting beyond the NLDS to (I assume) compare them to the Rockets.

Technically, the Astros have made the "finals" of the NL in 1980, 1986, 2004 and 2005.

If your criteria for success is making it to the NLCS and beyond, it is more difficult to do that in baseball because of the following reasons:

1. Since less teams make the playoffs, chances to even have the opportunity to make the NLCS are far fewer. Again, in recent history, the Astros have had chances in 1997-1999, 2001 and 2004-2005. Had 8 teams in each league made the playoffs (like basketball), then the Astros would have had additional chances in 1995, 1996, 2002, 2003, and 2006.

2. Once in the playoffs, the road is more difficult because of the quality of teams that make it. As stated, the number 1 seed gets to play the number 3 or 4 seed in baseball unlike basketball's #1 vs. #8.

You cannot equate baseball playoff success to basketball playoff success. I suspect the Astros would have advanced beyond the NLDS many times had they gotten to play a 5th - 8th seed rather than a 1 or 2.

[MadMax]

How many times have the Rockets barely made the playoffs?

The Rockets play in the Western Conference. That has been an extremely tough conference for a few years now. If it was the East, yeah, it would be easy. It's not...

But forget the playoffs then, if you want... Just look at the overall winning percentage. Not overwhelming...

MORE TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THAN DON'T. Anytime the Rockets finished below 4th in the WC would be a year they didn't make the playoffs in MLB.

Over that span, one team has won 3 playoff series..the other, zero. One team has won a league championship. The other hasn't even advanced to a league championship....AND AGAIN...ALL THIS IN A LEAGUE WHERE MORE TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THAN DON'T.

Comparing winning percentage doesn't work out well. It doesn't translate between the 2 sports. The Bulls have the best record of all time in a single season in the NBA with a winning percentage of around 88%. Even the Mavs last season won 84%. If a baseball team won 88% of its games, it would win 142 freaking games. No team in over 100 years of baseball has ever sniffed that. The best single season record in MLB is 116 wins, which translates to a 71% winning percentage.

All time...it's absolutlely the Rockets with the advantage. But from 2007 on, I don't think it's remotely close.

[Achilleus]

You cannot equate baseball playoff success to basketball playoff success.

If you can't compare playoff success, then we are forced to stick with overall winning percentage.

[MadMax]

If you can't compare playoff success, then we are forced to stick with overall winning percentage.

You can make this comparison...one team, in a league where it's harder to make the playoffs than the other, has won 3 playoff series and a league championship. The other hasn't won a playoff series over that same span of time.

I think this discussion would only happen on a Rockets message board. And I hate having to argue against the Rockets about anything. But this seems crystal clear to me.

[bobrek]

If you can't compare playoff success, then we are forced to stick with overall winning percentage.

I'm kind of trying to figure out where this was headed to begin with. Both the Astros and Rockets have enjoyed success in their respective sports by (generally) providing winning regular seasons and playoff appearances.

I think we can all agree on that.

I don't see any reason to denigrate one team or the other based on anything. To me as a fan, I simply hope for an entertaining team to watch and my personal entertainment comes from the team winning or putting out a product that I enjoy watching.

I am more of an Astros than Rockets fan but I have followed each team since their inceptions. If folks prefer the Rockets - great. If folks prefer the Astros - great.

You (not you in particular), can simply not say that basketball team X is better than baseball team Z because of playoff success. It is a fact that basketball teams have a better chance for playoff success and the reasons have been posted.

[Achilleus]

Comparing winning percentage doesn't work out well.

Can't compare playoffs...

Can't compare winning percentage...

Let's not compare the sports then. You can say the Astros were better, much better than the Rockets for two years in the past eleven, but to make any other statement ("string of success") that's not based on winning percentage or playoff performance is not really something you can argue.

[MadMax]

Can't compare playoffs...

Can't compare winning percentage...

Let's not compare the sports then. You can say the Astros were better, much better than the Rockets for two years in the past eleven, but to make any other statement ("string of success") that's not based on winning percentage or playoff performance is not really something you can argue.

Where did I say anything other than that the Astros have been much better than the Rockets over the past 11 years?? That was the entire discussion.

[Achilleus]

I don't see any reason to denigrate one team or the other based on anything. To me as a fan, I simply hope for an entertaining team to watch and my personal entertainment comes from the team winning or putting out a product that I enjoy watching.

I responded to this.

it would be nice to see the rockets get back to the continued string of success they once had and which the astros enjoyed from about 1997-2005. it would be nice to sniff the second round more than zero times in 11 seasons.

I hardly ever criticize Houston's teams. I'm usually overly optimistic about their chances and never angry at players when they lose (because it's just a game). But I've seen similar statements to that one above, and I felt like responding.

[Achilleus]

Where did I say anything other than that the Astros have been much better than the Rockets over the past 11 years?? That was the entire discussion.

They haven't been much better for eleven years. They were much better for two season. Maybe you've just enjoyed them more because you like baseball more than basketball? That's not a big deal.

[DoitDickau]

The 8th seed advanced last year!

Regardless of what you think of the Astros and Rockets, I don't think anyone can legitimately debate against the statement that baseball in the short run has much more variance in it's results than basketball. More variance means that weaker teams have a better opportunities to advance in short 7 (and in baseball's case 5) game series.

[bobrek]

I responded to this.

it would be nice to see the rockets get back to the continued string of success they once had and which the astros enjoyed from about 1997-2005. it would be nice to sniff the second round more than zero times in 11 seasons.



Here is how I would answer that statement as it relates to ME:

Between the years 1997 - 2005, the Astros have had better success than the Rockets because in every one of those years they either made the playoffs or were in contention late into the season (except 2000).

In basketball, it is not a big deal to make the playoffs and the season starts once the playoffs begin. So in essence, I equate basketball season success to how well the team I root for performs in the playoffs.

I give more credence to the regular season in baseball than I do in basketball because of the difficulty that teams go through just to get into the playoffs.


The above is how I see things and I have felt that way for decades so nothing will change my mind.

[DoitDickau]

Guys isn't this just arguing semantics. Over the past 11 years (who came up with this number? 11 years? conveniently excludes a rockets western conference finals trip and a missed playoff year for the astros) the Astros have been better than the Rockets. (of course it covers a major rebuilding phase for the Rockets and the best 11 year period for the Astros) Whether they have been "much" better, significantly better, or just slightly better, it's pretty clear that they have been better over that time frame. Of course, the stros haven't exactly been world beaters during this period but they have had a nice sustained run of success they should be proud of.

Now if instead of 11 years you say the past 2 years, or the past 13.5 years, or the past 15 years, or the 25 years, or throughout their history, it's clear that the Rockets have been the much better team. But really why argue this, they have both been extremely successful for the past 15 years and we as Houston fans have been lucky to have two really good franchises to follow.

Also just wanted to say that you really can't make blind comparisons across sports. they are different games, they have different SOS, division rules for making the playoffs, etc. You can't say that they Rockets in 95 wouldn't of even made the playoffs in baseball, just like you can't say that, oh, the Rockets had a .671 winning percentage this year, if they were in baseball they'd be in first place in the majors by ~20 games. It doesn't work that way.

(btw. Non-Rockets fans try to be a little considerate, it's been a tough week for us Rockets fans :o )

[MadMax]

(btw. Non-Rockets fans try to be a little considerate, it's been a tough week for us Rockets fans :o )


I don't think there's a non-Rocket fan in the discussion here.

[MadMax]

They haven't been much better for eleven years. They were much better for two season. Maybe you've just enjoyed them more because you like baseball more than basketball? That's not a big deal.

again...to finish in the playoffs in baseball means you have to be among the top 4 teams in your league. how often were the rockets among the top 4 teams in their conference over the last 11 seasons? i can answer for you...they weren't...never...never in the last 11 seasons were they among the top 4 teams in their conference. if the nba applied mlb's playoff structure, the rockets wouldn't have made the playoffs once over the course of this period.

so if you talk relative success related to the league each team plays in...i don't see it as close over this time period.

[Achilleus]

i can answer for you...they weren't...never...never in the last 11 seasons were they among the top 4 teams in their conference.

?????

[MadMax]

?????

were they?? did i miss something?

[bobrek]

i can answer for you...they weren't...never...never in the last 11 seasons were they among the top 4 teams in their conference..

except for the past 2 years :)

[MadMax]

except for the past 2 years :)

duh...they were a 5 seed but the rules change on the seeding thing changed it...my bad!!!

so 2 times. they would have made the playoffs 2 times in that period of time.

[msn]

Regardless of what you think of the Astros and Rockets, I don't think anyone can legitimately debate against the statement that baseball in the short run has much more variance in it's results than basketball. More variance means that weaker teams have a better opportunities to advance in short 7 (and in baseball's case 5) game series.
Agreed! BUT--unlike basketball, that 4-seed had to work its ass off just to get in. It was much, much more difficult for that four-seed to even *make* the playoffs, so the fact that there is more variance in a a baseball postseason series may have more to do with the quality of the teams that actually get to participate than with the game itself.

BTW, I'm a huge Rockets fan. I don't intend to denigrate them at all. I appreciate your point that selecting 1997-2007 is a bit disingenuous in the grand scheme of things; the discussion just was about recent history is all.

[MadMax]

Agreed! BUT--unlike basketball, that 4-seed had to work its ass off just to get in. It was much, much more difficult for that four-seed to even *make* the playoffs, so the fact that there is more variance in a a baseball postseason series may have more to do with the quality of the teams that actually get to participate than with the game itself.

BTW, I'm a huge Rockets fan. I don't intend to denigrate them at all. I appreciate your point that selecting 1997-2007 is a bit disingenuous in the grand scheme of things; the discussion just was about recent history is all.

why is it disingenuous? it's the past decade. over the past 10 years, plus one. i didn't say, 97-05...that might have been disingenous. but it wouldn't make the assertion that the astros were better over that period any less true.

a decade plus one is a pretty big period of time, though.

[DoitDickau]

again...to finish in the playoffs in baseball means you have to be among the top 4 teams in your league. how often were the rockets among the top 4 teams in their conference over the last 11 seasons? i can answer for you...they weren't...never...never in the last 11 seasons were they among the top 4 teams in their conference. if the nba applied mlb's playoff structure, the rockets wouldn't have made the playoffs once over the course of this period.

so if you talk relative success related to the league each team plays in...i don't see it as close over this time period.


Uh you can't say that. first off yes they Rockets have been top 4 two times. Second, you're not quoting baseball playoffs rules correctly. It's not the top 4 teams, it's the division winners plus a wild card. Those don't also equal the top 4 teams in the league. Like for example in 1997 when the astros finished in 6th place in the league (would be worse if it was some kind of rpi formula that took into account sos) but made the playoffs.

Also they have played vastly different sos in harder conferences. The western conference is somewhat on par with the american league for this time frame. If the rockets were in the weaker league like the astros, they have a much higher top 4 rate.

Now you could argue, as you do, about success relative to the conference/league each plays in. But it's just luck that they are in the weaker/stronger conference that they are in. And if you believe that, then you'd have to admit that some of the Astros relative success over the Rockets is due to luck that has nothing to do with the Astros' actual merit.

[MadMax]

Uh you can't say that. first off yes they Rockets have been top 4 two times. Second, you're not quoting baseball playoffs rules correctly. It's not the top 4 teams, it's the division winners plus a wild card. Those don't also equal the top 4 teams in the league. Like for example in 1997 when the astros finished in 6th place in the league (would be worse if it was some kind of rpi formula that took into account sos) but made the playoffs.

Also they have played vastly different sos in harder conferences. The western conference is somewhat on par with the american league for this time frame. If the rockets were in the weaker league like the astros, they have a much higher top 4 rate.

Now you could argue, as you do, about success relative to the conference/league each plays in. But it's just luck that they are in the weaker/stronger conference that they are in. And if you believe that, then you'd have to admit that some of the Astros relative success over the Rockets is due to luck that has nothing to do with the Astros' actual merit.

Ok...I can't say it then. I'm glad you guys are here to let me know what I can and can't say. :D

[msn]

why is it disingenuous? it's the past decade. over the past 10 years, plus one. i didn't say, 97-05...that might have been disingenous.
I only said "a bit disingenuous", and only becuase just *before* the last decade is when the Rox were winning consecutive title and the Astros were just finishing a major rebuilding phase.

[DoitDickau]

Agreed! BUT--unlike basketball, that 4-seed had to work its ass off just to get in. It was much, much more difficult for that four-seed to even *make* the playoffs, so the fact that there is more variance in a a baseball postseason series may have more to do with the quality of the teams that actually get to participate than with the game itself.


I don't disagree that it is much tougher to make the postseason in baseball than basketball. I think that even among top/equal teams there is much more variance in a single game/series in baseball than basketball.

I would imagine if you control for seeding history would bare this out. Like just look at the conference finals/ league championship series. or just look at 1 vs. 2 seeding in playoffs series. I would imagine there is a lot more "upsets"/variance in baseball.

[DoitDickau]

I'm sorry you can say. But you'd be wrong.

[MadMax]

I only said "a bit disingenuous", and only becuase just *before* the last decade is when the Rox were winning consecutive title and the Astros were just finishing a major rebuilding phase.

Does it make it less disingenous if I say the Rockets were clearly better than the Astros from 1980-1996?

I think the Rockets have a far better franchise history, even excluding champinships. Even if they had just gotten to those Finals and not won them, I'd still say that. They went to the Finals 4 times in 16 seasons. I'd say that's pretty impressive.

[MadMax]

I'm sorry you can say. But you'd be wrong.

with qualifications, i'm wrong.

looking straight out at performance, there is no question the astros were better over that timeframe. at least in my mind.

[DoitDickau]

with qualifications, i'm wrong.

looking straight out at performance, there is no question the astros were better over that timeframe. at least in my mind.

You are absolutely right, they have been better in their recent history.

[Achilleus]

at least in my mind.

We'll leave it at that. Different perspectives...

[MadMax]

We'll leave it at that. Different perspectives...

fair enough. go rockets. (just to be clear!)

[blathersby]

I hate blind optimism, but I also hate blind pessimism. The jury is still out on this Astros team. It sure looks like they will have a very good offense. So far there pithcing has been better than expected. It is pessimistic to say this is NOT a good team. It might not be, but we have won 6 in a row so the possibility of good ball is there.

Pessimism is often disguised as realistic or objective. I almost puked this morning when some moron called 790 and said he loved the show because the morning show was so objective. The constant pessimism on that show drives me crazy. Being negative or going against popular opinion does not necessarily mean someone is being realistic or objective. It is more often a reflection of their general outlook on life.

Well... A lot of it has to do with how I view baseball. I'm a traditionalist -- I love speed, pitching, and defense. I love the strategy of it all, and I couldn't care less about the long ball.
This is an Astros team with mediocre to lousy defense and bad pitching. They won't win in the Postseason. I highly doubt they'll even make it there, and if they don't, they failed. There are only two things that matter in baseball: History and October. And the history of the Astros is pitching and defense.
I don't feel like I'm watching the Astros anymore. I feel like I'm watching the Rangers, and that's not fun. And besides, I'd rather win 1-0 or 2-1 than lose 4-5.
YES, the jury is still out on this team. There are 162 games in a season, and, last I checked, they haven't played all of them. In theory, the Astros could win the World Series. In theory, if I drop a quarter onto a table, it could pass right through the table and land under it.

I highly doubt either will happen. And if the Astros don't win the World Series, that season is a failure. Period. Nothing in any sport matters except winning everything.

[bobrek]

...And besides, I'd rather win 1-0 or 2-1 than lose 4-5.
....

I find it hard to believe that any fan of a team would NOT feel this way. I'd rather see an error filled, mistaken ridden victory over a beautifully played loss any day.

[MadMax]

I love speed, pitching, and defense.

2 out of 3 ain't bad!!! :)

This is an Astros team with mediocre to lousy defense

Ok, I'm convinced you're not watching. There's no way you can watch this team play right now and say they play lousy defense. They have a lousy defender at LF. But up the middle, they've been great so far.


And if the Astros don't win the World Series, that season is a failure. Period. Nothing in any sport matters except winning everything.

That's just sad. So every Astros season has been a failure. Man, that kinda sucks you feel that way. For you it sucks, I mean.

[grummett]

Seems I just read somewhere that the Astros lead the majors in fewest errors and Matsui has 1/3 of them in limited action. Doesn't sound like a lousy defensive team to me, although it is still early.

[MadMax]

Seems I just read somewhere that the Astros lead the majors in fewest errors and Matsui has 1/3 of them in limited action. Doesn't sound like a lousy defensive team to me, although it is still early.

I don't think it's remotely close to a lousy defensive team....and let me say, i've been SHOCKED by that. I bought into the "Tejada has lost a step.." stuff and thought we'd have really limited defense from that position. Everyone's performed well though (save Carlos, who isn't there for his glove)

[msn]

I don't think it's remotely close to a lousy defensive team....and let me say, i've been SHOCKED by that. I bought into the "Tejada has lost a step.." stuff and thought we'd have really limited defense from that position. Everyone's performed well though (save Carlos, who isn't there for his glove)
I don't get to watch much of any MLB games anymore, so I have depend on radio PBP and highlights for impressions. Therefore, I know pretty much *nothing* about JR Towles as a catcher.

I'd be very interested to hear from someone who actually knows a blessed thing about catching (all you Ausmus haters are officially disqualified) about Towles's work behind the plate. Setting up, receiving the ball, footwork, arm, etc. I saw him jump in between Crydier Molweenia and Backe the other week; that was impressive to me.

[MadMax]

I don't get to watch much of any MLB games anymore, so I have depend on radio PBP and highlights for impressions. Therefore, I know pretty much *nothing* about JR Towles as a catcher.

I'd be very interested to hear from someone who actually knows a blessed thing about catching (all you Ausmus haters are officially disqualified) about Towles's work behind the plate. Setting up, receiving the ball, footwork, arm, etc. I saw him jump in between Crydier Molweenia and Backe the other week; that was impressive to me.

I never caught a game in my life, so I always have to go off what I hear others saying about that. The nuances are so slight. But I think conventional wisdom is he's been better than expected.

[Dennis2112]

I'd be very interested to hear from someone who actually knows a blessed thing about catching (all you Ausmus haters are officially disqualified) about Towles's work behind the plate. Setting up, receiving the ball, footwork, arm, etc. I saw him jump in between Crydier Molweenia and Backe the other week; that was impressive to me.

Well I have watched and I have coached at different levels of baseball and softball. I can say that Towles is slightly above average overall behind the plate defensively. His arm is good, his footwork very good, and his bat is outstanding if compared to our previous catchers(who is still on the team). I think he handles the pitchers well and has a studious approach to scouting hitter's tendencies. I have heard through the grapevine that he spends a great amount of time going over the pitching plans and strategies with the pitchers. Brad has helped him too and Brad has said he is very receptive Brad's input, however, Brad also said that Towles asks for help when he needs and Towles is a very capable player. Brad said there is no need to "babysit" him either.

Obviously Towles needs more experience to really get improve and grow his game but so does most players that enter the league not named Puljos.

[Dennis2112]

I don't think it's remotely close to a lousy defensive team....and let me say, i've been SHOCKED by that. I bought into the "Tejada has lost a step.." stuff and thought we'd have really limited defense from that position. Everyone's performed well though (save Carlos, who isn't there for his glove)


Yeppers, tied for 1st in the NL in fielding % as a team.

Tied for 1st in least number of errors for the team

Also we are at the top of the league in not allowing steals.

In addition, the number of Team steals is almost as much now as we had all year last year. We are currently tied for 3rd in number of steals.


Now pitching is a very big concern but we are still middle of the pack in ERA and WHIP. However we are 6th with K/BB ratio.

Just an FYI...

:D

[Smacktle]

Rangers' Fans? I've heard of them, but I've never seen any credible evidence that they really exist. Kinda like Bigfoot.

You have to win at some point to get the loyal fans.

[shsu33]

Finally back to bashing the Rangers! Richie Sexton had to fill in on the bashing while yall got off subject.


for three pages... :o

[blathersby]

I find it hard to believe that any fan of a team would NOT feel this way. I'd rather see an error filled, mistaken ridden victory over a beautifully played loss any day.
You'd think... But casual fans don't LIKE pitching duels. They want the looooooong ball.

2 out of 3 ain't bad!!! :)
Ok, I'm convinced you're not watching. There's no way you can watch this team play right now and say they play lousy defense. They have a lousy defender at LF. But up the middle, they've been great so far.
Which two? Defense hasn't been terrible, but it will most certainly go right back to it once Wigginton is back. Michael Bourne was a great addition in center... You're right about defense up the middle. But lousy defense anywhere is unacceptable. I'm not nor will I ever be a fan of the addition of Carlos Lee. I will ALWAYS root for the Astros, but I don't like having the Shaq of the Astros on the team. He's slow and a lousy defender... and will only get slower and lousier (all the while getting paid more and more). Hemorrhoid has been less than exciting (but that was to be expected). Chacon is the best pitcher on staff.
That said, they haven't been turbl on defense this far. But I am very doubtful they'll be able to keep it up.

That's just sad. So every Astros season has been a failure. Man, that kinda sucks you feel that way. For you it sucks, I mean.
lol, nope! Not really! Good LORD, Hedo Turkoglu is taking OVER. The Astros fail each season they don't win the world series. That's the goal of any baseball season, and if they don't reach that goal, they failed it. That doesn't make watching the 'Stros any less ENJOYABLE though...