Some of those things happened like we thought, some didn't. Other things went right and/or wrong. Some were surprising and some were, well, not. We're all disappointed. I'd like to see multifold changes before I bury the whole crew and start anew. You? Next year?
They have the same record despite more significant injuries and a complete collapse of their top two pitchers. And they did get lots of help from the guys they brought up - Musgrove, Bregman, Devenski, and Gurriel (not quite through the system) have all been outstanding and are some of their best players going forward. With a "normal" Keuchel and a reasonably healthy McCullers - not unrealistic expectations - they are a 90+ win team firmly in the playoffs.
While I dont disagree with any of this, its also true that in any year, one can point to who helped, who should have done better and what might have been if everything had gone right. So IMO, year team evaluations have only one metric. W's and L's. Were about the same as last year. Nouf said.
In the most simplistic terms, this is true but kind of irrelevant looking forward or comparing results to expectations. But if I'm an NFL team that has Aaron Rodgers and I go 10-6, and then the next year, Rodgers is hurt and I have some scrub QB and still go 10-6, I think the rest of my team has improved and am optimistic about next year when I have Rodgers back. I don't look at my 2nd year 10-6 team and say we were disappointed. I say that it sucked that my superstar QB was hurt and cost us a year.
The complete collapse of their top 2 pitchers leaves me less optimistic about next season than I was about this one. Not sure what a "normal" Keuchel is. I'm not convinced ace Keuchel is to be expected. Concerned that all the folks saying McCullers is bound for the bullpen may be right. We will see. But yeah...I definitely expected more from this season. Would prefer they start spending some money.
I'm not sure what the market is for Giles but considering the contract we have him on, I'd wager it's not worth it.
I hope we're not having this same conversation from wheelchairs with oxygen tanks typing things with pens in our teeth.
I think you have to feel good about the future of this team. Certainly the offensive nucleus which is about as good as it gets. It'll be interesting to see how they handle the pitching staff over the offseason.
Good analogy. And I might be temped to be optimistic in such a case as well. But you have to be careful to not let it become a tool of prediction. Say Rodgers (given your analogy) comes back healthy the following year with the rest of the team in tact. It might seem on the surface like they could be Superbowl bound. But in reality, taking one element (QB) or player and inserting their presumed contribution seldom works the way you expect. No one expected basically the same Rockets team that went the conference finals to win only 41 games the following year. It was inexplicable. But that is what happened. Its easier to look back at a season and explain t ourselves how we got to where we are at. This guy got hurt. This guy regressed. And so on. The Astros could win as few as 80 games next year, or they could win 95. I suppose my point is that I am cautiously optimistic and guardedly pessimistic at the same time. I am finding myself resisting trying to read too much into the potential of just a few (our best) players when more than likely, it will be how the lower tier players perform that will make or break the season.
What is your point again? IMO, a team with a young/talented core that is very cheap (springer, Bregman, Altuve, Correa... And add Yuli because he's not going anywhere) is most definitely something you can build around. The starting pitching is likely going to be somewhere in between last year's league leading version and this year, regardless of how you get there.
My point again, again, again, is, tracking one or two guys cant predict why a team failed or what a team might do next year if they up their game. Its a top to bottom contribution that determines such things. Although who I quoted didn't say it specifically, there seems way too many people that seem to feel that if Keuchel and McCullers get their game back, most everything will be well and we are back to being contenders. While I certainly wouldn't argue that that wouldn't help, its the inconsistent play of the bottom 20 guys on the 25 man roster that determines how good we are more than the top 5 guys. Sure, having 5 guys to build around is a good thing to have. But we need to even out the rest if we expect to go anywhere.
I'd agree on offensive players or bullpen players or backups, etc. But SPs - especially top tier ones - directly affect a team's performance. I think you could easily say that if you had good Keuchel vs bad, the team would have been better in 20% of their games, for example. In the larger picture, I agree that we have no idea if Keuchel will get back to his ace self or if McCullers will ever be healthy, so those are big questionmarks going into next season. But coming into this one, if you're looking at whether the front office did what it needed to to improve, I think it's hard to argue that they didn't. If you can't rely on your best players being good, then it's a total crapshoot. Any team could win between 50 and 130 games if we can't estimate performance based on previous years and there'd literally be no way to build a team.
Ehhh.... I disagree. I thought their offseason was underwhelming and, worse - for an organization that's supposedly hyper-progressive - it seemed rooted in small sample size disease. They overpaid Colby Rasmus for, essentially, six postseason games; they lost their minds and overpaid Tony Sipp. And while I understood the trade, and liked it to some degree (and think it'll be OK, longer-term), I thought Ken Giles was a wild over-correction of the season's final three weeks when an overtaxed bullpen finally fell apart. They failed to address C, DH, 1B, 3B, and/or LF. They failed to consider the viability of Gomez - who was awful here, and not appreciably better in Milwaukee - continuing to regress. They assumed 21- and 22-year olds who had yet to play a full MLB season wouldn't regress. And they didn't address starting pitching with any urgency. Seriously, I noted every one of those items in the offseason (except starting pitching - though, interestingly, McCullers registered as a question mark - I obviously didn't see Keuchel's collapse coming). How did they miss so many? I thought their offseason was awful. I disliked it. I'll give them tremendous credit for signing Gurriel and accelerating Bregman - but those two moves proved too little, too late.
Well the Astros went into last off season knowing they needed a #2 starter.... they pulled Fister; who has an era over 4. The Astros knew they needed a closer....... they pulled Giles who has an era over 4. The Astros knew they needed a 1st baseman.... and didn't get one. The Astros knew they needed a DH .... and didn't get one. They needed a bat.... gambled on Rasmus not accepting the QO..... and he finished with .640 ops. I am not going to unnecessarily jump on Luhnow, I think he is a very good GM. However the reality is that the Astros holes going into the season were NOT adequately filled. Next year will be a different situation.... if you think that Luhnow had pressure to add a closer last season, just wait until he has pressure from ownership to add a top line starter.
Anyone complaining about them acquiring Giles last offseason is full of pure revisionist bullsh!t. You can complain about the price they paid, but not the guy they paid it for. Hasn't worked out yet, it happens.
And complaining about the price they paid is also ringing a little hollow. If they were convinced that VV was an injury risk, over LMJ, they were going to trade him while his stock wasn't low.... and while he was relatively healthy. (and anybody honestly complaining about Appel being traded should have their heads checked). Seeing what the price of club-controlled pitching (or hell, FA to be pitching) was at the deadline... the Astros didn't overpay for a 25 year old with 5 years of club control who has an elite K tool.
Question to ask you. I made a statement after the season ended last year saying that I had reservations about Crane (and his ownership group) willing to increase the payroll substantially in order to address the weaknesses of the team and ultimately putting them in a position to truly compete for a WS. That I wouldn't believe he was willing to do it until there was proof that he would. Your response to that statement was to defend Crane, and that my reservations were baseless just because Crane hadn't forked over major $$ yet. Paying Colby for one yr wasn't an indication that he was willing to do it. Signing Gurriel to a 47.5 mil contract (5 yrs) was basically dipping his big toe in the water. Nice acquisition but wasn't proof to truly show Crane's commitment. So my question to you is how would you have liked them to address the holes on the team without spending major $$? They went the cheap route getting Giles who didn't have much history as a closer. They were willing to trade prospects, but again for a guy who was making less then a mil a yr. They didn't spend any $$ to address "C, DH, 1B, 3B, and/or LF". They also stayed pat at the trade deadline where the Rangers went out and got help, and were willing to trade prospects and take on additional payroll (as did other teams). The 'Stros and Crane? Nothing. So I still have major reservations moving forward with Crane, and his willingness to spend the $$ in order to truly compete for a WS. Your thoughts at this juncture? Not debating you but rather just asking you if you have any reservations a year later on this?
Short answer... the team thought they were closer than they were. Crane, fans, and the media were mostly fooled as we were WS favorites. Crane went cheap, plus depended on unproven players. The unprovens (Reed, White) didn't work out this season, Gomez continued to suck, and Rasmus underperformed. Keuchel 180'd. Trade deadline, he wanted to keep certain prospects. It appears retaining Bregman might be a huge positive from this, and Musgrove might be a solid #3 or #4 for a while. Going forward, I think Crane will spend, but this year's FA market isn't all that great. Gurriel (and assuming his brother) is a decent start, but dude needs to perform. __________________ As for the Rangers and DAL, just face it... they are basically NY, LA, BOS when it comes to boss-hogging. Hopefully they aren't champs this season.... don't even make the ALCS please.
