Belive it or not the Astros have good starting pitching

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.