http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog...st-100-loss-year-and-other-mi?urn=mlb-wp12508 The Astros will finish with the most losses in baseball —the first 100-loss season in franchise history: During the preseason, I predicted that the Astros would lose nearly 100 games. After the first 92 games, I'm prepared to change my mind. I think they'll lose more than 100 games. Simply put, no team in baseball is even close to the Astros' collective ineptitude. They have scored only 358 runs, 19th-best in baseball, but they have allowed 464 runs, worst in baseball. Using a sabermetric formula called Pythagorean Wins, which estimates the number of wins a team ought to have considering its runs scored and runs allowed, the Astros have underperformed their run differential by five wins —they should be at 35-57, but they're actually at 30-62. Unfortunately, even if they had 35 wins, that would still be the fewest in all of baseball. In their 50-year history, the Astros have never lost more than 97 games (which they did in 1975 and again in 1991). But they're just 35 losses away from that mark; at their current .326 winning percentage, they'll set a franchise loss record on September 16. In fact, they're on pace for 109 losses, which would be the worst win total since the 2004 Arizona Diamondbacks, who went 51-111.
Why is this being posted? Its not like they're going to be the all-time worst team ever, and its not like they were expected to be division winners either? Basically the dude just wants to justify his pre-season prediction. I bet if you look at his article, he also predicted the Yankees and Red Sox to be pretty good too. Wow.
As painful as this season might be and continue to be, it will be worth it come June 2012. Pretty much have to look at it big picture and while the 2012 won't be as stacked as this year's there will still be excellent talent available and the Stros will get first crack at the start of each round. Make some key trades and have our new staff cleanup during next year's draft and the sun may actually begin to come out.
I wouldn't start looking for rays of sunshine until at least 2015 or so, and probably longer. I know you're the extremely opimtistic type, r934, while I'm the polar opposite but I think you are really reaching with your hope/expectations. I think it's fairly realistic not to expect an Astros team fighting for the playoffs any time before 2015. If they get shoved to the AL, it could take even longer. Bottom line: it's gonna be a loooooooooong rebuilding process, even if we get lucky in drafts. That was one thing that Wade definitely got right: "one bad draft can set an organization back three years" and we had a bundle of them consecutively. It doesn't mean that we got set back 12-15 years but there is that potential each time you blow it in one way or the other, depending on a variety of factors, including the particulars of each draft pool. People will point out that we had our golden years under McLane, and on the surface, there is no doubt about that, but as the owner of a non-big market team, he accomplished that to an extent by cashing in all his chips and neglect the long-term. He also took advantage of some of the good resources and philosophies that were already in place when he took over (not that there wasn't bad stuff too). All in all, that approach is a recipe for what we are seeing now. We could've still been a good team and had a relative golden era without totally neglecting the farm system and the future and putting ourselves in the present situation.
yes. and to answer your other questions, it usually does get dark at night and water is pretty much always wet. :grin:
Pretty much, as optimistic as I am, the soonest I can see them making a run would 2014. That said, watching kids running around making plays is pretty fun to watch...they may even surprise you. Keeping up with the farm teams minus OKC has been interesting and with more legit talent coming into that very system, I'd call it a little bit of sunshine poking through the clouds.
If you do not make the playoffs (or maybe if you are not in playoff chase), who cares how many games that you lose. I do not see a big difference between losing 90, 100, or 110 games.
yeah, i don't know. we lost a lot of games last year, but it wasn't nearly this bad. that was a lot more entertaining, honestly.
I really think it depends on two things: 1. Who the Astros trade, because suppose they end up trading Bourn, Pence, Rodriguez, there won't be that base to support a late season run. 2. When will Quintero come back and will he be healthy, because I just felt that he had better control with the relievers in calling their pitches.
You know what sucks about this year compared to 1991? In 1991, the Astros had: (As well as rookies Gonzo and DK.) As much as I like Bud Norris, Jordan Lyles, and Brett Wallace, I don't think any of them are Gonzo or DK, much less Bags.
Well Gonzo didn't have tremendous years with us so you can eliminate him. Norris is a guy who if he stays healthy, is going to start becoming semi-dominant. He's got the stuff, and now he's learning how to pitch. Wallace needs more AB's to see who he's really going to end up being, but I'll settle for a high average/high OBP guy any day of the week. Now if only he can put that to use as a #2 or 3 hitter, giving Pence and Lee more guys to drive in (as opposed to making Wallace the RBI guy).
