I've made myself clear on my take... they needed to make a move for themselves, which also would have helped them hurt the Rangers. Why would you presume that the other teams keep up their paces, but the Astros don't? You had the same fallacy of thought earlier this year when you discussed the pace needed to overtake the Mariners, of all teams... You also continue to extrapolate individual small stretches/samples to entire seasons, and how rare those seasons are (despite you just criticizing the extrapolation of small sample sizes). In reality, there have been plenty of 48-32 stretches in the history of baseball.... some teams play even better than that (see last year's Blue Jays), some play worse. The number of wins they have after 162 is who the team is... THAT is the pace. Again, looking at the context of what led to the turnaround... would it have been that out of the realm to presume they continue to play decent/winning baseball with a healthy lineup (or a lineup that had re-inforcements)? If you don't believe that, then you are essentially admitting that what they did from May-July was a fluke. Even if they had played .500 ball, instead of going 3-11, they'd be tied with the Red Sox/Tigers and 2.5 back.
Do I honestly need to explain this to you? It's the whole reason I'm contextualizing the pace: because it is nearly impossible to win 65% of your games over a prolonged stretch. Also, the Blue Jays and Rangers are better teams than the Astros. And don't have to win 65% of their games. And, FYI: since July 24, the Blue Jays have increased their pace to 92 wins (+2) and the Rangers to 95 (+1). The Astros are now on pace to win 82 games. You're thinking of someone else; that wasn't me. But, you're welcome to show me the post... It's not an 80-game pace; it's a 117-game pace. We're talking about them playing at an historically high pace for nearly 75% of the season. Yes; their starting pitching, on the whole, has been below average and, even with reinforcements, they still would have been starting at least 4 holes in their everyday line-up. Yes, it was! That's *EXACTLY* what I've been saying; I thought that was obvious??? They were not going to maintain a 113-win pace for 64 more games. They couldn't even do it over the course of the next six. And, again: despite the pace, had the season ended July 24, they wouldn't have made the playoffs! This is my last response: I don't fault the Astros AT ALL if they surveyed where they were, rightly saw an uphill battle with no guarantees and raised the premium on their prospects in order to not sacrifice tomorrow for a 40% shot at today.
Seriously? You're literally the only one who's ever used the pace argument over small stretches, extrapolate it out to the whole season, and state that teams can or cannot maintain it. I'm not going to dig through the early season April threads, but you literally had the exact same flawed logic on the pace the Astros would have to play to overtake the Mariners... almost identical word-for-word. And yes, as of today the Rangers and Blue Jays are better teams than the Astros... in large part due to the lack of improvements the Astros made at the deadline (while both teams made moves to better themselves). And in the end, if you think 48-32 was a fluke... and you refuse to acknowledge the context of it (and the context of the struggles now)... then by using your logic, the season really was over after one bad month. But something tells me you don't honestly believe that. Hell, pending the return of Valbuena, Bregman's improvement, and Gurriel's arrival, it's still entirely plausible they could make up the 4 games separating them and the WC.... just would have liked a little more experienced players in the fold to give them the best shot at that.
I can't believe these assholes aren't going to be punished for their terrible decision of getting Fielder. What is it like 4 years 80 mil they don't have to pay now! Just ridiculously good luck.
Pretty sure all large contracts by all teams are insured for this sort of thing...its not really luck.
Actually, n/m... disregard my previous statement... it wasn't that hard to find. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=10477285&postcount=31
Tell me about it! These ******* are also about win another one-run game, after they were down 5-1. Edit: Have since added some insurance runs but will be MLB-best 35th come from behind victory.
No... they were better teams BEFORE the deadline; check the records. They were better teams last year, too. And almost certainly guaranteed to be better teams down the stretch. That's because... you know, they're better teams. I thought their 37-17 pace between May 23 (when they hit a season low 11 games under .500) and July 24 (when they hit a season high 10 games over .500) was unsustainable. And it has been!
Cool and props; my apologies. Sincerely. Also.. I was right! The hole is too big. I saw it in early May. Hell, I saw it in the offseason as I pretty much pinpointed most of their issues and, as you'll recall, was soundly rebuked by the vast majority of posters for being way too pessimistic. (BTW, they now trail the second place Mariners, ferchrissakes.) Anyway, what's your point? Besides pointing out my incredible insight, of course...
LOL... you know what the point is. Its why I tend to use context more... and step away from the pace argument, as its been shown to really have no basis unless you know exactly what's going to happen at the end of 162. Teams play on a vast variety of paces throughout the season. The Cubs just recently played a stretch of extrapolated 50 win baseball. Its just not a sound or validated way to evaluate a team that has constantly changing dynamics and nothing is a constant. I prefer to look more at how they're winning games, run differential (minus the outliers), whether or not they have fluke-ish/unsustainable individual performances, and of course the trend and overall state of the pitching staff (who since their collective dreadful April's, have been trending in a more positive direction).
Thank God Beltran was both a Yankee and Ranger allowing him to hurt us B2B'ly. Great how the timing worked out.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...with-his-96-million-salary/amp/?client=safari Yes insurance will pay but only 37.5% and the Rangers will have to match that and the Tigers will pick up the remaining amount.
Let me back up a little bit... I'm using pace as context; I understand there's nothing finite about it. But it can illuminate results as well as frame future expectations. Inexactly - sure, but, then, what measurement tool in this arena isn't? For instance, if you look at my post from May, it postulated that it could take 96 wins to secure the division... Almost three months to the day, the pace is 95. I fully understand the Rangers could eventually win the division with 82 wins. But, as of right now, looking forward, any idea that the Astros can play middling baseball and have a shot at the division is wildly optimistic and almost certainly - though not entirely - wrong. In terms of results, we *know* a team is not going to win 68% of its games over a prolonged stretch. That's why the run up to the deadline should have been viewed in the proper context - namely, that it was unsustainable and regression was almost certainly likely. Personally, I'm glad the Astros had enough self-awareness at the deadline to at least consider that they were a possible house of cards. I wish they'd shown more of it last winter. For all the anger over their staying put at the deadline, their reluctance/inability to address during the offseason glaring weakness was/is far more problematic, IMO. I'm hoping this winter leads to a massive turnover. I'll be disappointed if Gattis, Gomez, Rasmus, Tucker... to a lesser extent Valbuena are anywhere near this roster.
Can we really afford to let Gattis walk if we are not going to arbitrate Castro? I cant see 16.7M for him, can you?
Its flawed because you based that number on the Mariners... not the Rangers. You also said it would be unlikely the Astros would catch the Mariners, which they did (and then some) before this recent swoon, because pace is utterly dynamic between two teams (when you usually are only considering one team's pace to be dynamic, while presuming the other's to be constant). Likewise, the Rangers will eventually slow down from this pace... while the Astros will play better than a doormat. If those two things coincide at the same time, pace goes out the window. Again, real context is better... why are the Astros playing bad and losing game right now? Because they're not hitting. Why are they not hitting? Because they lost their 3rd best hitter in Valbuena, and Rasmus/Gomez actually got worse or non-existent. If things continue like that, it won't be pretty. If they can get Bregman to improve, Yuli to produce, and just anybody else attempts to play at replacement level status, then they have a decent shot. "house of cards" would be a stretch... they're not as bad as they are right now, nor are they (or any team) as good as 23-3.
