There is an edge for run prevention over hitting for World Series champions, but since Astros don't have elite pitching...they need to focus on both. Also, teams that do both do better than teams that just have pitching.
Thank you, captain obvious! We have seen first-hand strong pitching/light hitting teams with the ability to go far. I cannot recall a single strong hitting/poor pitching team that made a deep run... ever. (and by poor pitching, I mean bottom 1/3'd of runs allowed and ERA). Obviously, all teams strive to be as good as possible at both... but if you had to choose one, having just pitching goes further than having just hitting. As far as this year is concerned, the fall from being the league leaders in starters (and for most of the season, bullpen) ERA is factor 1a in the record/run-differential to this point.
The Astros pitching is a problem but it isn't as potentially grim as it is currently. They are potentially getting improvement from within (McCullers) and it is likely Kuechel will improve based on track record. If they are competitive, they are likely to add a starter if they are competitive at the deadline. That leaves Fiers, McHugh, Feldman, Fister battling for the 4-5 spots. To me the issue is will they put themselves in a hole they can't dig out of first.
I agree with you that some teams have won with subpar hitting and elite pitching. However, using this as a reason not to be worried about the Astros hitting doesn't make sense unless you think the Astros are an elite pitching staff that can carry subpar hitting. More teams have won with good hitting and good pitching. Astros are built to depend on both hitting and pitching.
Yeah, the overall situation still isn't as dire as it seems at the moment. McCullers, Musgrove and/or a potential trade acquisition. There is still a possibility for multiple top flight pitchers in this rotation by years end. Fisters, Fiers, Feldman and to a lesser extent McHugh were brought in with the intention of keeping our pitching stable over 162, not to be counted on in October. It hasn't worked out that way so far, but phasing them out was the goal moving forward. Keuchel returning to good form is pivotal. Not dominant like last year, but he needs to be really good. If he's unable to stabilize it does look more bleak, because we need 2 really good starters, and we may not have a single one without him.
Of course... and last year, I would say that the Astros elite/league-leading ERA pitching was a major part (and the biggest limiting/promoting factor) of why they were as successful as they were. It was the most consistent aspect of this team...and while the boom/bust approach at the plate still led to a decent amount of runs scored, I would not say that its a proven way to build a viable offense nor is it a model that would be consistently emulated elsewhere (hell, the Astros themselves seem to be souring on those types of hitters and the inconsistent results it can portend).
I'm not sure the boom-bust approach was by design. The Astros got a bunch of MLB boom/bust hitters from the bargain bins and made the playoffs with one of the lowest payrolls before Correa/McCullers even played a full season. In player development, the Astros seem to be leaning towards getting contact guys and trying to add a little power with a few exceptions. I think Astros current regime always favored balanced hitters, but were willing to take boom/bust guys on the cheap over balanced guys that sucked even more.
Well, they did trade for Gattis and Valbuena... wouldn't consider them bargain bin/trash-heap pickups. It was thought of as a novel concept (targeting power when it was in dwindling supply around the league).... so if they (and others here) were willing to take/give credit for the approach when it worked, there should also be some criticism when its run its course (even though I hate comparing between sports... the Rockets have a similar dilemma with their 3-point shooting model). Even last year, during the midst of success, there were valid concerns applicable to the offense... but having the pitching be solid/consistent/sustainable did help keep the record where it was.
Five teams where Tim Lincecum could end up http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/po...m-could-end-up 3. Mariners 4. Angels Two division rivals listed but no Astros. Yay...
I like this article more... 7 teams that could be a good fit for Tim Lincecum http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2016/05/05/teams-good-fit-tim-lincecum-showcase/84006938/ They include Astros and Mariners but no Angels.
Good. Are you sincerely advocating the Astros should waste resources on a well-below average 31-year old pitcher who hasn't pitched in nearly a year, is likely a long reliever, and who's last good season was 2011?
They were actually above league average that year. They've had several huge hitting years as a franchise... So it's not a huge coincidence that the one year they make a deep run, it's the year they actually pitch well (that rookie Jimenez certainly helped a little...as did the humidor).
Considering every other team looking to contend is considering signing him, yes? And a long reliever would be better than our short relievers. Unless you like Ken Giles era of 9 million and Greggerson's era of damn near 4 as a closer. Given that other playoff teams will are considering him, I'll trust that the articles of him throwing 90+ with no pain has him looking solid. If you looked at the current era's across the board on this team, his era of 4ish the past 3 seasons would still put him as the 5th best era on this team currently behind Harris, Devenski, Feldman and Greggerson. Already thru about 1/5 of the season and people have already talked about trading for another pitcher by the deadline. You're concerned about wasting resources and cash straight up for a free agent is what deters you. Cash is the least valuable resource all things considered unless Crane is a cheapskate. We're talking about a team that came into the season with World Series aspirations and currently sits in last place of their own division. If you're not willing to spend on a free agent because you're concerned about money, it's going to a take a Marlins/Rockies miracle to win or even make the WS going forward. All things considered, this is the first time Lincecum has gotten a break. He's been in the league for 9 seasons. Since his rookie year he has started 24, 33, 32, 33, 33, 33, 32, 26, 15... in that order with 15 being the most recent season. This time off could be good for him. For all you know he wants a Doug Fister contract for a year. His era was 4.13 in 15 starts last year which again would currently be 5th best era on this team at the moment. To each their own but even though he turns 32 in june, he would still be worth considering on a 1-3 year contract if he looks solid in his workout for teams. Tim Lincecum's showcase is set, and he's apparently throwing 91 http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/5/2/11566888/tim-lincecum-showcase-giants
Seriously, money isn't a valuable resource compared to a trade. That's assuming you don't go out signing tons of people to crazy contracts. I am least willing to consider signing Lincecum for the right price before I'd do another trade for garbage like Giles. Dude was good for like a season or two and the Phillies traded him for Velasquez who has a 1.44 era in 5 starts, Appel who was a top pick and other pieces as well. Now that's what you call wasting resources. Easier to spend more money than acquire more talent like Velasquez and co.
He's only played "a season or two." Don't be a Hindsight Genius. Just because a deal doesn't ultimately work (and it's waaaaaay too early to assess this deal) doesn't invalidate the idea behind the deal. I would not have prioritized Giles/closer - but I understood why they pursued him and thought, given his age, salary and control, that he was certainly a better choice than Kimbrel or Chapman.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Astros' pitching staff has a 6.24 ERA in road games. The next-worst road ERA in the major leagues is 5.68 (Oakland).</p>— Jake Kaplan (@jakemkaplan) <a href="https://twitter.com/jakemkaplan/status/732205836223778816">May 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Not a fan of the deal assuming good health at the time. I give the Astros benefit of the doubt that there is something to be worried about VV's health long term. That said, the bolded portion can't be overemphasized regarding Giles and a lot of the Astros early performances (excluding Gomez who just doesn't look right). Astros are going to have a tough time digging themselves out of the hole, but I'm still overall excited about the team as a whole even if this season continues to go into the crapper.
