That's totally fair. I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that's the only metric that matters. It's just that it's a really dramatic one in this instance...and from an anecdotal perspective, you could literally see that play out towards the end of the season in the way the Rangers were winning game by game. Of course, it seems like it came back to bite them in the ass all at once in one inning in Toronto :grin:
Well yes, I get that. Absolutely. But if we are going to pretend that luck is a real enough concept to assign to players or teams, one must consider regression/progression also. Players and teams are always evaluated in these terms. And often, the reality doesn't mesh with the forecast. Whether it be luck or something else, players or teams, simply put, are going to do better or worse than you expect them to. The 2016 Astros by nearly every source are expected to do very well. Even compete for a championship. While this may come to be, and my hope is that it will, we also must realize how wrong forecasts can be. Last year being an example of where we did significantly better than expected. Surely there will be and have been years where the opposite is the case. So for the 2016 Astros, will regression or progression be the case when measured vs expectations? I guess it partly depends on how we define each scenario. I suppose regression might be missing the playoffs. But if we win 88 games and still miss the playoffs, then maybe not. Progression would seem to necessitate becoming a clear division winner. But maybe not if it is followed by a first round series exit. Having said all this, I find myself tossing most of it aside. Whats important is this team is fun and exciting. Where they will go is anyone's guess. But where ever that ends up being, I look forward to the process
Forecasts are forecasts. They are off sometimes. Granted, they do better than just assuming a team is as good as last year. Astros should win somewhere from 80-100 wins. If the Astros play well and are healthy, they should make playoffs without caring about what other teams do.
You can also factor aggro-deadline dealing into the equation for them (and the angels) if they are in earshot of the division. I don't expect either of them to be divisional pushovers in the next couple years. But after that, we become what the Cards were to us.
Angels don't have prospects to trade and appear to be well over their recent budgets. I doubt they can be very aggressive. If I was Rangers, Angels, and Mariners, I'd be worried about Astros being aggressive at deadline if they are within earshot of the division.
Mitch Moreland had a career year last season. Prince Fielder hit .264/.348/.394 over the 2nd half of the season. I think their offense could slide. I certainly wouldn't expect the to finish 3rd in runs again.
I agree that around 88 wins should win the division, but I wouldn't say I'm not impressed or worried about those other teams. I think all of the teams, sans OAK, are capable of hitting that number. LAA has a good team. The Simmons pick-up is huge, arguably the best off-season acquisition of any AL West team. LAA has questions like every team, but I think they are a very real threat to win this division. They have the best player in the division--if not the entire MLB--in Trout. And short of LAA's rash of bullpen injuries towards the end of last year, and LAA easily could have topped us for the last WC spot. HOU finished with just 1 more win than LAA last year. It will be interesting to see how SEA and TEX perform. One underachieved immensely, and the other over-performed immensely. But I wouldn't broadly call either doormats. SEA has a very good rotation, especially if Walker and Paxton can pitch more consistently in 2016. I expect both SEA and TEX to win around 86 games. I do like the Astros, top to bottom, everything considered, more than the other teams in the AL West. But this division is wide open and will be a dog fight until the end. I highly doubt the Astros--or any team--run away with the division.
I think it won't slide (I really don't give a crap in Feb). I think they will challenge the Stros for the Division (Seattle is the only wildcard I can see coming out of nowhere, Angels don't impress me). A ton of stuff has to go right, but I said the same thing last June and I was laughed at on this bbs.
Good read ... How the Teams Were Built Houston Astros Of course, the Astros have done well in the draft. Carlos Correa, Dallas Keuchel, George Springer, Lance McCullers and Jason Castro alone comprise 40% of Houston’s projected team WAR in 2016, and that’s just five draft picks since 2009. Jose Altuve was a key acquisition in the international market, and the addition of Carlos Gomez via trade could prove to be vital. But perhaps the most interesting thing about the Astros’ roster construction is finding success where teams don’t typically find success. They selected Josh Fields in the Rule 5 draft from Boston in 2012, picked Collin McHugh off the waiver wire from the Rockies in 2013, and did the same with Will Harris from Arizona in 2014. Those three players all have key roles on Houston’s pitching staff, and are projected for a combined 3.7 WAR. That’s a full two wins more than any other team in baseball has through the waiver wire or Rule 5 draft. <hr> Follow the link for more.
This is where we are gong to have to continue to do well to keep the farm stocked in lieu of having lower draft picks for the foreseeable future.
Going 4 almost 100+loss seasons and then having last season was awesome, and crazy. Its amazing to see people being "unimpressed" with other teams, and thinking "its close" or "astros might not run away with it".. It also sucks because after last season with Rockets, and now this season, im worried how quickly people will hate on the astros again... I love that we are contenders again!! WOOT And that graph is SOOOOOOO SEXY.
http://m.astros.mlb.com/news/article/163679300/gomez-rasmus-springer-form-solid-astros-of "I think it's the combination of the three right-handers [Gomez, Springer and Marisnick], the two left-handers [Rasmus, Tucker] -- there's a good mix of power, speed and defense in there, and whoever the two guys that are not playing on a given night, those are weapons off the bench, whether it's pinch-runner, late-inning pinch-hitting or defensive replacement," general manager Jeff Luhnow said. Sounds like Tucker is expected to be on 25-man roster and Astros are expected to carry 13 position players (unless Gattis is the backup catcher and Stassi stays in AAA).
I was afraid Stassi was out of options, but does look like he has one more year left, so I'd definitely be in favor of Gattis at backup C, but still carrying 13 position players, with Duffy getting the last spot. I'd consider Gattis being the backup C very remote though.
I thought Stassi was out of options as well, but he did stay up after his initial call up the rest of that season. I am not a fan of having 5 outfielders from a flexibility standpoint unless one of them can play a couple of IF positions as well. Granted, these things tend to work themselves out. Last year, Astros had 3 1B/DH options and all three underperformed making it easy to send on to the minors.
Good follow-on to the above article..basically saying tanking didn't build either of these teams' success stories for the most part, so maybe the rules don't need to be adjusted at all (or as much as is being suggested right now) http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/p...it-tanking-for-the-success-of-cubs-and-astros Astros snippet:
Tanking allowed for us to develop Keuchel, give McHugh a chance, and be patient with Josh Fields & Marwin Gonzalez. It also helped us get Will Harris with higher waiver priority.
Keuchel was the main "find"... even though he was already here (as he got opportunities to continue to pitch, regardless). By the same token, you might as well put Altuve in there, as he was already here but got more and more time to develop/stick. The rest of the guys you mentioned were not the result of tanking... simply because I wouldn't be surprised if Luhnow found a similar waiver-wire/ruleV pickup now, and they're clearly not tanking now. The 2012 draft was great in that they set the precedent for taking advantage of the set pool format for $$$, but they were bad in 2011 all by themselves. The 2015 draft has a chance of making the last of the "tanking" years look really good, since it was basically the result of not signing Aiken in 2014. I still believe the farm will be strong 5 years from now (and/or if its weaker, it will be because we intentionally traded away drafted talent... not because they forgot how to make sound picks and build a farm)... and that will be without the benefit of the #1 pick in every round. Making sound picks based on a proven system/scouting (and not just going after the affordable guys that Selig recommended) and actually signing them (which they've been top-notch at) goes a long way to keeping the farm stocked. There's also enough smoke to believe that part of the "tanking" years was due to the overpaid debt that Crane was suffering from after buying the franchise... combine that with the CSN debacle, and they simply could not afford to put a better product on the field at that time (nor would it have really made a big difference, given the dearth of talent).
