An owner that doesn't want to spend money to add an elite starting pitcher. A GM that eschewed traditional baseball people at all levels, and is extremely stubborn. A bad manager. He may be a very nice man, and keep the peace. How his players are "stupid" and "oblivious". They do not have basic fundamentals. He makes out poor line ups. He doesn't pinch hit in key situations with his catcher coming up. He just lets his players run whenever they want and really, he as a leader lacks any confidence. A group of players that lack focus or any approach once the game starts. A rotation that is basically a bunch of pitchers spitballed against the wall with the hope that they stick.
Well, they were willing to take on Hamels contract... did you want them to go hard after Price? Not sure where this is coming from... unless you were never on board with him coming on in the first place, and you disagree with his abilities to have improved the minor league and major league systems. This is pretty much every other one of your posts here... constant complaining about lineups and blaming every loss on him. Honest question though... which lineups should he be throwing out there? And there hasn't been a whole lot of questionable managerial moves leading to lost wins (besides the constant complaints about the 9 hitter, and replacement options for the 9 hitter)... mainly because they haven't been in the position to win/lose many games based on the manager decision alone. A little throwing out the baby with the bathwater much? Sans McCullers, obviously they can't have McHugh also pitch the worst baseball of his career... unless you think this is who he really is, and the last 2 years of data were a fluke (much like the Giles conundrum). Sounds like a lot of preconceived notions/bias that are simply fitting the current state of affairs...
He's such a flip flopper, especially when it comes to the manager. I think it's a great overreaction, especially considering the Astros were already ahead of schedule. It's a bad month, but it's definitely not as bad as he's making it seem. You guys will be fine. Sometimes when you're ahead of schedule, you tend to take a step back before moving forward again. Sophomore slumps are always there as well. The Astros rotation wasn't great to begin with, but obviously right now it's underachieving. It happens. The Astros have pieces to move if they need to get an elite arm, so these super critical posts are kind of stupid honestly. I think some of these people forget how long the season is. If this is June or July and they are still looking this bad, that's another story. It's still only April.
It could be worse. Just think how bad this team would have been if Rasmus left versus taking the one year. We'd be looking at 2-17 probably.
I guarantee you there will be a time at some point this year where Rasmus will struggle, and then will be called out to be overpaid, and Luhnow will be criticized for being put in the position to have to give him the qualifying offer. Hell, that sort of thinking already exists... now they just need Rasmus to falter to fit the narrative.
this isn't intended to be critical of them - i personally think there was enough sensible optimism to go into the season with what we had in place and without spending, but i'm not writing Hamels into the "money spent" category. they don't get credit for probably being willing to take on hamels contract. until they actually spend money, they haven't.
Other than the fact that the owner approved the funds and they had an agreed upon deal which would have locked them into 4 years/$25 million per.... And merely needed Hamels' approval. I agree that they didn't spend it, so they don't get full credit yet... But they intended to utilize funds to improve the situation when the right situation came about. Beside Hamels, I just didn't see another pitcher worth going after (quality wise and money wise) other than David Price... And I'm not so certain this team is guaranteed anything with him on the roster, at an astronomical rate, other than possible limitations in re-signing their own guys when the time comes (in addition to possibly limiting payroll for in-season additions). Can you agree the price tag (vs. expected production) of Kazmir... Or even smallish Greinke... Would have been some realistic risks? Then again, had we known LMJ was so iffy... Perhaps they get more aggressive.
Yeah... great over reaction.. do you know what the Astros record is over the last 162 games? 77-82 So, please tell me; which is more representative of the current situation of the Houston Astros; a 15-7 start a year ago, or the last 162 game sample? As far as "flip-flopping" on the manager, stick to the boards that you regularly read, because you don't know what you are talking about if you think I regularly flip-flop on Hinch. I also want to make it clear, I am not unhappy with the job Luhnow has done or unhappy with the rebuilding effort. It hasn't been perfect, but it is very clear that the Astros front office knows how to evaluate and develop young players. However, this current Astros team has serious issues aside from a slow start. The rotation really needs a very good #2 starter (hopefully that is a healthy McCullers). There remain serious drags at catcher, third base and DH. Most of the Astros issues can be fixed from within (an underrated farm system), trade or free agency. Still, as the Astros are RIGHT NOW, there flaws are keeping the team from being what many (including me) expected.
You realize it's a young team right? Look at how much Kansas City went through with their young guys before finally getting over the hump. The Astros had the luxury of making the postseason in the first year of some of their rookies. As far as the manager thing goes, I've seen your posts. They can be flip floppy at times. Maybe I was wrong though, maybe you've never liked the hire. That's fine, I mean I can certainly understand it if you didn't like him from the get go. All of what you're saying is correct, HOWEVER, you're jumping the gun a bit. I get that you guys made the postseason last year, and to most that would seem like a step back if you didn't make it again, but that really isn't the case. You guys overachieved and it's natural for the young guys to go through their early slumps. Yeah some of the trades made are also to win right now, but I think at the same time it's not like the FO has put in a lot of money into FAs that you guys are locked into a window. You can't even put a window on it right now because of how young your core is. And hell half of it seems like it's still not up. You have guys likes Martes, Bregman, Reed, etc. that will be up later this year or next year. The process can't be rushed. Fans are always impatient, especially when the rebuilding process has taken as long as it has, but these are the growing pains you go through with young teams when they are first there. Fortunately too for you guys, the division you're in is pretty bad right now that you don't have to worry about falling behind too much. But even if you guys missed the postseason this year, I wouldn't consider that a disappointment at all. You guys are still ahead of schedule, I think people tend forget that.
I want to make it very clear, I prefer the Astros long term position to a vast majority of teams in baseball. I am not unhappy with the job that Luhnow and his staff have done. I am discussing this season. The team has several serious flaws that are limiting the success of the team, and I don't believe it is all just from a slow start. I doubt they are flippy-floppy. I was supportive of the hire and became less so watching the in game moves over the course of a season. If he makes a move that I didn't agree with, that works out (kept Fister in longer) I will usually point out that I disagreed with the move, but it worked out. I am not trying to bury the man, but I do not have a very high opinion of his line ups or in game managing. I don't think the Astros over-achieved last year, they actually won fewer games than they should have, and it is supported by most of the advanced W/L. The Astros last year had a viable #2 starter most of last season, better defense and more timely hitting. Not certain about this, time will tell. The Rangers are without their second best starter (Darvish) and are willing to spend money and prospects to win now. I wouldn't be shocked to see them as one of the best teams in baseball if a few bounces go their way.
Nook's points are pretty sound... although I still question these mysterious awesome lineups that Hinch is refusing to trot out there. He's already tinkered with dropping Gomez (while elevating White) with no appreciable difference. He's given Marwin an uptick in his AB's. He's played the lefty-righty game... and then not played it in order to keep the scorching Rasmus where he should be. He let Springer hit through his slump, and he came out of it well. He tried to jump-start Correa with an off day (and so far has a .300+ avg since it). Only thing we haven't seen (which may be pending) is just flat-out benching Gomez/Castro for good... putting Marwin in LF, Gattis at C, and going with that for the majority of the games (which will lead to inevitable complaints about DH/3B production if Tucker/Valbuena don't start hitting consistently, or issues with Gattis at the C spot if he has defensive lapses).
We are not that far off. I believe that Hinch plays Gattis far too often. He is an offensive black hole, and having that at DH is really difficult to overcome. I would have started giving Marwin the third base job to start the season and bat him higher in the order, to help lengthen the batting order. That way I lengthen the heart of the batting order some. As far as catcher goes, there isn't a whole lot that Hinch can do other than be more aggressive with pinch hitting for Castro in the 6th or 7th innings. I wouldn't rule out pinch hitting for him in the 2nd inning if there are runners in scoring position. I do not see Gattis being physically able to catch often. If he can, then he needs to do it. As for Gomez, I know that Hinch wants to get him turned around, but there is a fairly large sample size showing that isn't going to happen. Marisnick at least can run the bases well. Gomez often times loses outs on the bases. Hinch will be fine once his in-game choices are limited. Being up 3-1 in the 7th or 8th and going to your set up man on auto pilot is fine, and Hinch can do that. However he isn't someone that is going to squeeze out wins or maximize situations. The base running is a perfect example of that. The Astros have been really bad on the bases.
An example of bad Hinch, did you see Marwin in today's lineup???Marwin is hitting .296 in last 14 games, White??? Well, Tyler is hitting .125. Why don't you use Marwin 5th in the lineup???? Others ARE NOT DOING THE JOB. But not only is Marwin not hitting 5th tonight, HE IS NOT PLAYING. I am so tired of Hinch and his lineups
This is where we differ... I fully minimize a manager's impact on day to day wins and losses. Certainly in a short series, certain moves can be magnified/impactful/damaging moreso than others... but over the course of 162 games, they all basically even out. As far as the base running is concerned... the Astros are aggressive to a fault. Technically, if you want them to be conservative, that is in-effect putting it on auto-pilot (or only running on ultra-favorable situations... that is risk averse). Or if they had a team like the late 90's or 2000 Astros, that were basically devoid of team speed once Biggio got older, it also makes the base running aspect easier. I agree that the careless base-running mistakes have to stop... but I also feel a manager shouldn't have to micro-manage that to make it stop (or for all we know, maybe he has... and Altuve/Springer are just too aggressive for their own good). They're making little-league type mistakes out there. I have no problem putting that on the players who have played this game their whole lives (and just to recap, the baserunning... namely Altuve's base running... wasn't in great shape when Porter was managing either). Agreed on the rest of the moves... Marwin needs more run at either 3B or 1B (as this is the only consistent lineup change that is defensible). He's basically hit well enough to be an everyday player.
Over the last 15 games for Marwin (you know his entire season) he has an OPS of .669. Why on earth would Marwin hit 5th?
Because CangreOuch has seen the lineup and knows Marwin ISNT hitting 5th, so it's easy to second guess the lineup as no one will ever know what would happen if he did... The guy used to make me mad with his posts, but it's really quite funny now. He second guesses things that we will never know what the outcome would be, and when Hinch's lineup does produce, he sits silently on the side And most of the second guessing is misguided anyway, while the offense hasn't been anywhere near what we want, it's the pitching that has killed us. Offensively we are middle of the pack, even with all of the stupid baserunning mistakes. Only Cincy, Milwaukee and Colorado have worse team ERA's than ours, not sure how the lineup is arranged would affect that. ERA in the first inning is 10.89, almost two full runs worse than any other team. When you are in such a funk, and then game after game get behind right away, it's tough for a young team to stay "up" But of course, maybe if Hinch put Marwin in the 5th spot in the lineup, the starting pitchers would appreciate it and pitch better
Because White is struggling, Gomez is awful, Gattis is not hitting, and Castro is Castro. Valbuena should stay hitting 7th or 8th. Is not that Marwin is great, but others are doing even worse, and LATELY Marwin is out hitting all of those guys. But, Mr. Hinch has him on the bench, GOOOOD MOVE
AHHH, and for the record, i said YESTERDAY BEFORE THE GAME Marwin should hit 5th over White. Can you tell me what Marwin did? What White did????
kazmir, yes. i both approve of taking the chance on the trade, and am glad they didn't chase their losses and re-sign him. i didn't consider greinke a risk. don't really care how his first handful of starts of the season in Zona have gone. i'd still take him. i said this a lot along the way: they traded for kazmir/attempted to trade for hamels because they knew the need was there for at least one more stud in the rotation. we went into the offseason with that exact same hole. not filling it never really made much sense. maybe they/we expected that the offense would be able to mask that need long enough to get us to the deal-making portion of the schedule, but it shouldn't be surprising that our rotation sucks, with mccullers out, and essentially a #2 hole added.
