altuve is young. having hit dh would make more sense right now, since we need a win. Gomez and reed need to do something. since hinch is a shrink degree, maybe this is his way of getting gomez and the others to contribute. Fight or flight.
Again, we're talking about the week from hell (against the Yankees and Detroit) that saw them increase their lead for the first time in a month. If 6 games against the Yankees and Tigers was what had this front office convinced, then I suppose they really are the smartest guys in the room. Flawless, no... but playing good baseball, yes. You're acting as if the Astros were playing over their heads from May on... when in reality, they simply started getting replacement level production from the rest of their lineup, while their rotation stabilized and their bullpen continued to be dominant. I get your point from an argument standpoint... but you also seem to be of the mindset that any team that is close behind in the race should think twice about making moves, when in reality those are the teams that not only should make moves but may be the most benefitted by it. Since you didn't like my Rangers example from last year, how about the Jays and the Mets? Or how about as soon as Valbuena started hitting, this lineup and the wins started coming in with regularity? I've always been of the mindset, like you, that this offense was just one or two quality players away from being very good... but that was also presuming a healthy Rasmus, a solid Valbuena, and a mediocre (but still replacement level Gomez). I was hoping that Bregman/Gurriel could supplement all of that. When 3/5's of that equation went belly-up, I was hoping that the team would look elsewhere for help. Maybe they did and it didn't work out... but from what Luhnow said, it seemed like they had their minds met up that they weren't going to go past a certain point... even if that point was well within reach (in a keep almost all your really valuable prospects standpoint, as the Rangers did). As a primary reason, no. But when you not only fill a need... but make your rivals weaker, then it is a factor. When the Rangers got Hamels instead of the Astros, that was a huge factor in determining who won the division last year. But not because of that trade, and you know that.... unless you were the sole member of the John Buck fan club. Of course its not all Luhnow's fault... just like its never all the managers or the players as the reasons why teams lose games. But action (or in-action) is his ultimate responsibility.
The Astros were not red hot for 3 months. They were 10-11 in may until the Orioles came to town and we officially got hot.
From May-July, the Astros were 48-32. By far, their best 3 month stretch in the Luhnow era. Sure, its not 36-10... that probably is unsustainable... which makes the in-action even more frustrating. I don't feel that 48-32 was them playing over their heads, but mainly playing up to expectations. Supplementing the lineup while keeping up the pitching could/should have led to similar, if not better results.
A little slower this time? From May 1st... till July 31st, 3 exact months, their record was 48-32. 3 consecutive winning months... that wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility to duplicate over the final 3 months of the season.
We won 12 of 14 and then 11 of 12. Those are great streaks but they hardly cover 3 months. The rest of may 1 to aug 1 was losing baseball. We were hit for 2 separate streaks totaling slightly under a month combined.
That's the thing that some people are missing now. If Musgrove was hypothetically traded for Lucroy (or anyone else), Brad Peacock is currently in our rotation.
I did. The schedule says they went 48-32 over 3 months. Not being rude, but I'm really having trouble understanding what part of that you're arguing?
We were 23-3 over 2 different streaks and 25-29 for the remainder of that 3 month period. We were 7-17 in April. We are 2-5 in august. We are what we are. A young team with holes that will struggle mightily at times. Except for two crazy streaks we are playing far below .500 ball. Just sayin.
Well you keep saying we were hot or playing great for 3 months and it simply isnt true at all. We had 2 great streaks that together span 1 month. The other 2 months of this 3 month period you speak of was under .500
(Why, why, why.) So yeah, except for the games they won a lot of, they lost. By your logic, they would have had to go nearly undefeated to qualify for playing good baseball? The reality is, after the Rangers sweep in May, they never lost more than 2 games in a row till the end of July. Again, I really don't know what you're arguing. Good teams have stretches like that, while playing around .500 in their non-stretches. No team wins 12/15 games consistently.
That's like saying a team was was hot for 20 undefeated games and then .500 for two games instead of saying they went 21-1.
