His RISP numbers are still atrocious, however there have been at least 4 times where he has reached on an error with RISP and 5 runs were 'driven' in in those at bats.
I think you vastly underestimate some of the lineups they had in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. At one point in 2001, they had a race for the batting title between members on the same team (Alou, Berkman). The 2003 lineup featured 5 guys with an OPS of .850 or better, with 3 of them having an OPS of .900 or better.
I think you vastly underestimate some of the lineups they had in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. At one point in 2001, they had a race for the batting title between members on the same team (Alou, Berkman). The 2003 lineup featured 5 guys with an OPS of .850 or better, with 3 of them having an OPS of .900 or better.
I think you vastly underestimate some of the lineups they had in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. At one point in 2001, they had a race for the batting title between members on the same team (Alou, Berkman). The 2003 lineup featured 5 guys with an OPS of .850 or better, with 3 of them having an OPS of .900 or better.
That's fair. Those early 2000s teams had several instances of guys hitting out of their mind for a season or 2, but not becoming stars, so it's easy to look at those lineups just on paper and not be amazed. But of course, Hidalgo hit 44 bombs in 2000, Morgan had that ridiculous year in 2005, Alou raked for us in 01 and 02, and so on. So, point taken.
Who do you think was actually on steroids then? Berkman? Alou? Kent? Biggio? Ensberg? Bagwell? 1998 was actually on the forefront of steroid usage... Carl Everett seemed to have a late surge in career numbers, along with a feisty temper. Hell, the 2007 Astros featured 4-5 .850 OPS or greater hitters, with Pence, Lee, Berkman, Scott... I think its been so long since they've had a lineup full of actual professional/MLB caliber hitters, that some forget that it was commonplace not too long ago.
Hidalgo's 2003 season was actually very impressive.... was one of the most consistent hitters all season. Ensberg also had a quality 2003, 2005, and 2006 (while slumping in 04). And Berkman is still vastly underrated amongst Astros fans for his hitting ability.
Curiously enough, at the same time I am reading your message(s), I am trying to get tickets for Groundhog Day on Broadway.
Currently, Astros are on pace for their second best team RC+ in history to the 1998 season for non-pitchers. OPS may have been better back then, but when compared to their peers, 2017 Astros get compared to guys like Trout and early 2000 Astros get compared to Bonds...Mike Trout's raw numbers look absolutely pathetic next to Bonds. Using era adjusted stats like RC+ or OPS+, I think 2017 Astros will look very favorable to any non-1998 Astros team...and even then if Correa et al heat up, this team may challenge the 1998 squad in era-adjusted hitting stats. Current team doesn't have Everett and Ausmus. Though I'm guessing their un-adjusted stats don't look too bad for today.
Sure... an entire new generation of hitters swings/misses more than any past generation. Still doesn't mean that things are all that different from a mere 10 years ago. Berkman, Alou, and Bagwell were better hitters in their primes than anybody on the current Astros is now. Doesn't mean they won't get there.
Possibly all of them. I'm not going to pretend that the Astros were clean. I can't say any individual used, but I'm sure there were multiple guys using.
Today, you can watch a game and see a guy throw a 98 mph pitch and have no idea who he is. A pitcher throwing 98-mph back then would have the Astros quacking in their boots as they just weren't use to seeing it very often. Also, the strike zone back then was basically the size of the heart of the zone today (over-exaggeration). Today's game may have the same basic rules, but it is much harder to hit. AJ Reed can't hit 2017 pitching, but would likely have been able to hit in 2001 as pitchers couldn't nibble on today's zone and his average bat speed wouldn't hurt him.
Then you're going to end up implicating everybody that put up numbers that played in that era... which is fine... I just think that's a little overly presumptuous. None of those guys put up the eye-popping/astronomical numbers that were breaking records... and they all peaked at around the normal prime years for all players in the history of the game (age 27-33), minus the special select few.
Pretty broad generalizations... I could easily say that there's no starting pitchers of this era that come close to what Pedro, Randy, Schlling, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Wood, Brown, Mussina, Oswalt, etc. were doing year-in/year-out. And some of those guys may have been juicing as well. This game has shown us that things are cyclical... whether it be due to rule changes, better training regimens, or smaller ballparks... and with things being relatively stable from a training/ballpark standpoint from 10 years ago (and the strike zone actually was wider back in the Erik Gregg era), humans have not evolved (or devolved) that much to the point where Reed would have been better back then than he is now. Likewise, Berkman/Alou probably puts up the same numbers now than they did back then. It's not that different.
Xrunner I agree with you on if LMJ throws anywhere close to 200 IP in the regular season it would be a mistake given his history and arm issues last yr. Some will beg to differ. I mean just trot him out there every fifth day and if he's cruising along let him go as long as he can. Innings pitched and pitch count don't mean $hit. "Oh my god if he goes over 200 IP for the yr will his arm fall off"?
