I said that you were a narcissist and that may have been harsh. My bad. However, I do see posts like this as a sort of a “grandstanding” thing. Perhaps I’m just too cynical about some things. Actually, I definitely am. No worries. Go Astros!
Nicely done by both. Now may I suggest you go together to find Dusty and Chas and use the same techniques to reconcile them as well?
Get that Shyte out of here. This is Clutchfans where there were those who wanted to trade Dream. It’s blame Gordon, blame Crane, blame Dusty, trade Altuve, sign DeAndre Hopkins to the Astros! Tank! Tank! TANK! it’s the Fascist Wokies fault! Here’s a 20 page op-Ed co-wrote by Jonathan Turley and Richard Justice proving I’m right… And here is a YouTube influencer
What you, and others, are doing is (conveniently) assuming not only different results but guaranteed positive, tangible results (3 more wins!) - and that's just not how any of this works. Baseball isn't intended to be viewed in the micro. They play 162 games as a means to even things out - a game they should've won replaces a game they should've lost, etc. Cherry-picking extremely small sample sizes is never reflective of the whole. I keep going back to these two numbers: 1) the Astros' Pythagorean, which is -2, suggests that Baker, at worst, has probably cost them ~2 games; 2) their amazingly good record when Corey Julks starts - which isn't reflective of his impact - but proof that he's not having the negative impact so many people here, and elsewhere, are claiming. And that's because whether the Astros win/lose rarely comes down to the Corey Julks of their line-up. If the big dogs are hitting/pitching, they're far more likely to win. And if they're not... It really is that simple. See? This is what I mean. Looking at that series as a whole, the Astros were outscored, 17-7. In the two games Chas didn't play, the combined score was 12-3. There is no player on planet Earth worth 9 runs in two games. At best - the absolute best - Chas marginally moves the needle, and they're outscored.... 17-8. Not playing Chas McCormick was *not* why the were swept. It's not even close. Specific to the Singleton PH - I didn't like the decision. At all. But! Again, your argument is rooted in the idea that the results would've been different if they had left Chas in. I understand why many would feel that way: Chas is a better hitter than Singleton, and thus, gives you a better chance to succeed. But given that Chas McCormick makes an out roughly 63% of the time.... the most *likely* outcome is that they would've still lost. The Yankees' win probability at that time was 90%. OK, and?... If they don't win the division.... they are still extremely likely to make the playoffs. Plus, for all the angst and complaining.... the division is (likely) going to come down to those 3 games with Seattle. Win the series, you likely win the division, and all this energy spent agonizing over a 162-game season will have been a giant waste of time. Lose the division - but still make the playoffs - would render all that energy just a waste of time. It really does feel, at best, fatalistic - at worst, like some of you are actively rooting for the bad stuff to manifest so you can tell everyone, SEE?!?!?!?!
This such a weird post - I understand/appreciate the sentiment - but it's not tethered to reality. Michael Brantley has played six games this year. Jose Altuve has missed 72 games. Heck, Chas has played in more games (95) than Alvarez (93). The driving force behind their best line-up not being on the field more is injuires, not the manager. I mean, if you want to pick this scab, at least start from a more honest place; namely, how many games have all of those players been healthy and available? It's not as many as you seem to think.
This thread should die .. but this post is just impossible to ignore. You are so right on your point about baseball not being about small sample sizes, or harping about individual outcomes, then you draw exactly the wrong conclusion by quoting a small sample size series where Chas couldn’t have made the difference. No one here is arguing about one series - we are saying that failure to play Chas and Diaz has, over time, resulted in at least 5 WAR difference. We cannot and should not point to specific games, exactly as you said, but then did anyway. But every sophisticated statistical analysis would agree with us that the decision has, over the large sample size, been the difference between a comfortable division lead and a fight to the last moment. Then you quote the Pythagorean record as the maximum difference which we can attribute to Dusty. You have done this a few times as some supposed trump card, but it completely misses the point. We are saying he failed to play the right people. That means they did not score as many runs as they should have. Their actual Pythagorean would be different if he played the right players because RS would be higher. Their current gap has nothing to do with it because that is based on the runs they did score with the lineup he chose to play. As I have asked you many, many times … just tell me why Maldonado deserved to start so many more times at catcher than Diaz based on any real observable numbers - offensive or defensive. Or do the same with Chas vs any other CF option. Otherwise it is just an appeal to “others know best so stop debating” or similar Pollyanna’ish noise. The actual hitting and fielding results are right there to see - this isn’t a tough debate.
Regarding Maldy it is because so much of what the Astros expect in a catcher can't be measured. They REALLY care more for intangibles than on field results. Hitting, catching, throwing. I honestly think that the vast majority of the organization agrees that they want Maldy catching over Diaz knowing that he is far inferior in these skills. Those skills are far down the list of what they Astros want from a catcher. I hate it, most fans hate it but it's reality. As long as the Astros keep winning that's how it will be. I honestly think Maldy would be the starting catcher even if Dusty wasn't the manager. This is above manager level. Now Chas on the other hand. I would bet there are more people in the organization who want Chas to play every day, mostly in CF than agree with Dusty. Unfortunately Dusty's is the only vote that counts.
Yep Some of it goes back to the 2012-2016 years when there was only a handful of us posting in the Astros forum. A huge majority of people on the site (and in the city for that matter) couldn't care less about the Astros back then So the threads were mostly positive. Even the game threads had a positive vibe about them. It was like a small group of baseball nuts getting together to talk about this player developing and what this player could become, who we have on the farm.... Then we got good and the threads "blew up", and I put that the way I did because even with the Astros being the most dominant team in all of professional sports as they have been, the Rockets forum and even the Texans forum still gets more traction typically, and both of those teams are still in 2012-2016 Astros mode Now I know some get pissed when anyone mentions "I was here in the dark ages" and i'm not trying to go there.....just saying for a long time the vibe was mostly all positive. Then we got good and you know what, the vibe still stayed mostly positive. Sure there were guys saying "we lost" as soon as something went bad, but those guys just don't understand baseball and most of that was simply laughed at. The thread vibes stayed strong until...... Mike Rat Fiers mouthed off, AJ and Luhnow got run, and Johnnie Baker Jr was hired to "manage" the team The scandal itself obviously changed the vibe of the board, brought even more people into threads, and just generally brought a different feel to eve You don't seem to understand baseball and how things that happen in games can affect things that follow Your reading comprehension needs some work too buddy, i've clearly said you can't put a number on how many games we would have won had we played our better players and you stick on where I say "maybe 3" In your way of thinking, we could cut players like Chas and Diaz and bring in any random player and our record would still be the same. Players matter And if you think i'm actively rooting for bad things to happen to the Astros i'm not sure what to tell ya. I've rooted strongly for this team for going on 5 decades son, other than day games when I was working or west coast games when I had to get up at 4:30 the next morning, i've probably watched 90% of all pitches for years and years, so GTFOH with that crap
Why do you believe that for Diaz vs Maldy? I have a hard time believing the best and most analytical FO in baseball prefers the worst catcher in the league by all measurable statistics to the best one. I know they have stats I don’t … but nothing can possibly tip the balance that much. And even Brown in his very careful way has suggested he wants to see more Diaz.
I think what the Astros like about Maldy is the fact that he's a very meticulous preparer before games, and is a high-baseball IQ guy. Plus chemistry and familiarity.
I understand but am trying to get under “Astros”. Dusty likes those things, as do a few pitchers. What do the smart people in the FO think?
Yea there may be a few in the FO that wants Maldy, but a majority don't. As you have said, Brown early on even hinted to the media about Diaz playing more and someone put a stop to those comments, or maybe he just sat back and realized it wasn't productive. Either way, I think it's fairly obvious what his view is It has to be tough to be a GM and have your hands seemingly tied on so many things
Interpersonal relationships matter. The offseason was the time to address the catcher spot. Or early in the season. I probably would have pulled the trigger at the deadline if it wasn't for JV. Right now, the best we can hope for is that Diaz gets some more PT as September/October is not an ideal time to piss off your pitchers.
