Hopefully the lineup stabilizes in the playoffs. That's the one thing Dusty got (mostly) right last year. He was stubborn about sticking with Mancini and Diaz(the bad one) at DH til the middle of the World Series, and then he inexplicably went away from Hensley even after he got a couple of hits in his first game. But that aside, the rest of the order stayed mostly the same except for when Vasquez replaced Maldy. And the good news this year is that we actually have legit DH options when Yordan is in LF. Brantley, Diaz(the good one), and hell even Dubon.
With the addition of Brantley and Abreu getting his mojo back, it's really hard for Dusty to screw up the lineup unless he decides to bench Chas again which may happen in the Verlander games. I would assume those are the Brantley rest days since Brantley needs the rest.
Maldy is catching every single start (except maybe France or brown). Know that the FO would not choose that.
Maldy is catching every single start (except maybe France or brown). Know that the FO would not choose that. You really going to take a victory lap on a miracle division at 90 wins that the rangers gagged away. That is so so so so so stupid.
Yeah. I am. So many armchair managers filled their diapers about how costly Dusty Baker was (to the point of openly rooting against the Astros) - and all of it was a giant waste of time and energy. Baseball is not - and never has been - a daily sport. Extracting small sample sizes is a meaningless endeavor. The Astros didn't win - or lose - because of this one at-bat in June when Baker should've hit Diaz and not Julks (a variation of a complaint that was literally posted often here, and elsewhere). Not the way it works. And it's frustrating that fans forget this each and every year. (Or simply never knew it.) In baseball, things almost always work out they way they should have (until the postseason). And, FYI: Texas didn't gag this away. They were 55-52 after May; an 83-win pace. These last several months, they've simply regressed to the mean, something many of us figured would happen: their offense isn't deep; their bullpen is atrocious. Over 162, you can only cover up the flaws for so long. You can - and I'm sure you all will - b**** up a storm about only 90s wins - but the bottom line is that the Astros are a better team than the Rangers and Mariners. Doesn't mean they're not flawed; doesn't mean Baker is a great manager (personally, I hope he retires) - it just means fans should be more patient and keep the larger perspective in mind. Not doing so - despite yearly reminders of these facts - is what's really so so so so so stupid.
Not being able to score a run against a AAA pitcher is gagging it way. Seattle tried to the Rangers a chance other than starting Kirby.
Yep, Dusty was proven right. He is a brilliant baseball mind that clearly knew Seattle would fall apart in September, and then at the last second play well enough to take 3 of 4 from Texas. We could have won 2 or 3 more games with our best players and not needed all of that luck at the end, but Dusty had precognition of September and managed us to exactly the number of wins we needed. Needing Seattle to take exactly 3 of 4, and us to sweep was simply part of Dusty's plan
No. Just more fundamental misunderstanding of how probability works. The irony is he accuses others of looking at small sample sizes and then saying all we care about are certain at bats where the wrong pinch hitter was used … while ignoring the huge sample size of the wrong batter starting over and over and over. Oh, and the usual “but injuries were the big issues, so nothing else matters” and “see, I was right because the Rangers couldn’t score one run.” Just banal, ex-post reasoning.
They also could have just easily lost those 2-3 games and not made the playoffs. That's the fallacy of greener grass: everyone assumes their ideal outcome. Over 162 games, cream rises. The Astros are a better team than Texas and Seattle - so looking at four games and calling the outcomes lucky, is a fundamental misunderstanding of baseball's very nature. There was nothing lucky about the Astros curb-stomping the Rangers this year and earning the tiebreaker, for instance. Until the postseason, baseball is designed to weed out the lucky. If Baker had pulled every correct string - or, I guess better yet, let the geniuses from the internet manage the team - I maintain the Astros still would've won around 90 games. This is who they are right now; 2019 is not walking through that door.
I've never argued the *right* batter started over and over.... only that the impact of the "wrong" batter was significantly overblown. I mean, I keep posting this, and everyone just keeps ignoring it: the Astros set a 101-win pace in games Corey Julks started. And that's the issue I take the most exception to, this idea that the other option guarantees a positive outcome. That's just not how it works. It's interesting you would put the last part in quotes, since I never, ever said that. Do you not understand how quotes work? Injuries were the biggest issue, yes- but I never said nothing else mattered. Underperformance was the other big one, as players expected to be better weren't. And it's not surprising you'd boil the season down to one game involving the Rangers - that's the entire foundation of these arguments: these small moments matter and we're all just supposed to ignore that, after an unsustainably hot start, the Rangers were mostly a .500 team for the majority of the season, and couldn't beat the Astros all year. But, sure - let's focus on game 162 and pretend nothing else matters.
Playing, essentially, .500 baseball for the final four months of the season was a much bigger deal than the final game of the season. There are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of baseball games where good/bad breaks happen. Extrapolating one and saying, "See?! If only...." is silly. It all eventually balances out (until the postseason).
And, btw... I 100% agree with your premise: Baker should've played Chas/Diaz more. I've never, ever objected to that idea. I fully support it. I hope he does in the postseason, and win/lose, I hope Baker retires and Maldonado moves on after the season. My issue is that different probabilities do not necessarily guarantee different/better results. I could go back and find them - but there've been several posts detailing the exact number of games these decisions cost the Astros, and that is almost exclusively done at the expense of any other evidence, including, yes: very specific at-bats and/or conveniently-selected losses. Corey Julks is not a good player & he played way too much. But.... the Astros were not in any way hampered by his presence in the line-up. This is fundamentally true. They won *a lot* of games he started this year. Also... he was pretty good through April, and better than Chas McCormick, who was virtually unplayable after he returned from injury. It's disingenuous to ignore this and whine about how the Astros should've known Chas was the better option or criticize Baker for not riding the hot hand: it is *exactly* what he was doing. Fans want to "fix" their favorite teams. The Astros' greatest issue this year was injuries, and that's not something that can be "fixed" - so fans move on to something else. Daily line-up decisions may have cost the Astros here and there - but it ignores however many line-up decisions helped the Astros here or there; it ignores line-ups being an extension of the clubhouse and a response to the team vibe. morale, etc. - the *exact* reason Baker was brought here. I don't love Dusty Baker. But I also don't think he's as big a problem as fans think (or, at least, his good balances out his bad). And I wish fans were more aware of how conveniently the bad stuff is all his fault and the good stuff is in spite of him. Again, in the end, it all equals out. I just don't find this a terribly controversial opinion, other than it's not spewing vitriol like the mob insists.
Outside of the two games where he was hurt from getting hit in the back, Chas played every game but 1 in September including several where Dubon was starting in center. Brantley is not 100% and I expect will see plenty of Chas in the post season.
Yeah, there's so much presumption and things that sound right in theory... so Click lost the battle on who is actually going to be on the roster, but he somehow still influenced who played and who was brought out the bullpen? People also don't remember that Abreu wasn't really the 8th inning guy throughout last season... and Stanek (with Montero/Pressly) was really the back end of the bullpen. And all of a sudden come October, Stanek can't buy an appearance and Abreu is getting the prime role. Was that a Click call? A Dusty call? A mutual decision? I do believe they're all in this together despite some taking sides, but ultimately I do believe their post-season adjustments are a group effort. And I do applaud the ability for a team to do that... as given the short sample size, you almost have to make some sort of adjustments or play the game slightly differently enough to optimize a short series advantage as much as possible.
I think Meyers got screwed a lot harder by Dusty this season than Chas. Meyers should have been the regular starting CF with Chas in LF but Dusty turned him into a 4th OF so his buddies could play.
No doubt at all. And also meyers should have started against every lefty even after Brantley returned.
