Why was that stupid? If Wallace came through with just a single, then you're looking at first and third with one out. However, if you decided to not send Lee and Wallace K'd then as well, then you have Lee sitting on first with two outs and Barmes up. Does that sound like an appealing situation? When you have as little pop as the Astros do, you have to do those kind of things if you want a chance of scoring that tying run. I have no problem at all with Mills sending Carlos there. You can't sit around and wait for one of our guys to hit agame tying or go ahead home run, it's not happening.
Wallace has been in a funk and strikes out a lot, Feliz is a strike out pitcher and Lee is a dead duck on that play. There is aggressive baserunning and is dumb baserunning, you have to know that was an ultra low percentage play. You probably pinch hit Barmes with Johnson and while still not a great chance it's better then that play. Oh and it was the last play of the game...just a bad call all around.
I didn't see the game and don't have a problem with the aggressiveness. But if you have Lee on first, would it not have made sense (regardless if he's going or not) to pinch run Jason Bourgeois or anyone else that has a bit of speed?
Bourgeois is on the DL. Bogusevic had already been used as a pinch hitter, and when the Rangers brought in a lefty to face him, Mills pinch hit for him with Michaels. So he was left with: Johnson Sanchez Towles Towles is the only logical choice to have used as a pinch-runner, and he is basically serving as emergency catcher. Mills screwed himself by pinch hitting for a pinch hitter. To be fair to Mills, We had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 out, and needed those runs to score. The big question for me is, how does Clint Barmes not score from 1st on a double with 2 outs by a catcher? I didn't see it, but I don't see how that happens. Maybe Clark should have sent him?
Mills is dumb..you should've pinched run in that situation and whats up with Wallace he is freaking strike out machine here lately...For as bad as the astros are they've lost some close 1 run games to the texass rangers...Win those and you win the series and Dallas and are tied now..oh well..
Dallas? They Rangers hate Dallas so much they play in Arlington, and use the fine state of Texas in their name instead of that POS city of Dallas. :grin:
so, I was intrigued by the "Pythagorean" theorem (a terribly named stat, btw) a few years back and started tracking it. this year is by far the worst performance by the Astros against their "Pythagorean" metric than I've seen. Previously, bad as they were, they were generally right at or even a little better. This year, they're already 8 games worse (8 is a lot: wouldn't 36-45 feel so much better than 28-53?). To state the obvious, they're on pace to lose 106 while their "Pythagorean" pace is only 90 losses. Ouch. For those who've dug much deeper into slide rules and othersuch moneyball nerdiness than myself, does this speak to poor management? (I'm more of a Brad Mills fan than a basher, but this is just abysmal.)
I have no idea but like you said, that is an alarming number. I can't recall ever seeing that drastic of a difference between actual record and expected record based on run differential for any team. If I had to guess, it's probably a combination of things, including but not limited to bad luck and poor managing.
It gives us a better chance to win. Maybe the wrong decision for Wallace's development though. I'm ready for Mills to be gone though.
Both aren't good vs LHP, Michaels having a higher OPS. I rather develop the 1st baseman of the future then a bench guy who in all honesty, probably should have been released a month ago.
msn, Which source were you using to get the Astros pythagorean record? According to BR, they are only 3 games below their expected W-L based on run diff: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2011.shtml That isn't good but not too extreme and could level out over the second half of the season. Here's the definition of the stat, which was developed by Bill James: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/faq.shtml#pyth Based on that brief definition, it sounds like luck (good or bad) is the biggest factor in explaining any difference between actual and expected records. Cooper was probably getting lucky while Mills has been a little unlucky.
I didn't even realize Michaels doesn't hit LHP any better than RHP over the last 3 years. I just knew Wallace has struggled against them, and Lee hits them very well. Carlos Lee has put together a great June.
