Alright, Mikey. He's killin it this season w/ RISP. Q was only on first but still a timely hit and RBI.
Puma is hitless in this series. I think that's justification enough that he doesn't need to keep hitting in the 5th spot. Move him back to 3rd or 4th where he belongs, Coop.
Best defensive play by Tejada I can remember since he's joined the Astros. He's had a few where he flipped balls from his stomach but that was pretty sick.
After a series with plenty of defensive blunders, Miggy and Hunter come up big in the 9th. Jose looked good again. And we avoid becoming the first team in Astros/Colt .45s history to be swept in a season series that was longer than 3 games.
National League Central Team W L Pct GB Diff Milwaukee 37 29 .561 - +21 St. Louis 36 31 .537 1½ +17 Cincinnati 33 32 .508 3½ -5 Chicago 31 31 .500 4 +6 Pittsburgh 31 35 .470 6 +4 Houston 30 34 .469 6 -37
Who doesn't mind losing? All I want from the Astros is 100% effort and let their play leave a mark on the game to determine the winner. If at the end of the game, we lose, then we lose. I was disappointed with game 1 of the series just from their body language as it was like we have no chance from the start since they scored in the first four innings instead of just playing the game. Compared to game 3 which showed that even a Brandon Backe pitched game in which we compete throughout can be a win. I remember of course. Its just that the past is the past and today's Rangers aren't those *Rangers,* you know. Look, I'm not better than you and vice versa. I'm not trying to come off that way at all but if so, my bad. Agree, there is no rivalry with them. The winner of the series tends to be the team with the better year. It's just one-sided. I don't see it as an complete waste but at the same time, if baseball decides to go away from interleague play, I wouldn't mind non division NL games. We see the Cardinals, Cubs, Reds more than enough. The other suggestions are good too. The matchup might not be pretty but what can you do? They don't have you or me making the schedule and MLB isn't getting rid of interleague play anytime soon. I was going to add Ryan being in charge to the other post but it was beginning to be lengthy like this one. The Rangers have less to worry about than us. They have a lot of good talent and Ryan only has a $68 mill payroll (5th cheapest AL, 22 overall) that's fielding a good team while Wade has a $102 mill payroll (4th highest NL, 8 overall) that isn't even .500. In case you were wondering, the Brewers are at $80 mill. I was thinking around 80-85 wins. Everything you said is true. With that said, they're still our team. Just curious, but why do hate/see no use of interleague play? Do you not like interleague play because of the rules? During the season, some matchups are good and fun to watch while others can be a drag. How do you feel the about the Fall Classic?
I think Interleague play is a waste because this is a sport where you play 162 games and less teams are let in the playoffs than allowed in. The concept behind 162 games is that baseball is a game of inches, big time. That more than any other sport, the worst team can beat the best team on any given night....so you play 162 to separate the good from the bad....and the great from the good. And historically, baseball has allowed in fewer teams in the playoffs than other sports because of it. The season WAS the playoffs. Then came realignment and the addition of the wild card. Even with that, I still think baseball preserves a lot of its value in the regular season. It's not like the NBA or NHL where more teams make the playoffs than don't. In fact, less than 1/3 makes the playoffs in baseball...that's pretty good. So if you're going to put value on the regular season and limit wild card opportunities (as has been done even under the current state of the game with only one wild card coming out of each league), games within your division are at a premium. And scheduling games against Texas every year do not further this value; particularly since your division opponents are NOT scheduled to play Texas every year. Texas and whatever other AL team you're facing is not competing with you for that wild card spot you're competing for. It's a sideshow...a distraction....and aside from a few exceptions, these matchups aren't interesting. The Astros next two matchups for the 'stros are the Twins and Royals....not exactly "classic rivalries renewed." And the Astros aren't competing against the Twins and Royals for ANYTHING. These are exhibitions. Nothing more. But they WILL impact the race (as we just saw by losing 2/3 to the Rangers) in spite of all that. Yes, I know the NFL has used that model for years and it works for them. That's great. They have a history of it and they build schedules based on how each team performed the season before, choosing inter-conference and inter-division competitors accordingly. I love the Fall Classic....it was previously Classic because it was a unique matchup. Let this league play it out until they find their best...let the other play it out until they find their best...and at long last, we'll see those 2 teams play. I actually think having interleague play diminishes some of the charm of the Fall Classic for that very reason.
Good post, including the part I didn't quote. I think a difference between us is I often talk about a team in the historic context of its franchise, and you're viewing the team according to what they are right now. So you'll offer objective takes about their play right now, and I offer those tempered with subjective ramblings about their longer-term identity. I *still* hate the Dodgers, for example. We only see them like what, 2 games a year. But when I see the Dodger blue I think of Steve Garvey, and Steve Sax, and Fernando Valenzuela, and I just want to pummel them. Eh, these ramblings are contributing nothing to the thread. My bad. Max addressed this very well. At the risk of "copping out", it would be redundant for me to type out my feelings on it. I find myself agreeing with Max a ton of the time on baseball (but not so much on football ). I will add this, though--the NFL does indeed have a good interleague setup, one that might work in the MLB. The deal is, NFL teams aren't married to playing *every* team in their own league *every* year. Seeing the Braves, Dodgers, and Phillies only six times a year really sucks. How am I supposed to cultivate my lifelong disdain for these franchises when I so rarely get to see them anymore? If you're going to mix in the interleague series, do so at the expense of three or four intraleague matchups. That would mean that some years we wouldn't see some franchises at all, but it'd be super to have 9 or 12 games against the other NL teams again, while still maintaining the heavier divisional schedule. But, I'd rather just dispense with interleague altogether. That's one of the things that used to make... ...so very special. I still love it, but it was cooler before interleague play. At least to me.
But outside of the 6 games against a particular "rival", all the teams in the division play the same interleague teams. So everyone plays the Royals and Twins. Is that really any worse than playing the Rockies or Nationals? I'd rather see a new time than playing these same ol' teams over and over again. I much more enjoyed seeing the Yankees and Red Sox last year than playing some other NL Central team that we already play 20 times a year another 3 times. I do agree with getting rid of the "rivalry" series so everyone in the NL Central plays the same interleague schedule, but ultimately that's a marketing thing.
i suppose i'd rather see them play against NL West or East opponents more than see them play AL teams. Like msn, I do miss seeing them play the Dodgers and Giants....those teams come to town for 3 games a year. I'd prefer to see them more and can make a better rational relationship for doing so relative to competition for the wild card, then i can for playing AL teams. by the way...i'm not saying i'm "right" on this in any way. this is totally a personal preference thing.
ding! ding! ding! me, too. or did I already say that? Yeah, I suppose. We could act all pious about it and call ourselves "purists" or something, but it's really all about preference isn't it.
The red shirts and gray pants look is terrible. I can't believe someone thinks that's a good idea. The tops need to match the bottoms.
Those are my favorite of the current style (they sort of look like the 80s away uniforms), along with the all white with black hats. If they would go with the jagged Astros lettering like they had in the 90s, instead of the cursive, I could maybe get behind the look. And of course get rid of the pin stripes please.
