It's getting hot. Astros are 6 games over the 100 loss pace. This after about as good a run as the pitching staff is likely to have. We're hanging by a thread from dropping into the abyss of a 100 loss pace, that single thread being Roy Oswalt. If he gets hurt or traded, look out below. I'm saying this ahead of time guys. I have not changed my stance. We are still within distance of turning it around and heading back up, but I'm still calling it down. I think we are going to finish in last place and going to brach 100 losses if not hit 100 losses if/when we lose Roy O. Keep cursing me. I'm just being honest.
Roy O is the thread? Roy O of the 5-7 mark with a 5.04 ERA? That Roy O? If Roy had been pitching like he normally does, I could understand your point, but he hasn't been really very good this year.
If you hadn't proven how completely clueless you are about baseball, you did it with this. Roy Oswalt is 5-7 with a 5.04 ERA -- clearly below average for a starting pitcher in either league. If Oswalt is hurt or traded, the clip the Astros are on now would have little to no impact because his level of production (with the current season) has already been below average. To lose 100 games, the Astros would have to go 29-62 the rest of the way. That's a winning percentage of .318. Let's look at recent baseball history. The worst team in 2007, Tampa Bay, won at a .407 winning percentage. The worst team in 2006, Tampa Bay, won at a .377 winning percentage. The worst team in 2005, Kansas City, won at a .346 winning percentage. For perspective, the Astros are at a .465 clip right now. I don't know what's more ridiculous -- the thought that the Astros are going to be the worst team in recent baseball history for the rest of the season -- or that a starting pitcher with an ERA over 5 is the difference between .465 and .318. The Astros likely aren't a playoff-caliber team. They're also, however, nowhere close to 100 losses, and you're a complete and utter troll for bringing it up. You've been completely and utterly wrong up until this point, and you'll continue to me. Enjoy the crow. P.S. How's that prediction of 10 bullpen wins for the season coming?
You're talking about 100 losses as if it's a bad thing. This team ain't going to the playoffs. As the NBA has shown us, it's much much better to be Miami than Golden State. Come on guys, we only have to lose at a 75+% rate to hit 100 losses! Yeah! Now we just need an administration that knows how to draft. I hope Ed Wade is not a part of the "statistics are the work of the devil" faction, but I fear he might be.
Actually, I'll play with your idiocy just a bit more. It's too fun. Roy Oswalt career ERA: 3.19 Roy Oswalt 2008 ERA: 5.04 Brandon Backe career ERA: 4.70 Brandon Backe 2008 ERA: 4.99 Chris Sampson career ERA: 4.49 Chris Sampson 2008 ERA: 5.64 Brian Moehler career ERA: 4.75 Brian Moehler 2008 ERA: 4.76 Jose Valverde career ERA: 3.34 Jose Valverde 2008 ERA: 3.74 There are four of your six starters and your closer. The fifth starter, Wandy Rodriguez, missed approximately half of the season with an injury. The sixth -- Chacon -- is the only one outperforming his career ERA, and it's by a measly 0.25. No, you're not being honest. Not only is this not "as good a run as the pitching staff is likely to have," it's actually far worse what they're likely to have and what they're likely to perform at for the remainder of the season. Of the seven top pitchers in innings pitched, five are worse than their career averages (most far worse) and another (Wandy) has missed about half the season with an injury. Want to try arguing with substance next time, or spread more vague bull**** to make you look even more clueless? Your call.
..........and thereby goes their hopes of Roy O recovering and pitching better to keep us at mediocrity...........because the other pitchers are most assuredly going into the tank right now. I think if Roy O is traded and it is obvious that we are rebuilding that a lot of guys are going to go into the tank, and it is very possible that we lose 2/3s of our games the rest of the way.
Why would Oswalt have to pitch better to keep us at mediocrity? He's pitched terribly and they've been mediocre. If you're arguing that the other pitchers are "going into the tank," that's not necessarily true, either. The ERA isn't really that different. Biggest difference is that the bats have cooled. Here's what's funny. It's absurd to think the Astros would lose 2/3s of their games the rest of the way, given their winning percentage to this point and that it would be a worse clip than the worst team in baseball in each of the past three years. We're talking about a team with Berkman, Tejada, Lee and Pence playing every day here. But even if you're right and they do lose 2/3, which is unfathomable, they STILL wouldn't lose 100 games!!!! That's how utterly insane your prediction is.
I think you have to consider this, both because he's a valuable commodity (name & contract) and because I'm starting to think his season is not a fluke. His numbers have been dropping the last few years, and I'm wondering if he's just lost whatever it was that made him so good. I don't know that he's quite this bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's no longer a #1 ace. And if that's the case, he's potentially replacable with prospects.
On May 27th the team was 30-23; so at that point in time you could argue they were on pace to win 100 games. Now they've lost 15 of 18 and are on pace to lose 95. Common sense would probably dictate that the team is not as good as they were at their peak nor as bad as they are at their worst....what do you have then? Pretty much what everyone else predicted....an average .500 ballclub
............you have to see the potential for them to get much worse, for the bats to cool off, for the rest of the pitchers to go south, which is more of a probability than not based on their past histories. It is more likely that we've seen the best of the pitching staff than it is that we've seen them at a level they can maintain. Guys, look who is out there pitching. Our offense is going to have to average over 6 runs a game just to maintain some semblance of .500.
His career numbers: 2001 14-3 2.73 2002 19-9 3.01 2003 10-5 2.97 2004 20-10 3.49 2005 20-12 2.94 2006 15-8 2.98 2007 14-7 3.18 2008 5-7 5.04 I don't really see anything there to suggest he's on the decline. The drop in ERA from '05 to '06 is pretty insignificant. And while his ERA was higher in '07 you could argue that he could have still earned 20 wins that year and in '06 had it not been for the lack of offense. Now his strikeouts have been on the decline, but that's due to a shift in his approach. His walks and and home runs allowed have stayed relatively the same. This season seems like a nightmare, nothing more.
I've already shown you that the vast majority of the pitching staff is pitching far worse than their career ERA, so you have absolutely no logical basis for the claim that "it's more likely that we've seen the best of the pitching staff." The exact reverse is true. Considering the Astros are allowing under 5 runs per game on average, that's an interesting statement. Bizarre, really. STOP WITH THE GENERALITIES. You seem not to understand numbers, or specifics. Yes, the pitching staff is bad. No, they're not allowing 6 runs per game. Yes, the team is unlikely to make the playoffs. No, they're not going to lose 100 games. Either come with facts of substance, or go away.
Go back and read what I wrote again. Please. They have lost 15 of their last 18. The only way you could do worse than that is to lost them all. The bats did cool during the beginning of this losing stretch and just about every single one of our pitchers (in the rotation and the pen) have had at least one horrible game during the same stretch. And we have yet to really see the best this staff has to offer cause Roy O hasn't been close to his career average. In fact you might want to go back and read The Cat's post too, the one that shows most of our starting rotation's ERAs being WORSE than their career average.
His peripherals have been on the decline. His WHIP last year jumped notably, and it's jumped again this year (from 1.2 or so to 1.33 last year to 1.45 this year). His walk rate rose dramatically last year (causing the WHIP increase) and has stayed high this year. His BAA rose this year. His strikeout rate may have been a change in approach, but if the approach is no longer working - that is, people are making much better contact this year, so pitching to contact is not the way to go - going back to the old approach would seem to be a partial solution if he was capable of it. I think last year was the start of a decline - he managed to avoid it in terms of ERA for the most part, but I didn't sense the same dominance and ability to get out of trouble. It seems to have accelerated this year with the BAA going up - but that's certainly only this year. I may be completely wrong about his decline, but if he is in decline, now's the time to trade him. That's something the team has to look at and decide.
His peripheral numbers have been in a steady decline for a few years now. Most notably, his K/IP numbers have been going down. K, W and HR, numbers are better predictors of future performance than won-loss or ERA. That said, most of his problems this year have been caused by his HR rate. He previous career high for HR's allowed was 18 in 241 and 220 ips. he's allowed 17 already this year in only 94 ips. It could just be statistical noise and the HR are just an aberration. Take away the HRs and he's not that much different than where he's been the last few years. Though I wonder if there is something wrong with his arm. He seems to have lost about 2 mph on his fastball this year. In past years he normally worked 92-94. Now he is sitting at 90-92. A couple mphs could mean the difference between a foul ball and a hr. I almost hope it's an injury, so that when he recovers he'll have his stuff back. Because otherwise, he's just lost a couple mphs and in that case i'm not sure if it will come back. Also it's probably not a good idea to "sell low" when making trades. So, if you're going to sell and rebuild, then it might make more sense to trade Berkman in a career year than it would to get 50 cents on the dollars for Oswalt.
I'm not sure you'd get 50 cents on the dollar for Oswalt. The thing about trading a Berkman midseason is that most teams have a decent 1B that you have to bench. But with a pitcher, you are dumping your #5 starter, who probably sucks regardless. For a desperate team at the deadline, they are more likely to take a chance on a potential #1 ace pitcher than on a slugger. I think the best example may be Randy Johnson, who was having a mediocre season (and in the last year of his contract) when we traded for him - because he was theoretically the key to taking us from good to great. If you can find a team that hasn't been in the playoffs in forever and is having a dream season (say, a Tampa Bay, for example), they are more likely to trade away some youth for that one shot - and they might be more willing to take a chance on pitcher having a down year getting it back with a change of scenery. I don't think you trade him for the sake of trading him - but if you can find that team willing to really give up something, you jump on it instead of simply making him unavailable.
Again, with the 100 losses. It doesn't really matter how many games the team loses if they don't make the playoffs, IMO. The bottom line to me is can they get to the playoffs and win the pennant, or can they not?
