I don't know why we continue to go over this. Yes, injuries to Altuve, Alvarez, and the starting pitchers ( even Chas) were the biggest thing preventing this team from winning more than they did. Yes, in baseball there is no such thing as a certain win and nobody can tell anyone else that a lineup or starter change would guarantee a change in the win/loss result. But you can not argue that playing the best players gives a team the best chance to win. You also can not argue that Chas is not better than Julks and Meyers. I guess you can argue Maldy is as good or better than Diaz but it's tough to find evidence to support that. It's basic common sense that a manager needs to give the team the best chance to win. Dusty honestly believes he was doing this. He does not recognize Chas has earned the same playing time as Pena. And that's why he was terrible this year. The choices he made, he thinks are the right ones while nearly every fan as well as the front office are frustrated and screaming about it. In June both Julks (.766) and Meyers (.596) started more games than Chas (.869) O have not broken it down by game orcweek, early in the month or late. I simply have full month stats. By September, Chas had completely established himself as one of the best 6-7 players on the team and earned the right to start everyday but Dusty refused to accept that and he sat 22.2% of the games in Sept/Oct. Despite playing Abreu, Altuve, Bregman, Pena, Tucker, and Yordan nearly everyday he refused to give that consideration to Chas, despite him outperforming many of those players. This is why Crane and Brown need to move on from Dusty before next season.
We simply need King Tuck to again outperform Evan Carter. I cannot believe that guy has launched as well as he has. Kudos to them. Now let's kick their @ss.
Who knows?! Baseball players fail ~70% of the time. And games are won/loss by a lengthy series of actions, decisions, etc. Switching one or even 2 players doesn't necessarily alter the outcome of a game.
The Astros were 57-51 in games Chas McCormick started - that's an 86-win pace. Where are these 3-5 games more wins coming from? And look, I'm not arguing Chas made them worse, or anything - it's simply to illustrate how one player doesn't move the needle as much as you seem to think, and certainly not to the tune of 3-5 wins. Not to mention... what if you replace Diaz with Maldonado and lose a game in which Maldy was a key to our victory? Take game 3, for instance: you could argue Maldonado's 2nd inning AB may have saved the series. Now put Diaz - who has looked utterly lost in the postseason - in that situation... I really believe the Astros won the number of games they were going to win. This certainly wasn't a 100+-win team, and I'm not sure they were a 95+-win team. It is, far and away, their weakest and least healthiest team during this era. I don't believe the daily line-up is why this year seemed like more of a struggle.
People have been arguing vigorously that not playing your better players is fine for about a season and a half as long as Dusty is using his gut and the Astros have Alvarez, Altuve, Bregman, and oddly Tucker considering this thread. I'd say a lot of fans don't understand different levels of bad (or even less than elite) hitting such that they don't care about the differences in the bottom of the lineup [e.g., playing Chas over Julks doesn't matter].
Terrific! We agree! Let's head to the bar and cele - Oh, wait... there's more.... I guess it's a good thing I've never, ever - not once, like... ever - made any of these arguments. You are welcome to comb through the thousands of replies I've made on this topic to try and find all the times I've argued Julks and Meyers are better than Chas or Maldy is better than Diaz - but I'll save you the time: they don't exist. Like, seriously: what are you even doing here besides making up bullshit? What, exactly, do we care about here? They won the division. They made their seventh straight ALCS. They're two wins away from their third consecutive pennant. It seems kind of silly to "yeah, but..." that. Sure, it wasn't an easy or conventional season, and it could be frustrating - it was, after all, literally the first time in seven years they haven't coasted to a division title by double-digits. But it also all kind of, sort of.... doesn't matter. They did what they needed to do. I've gone over this: Chas entered June on the heels of an injury and a terrible May (.552 OPS). Then Alvarez got hurt (June 8). The Astros believed they'd have Brantley back no later than May. So on June 9, they were stuck having to put band-aids on a gaping wound. But, from mid-June on - which is when Chas got really, really hot, he played significantly more than Julks and Meyers. I would agree with this, by and large - but will add two developments in August/September you seem to be conveniently ignoring: 1) Dubon posted a .883 OPS in August + September and has very obviously - and for good reason - become a trusted glove for Baker. So it wasn't Julks or Meyers pushing Chas late in the year - it was a very productive Dubon that, more or less, pushed Chas to LF, which was problematic because; 2) Brantley returned late August, and suddenly, the Astros had three players and - with Dubon in CF many nights - only two spots (LF & DH). You were not - nor should not - bump Yordan, and they wanted to give Brantley as many ABs as they could to get him ready. That's why Chas saw his playing time diminish in September. But Chas has started 6/8 postseason games. He is very clearly, firmly, in Baker's mix. It's REALLY hard to generate a credible narrative that Baker had some grudge with Chas. He *does* appear to favor Dubon more in CF - but, again: Dubon has not been a problem.
The season is 162 games. That is simply too large of a sample size for a bunch of 2-10% chances to not add up. But the results are not my point. My point is that a manager should play the best players often so those chances can add up. If I understand you, you are saying the decisions have such a small impact that they didn't matter. I think that may be the case over 10 games or even 20 but not 162. And as for Chas, Dusty said himself that he does not consider him an everyday player on the same level as the top guys (but Julio Rodriguez who Chas had clearly outperformed at the time and more MLB experience is) so refused to start him regularly. It's a difference of opinion. Dusty does not feel that Chas has reached that level ( but Pena has) and many fans, including myself, think he has.
I agree - play the best line-up. But why are results suddenly irrelevant, lol? What other point could there possibly be to all this if not the results??? It seems like too many of you want to just litigate not just the regular season - but the early part of the regular season - and ignore everything else. And I just can't find any reason to do that. Yeah, no - not really. The smaller the sample size, the more likely one or 2 things can swing results. But over the course of a very long season, the good and bad decisions tend to even out with talent being the most decisive factor. That's... not what he said. Look, let's start here: if Seattle calls you and offers Julio for Chas straight up, do you take that deal? Of course you do. We all do. So let's start this discussion there: among Julio, Chas, Dubon and Meyers, Julio Rodriguez is clearly the best player. Here's what Baker said: Offense aside, it is very clear - via this quote and his management of Chas throughout this season - that Dusty Baker does not believe Chas McCormick is an everyday CF. Or, at the very least, he thinks Dubon and Meyers are better defensive CFers than Chas. And that's what Baker is saying: Julio is a no-brainer start because he has the bat and the glove. Baker, meanwhile, believes he has incomplete options in CF. I have no opinion on Chas' defense - it seems fine, and certainly good enough to get his bat in the line-up - but I'm not watching/looking at it to the degree the Astros are. As for the quote, for a supposed player's manager, it's an odd thing to say on several fronts, and I don't get why he said it, nor do I like that he said it. But! If we were all... Yankees or Padres or really, not-Astros fans, I think most of us would see that quote and think, Yeah, pretty much.... But we are rightly supportive/defensive of our players and so it strikes us as oft-putting/insulting + many of you are programmed to reflexively fire at Baker if he says/does anything you deem out of line, so a quote like that lands even harder. I really don't think it's *that* bad - but, again: I didn't like it and I can understand why it rubbed fans the wrong way.
Disagree and if you can't agree that consistently putting the best lineup possible on the field gives you your best chance to win then I'm not sure we can have this discussion.
Why do you think I disagree with that?: My only point is that playing your best lineup doesn’t guarantee success, and *a lot* of people here don’t seem to understand that. You can’t just arbitrarily start adding wins and then say, “See?!?” It doesn’t work that way.
That double by Tucker in the 8th, triggering Bochy to bring in LeClerk to pitch over an inning and sit between innings was huge for this win. Just wanted to point out that which hasn't been mentioned as much. Without that, LeClerk is in the bullpen warming throughout the entire fiasco and not iced.
Nothing in life is guaranteed. But putting your best lineup on the field consistently should lead to more wins. Or do you not think playing your best players over lesser players matters when it comes to winning and losing?
