Certainly true - but since 2005, his BAA has gone up each year (very, very slightly though). His ERA has gone up each year. His strikeouts and K/Inning have gone down each year. And his innings have gone down each year. Whether any of that is connected, I don't know - but none of those are good trends.
True, its impossible to know. I just don't think its the speed on his 4-seamer, because I don't notice any appreciable change in velocity from him over the past few seasons, and I think the stats back that up. IMO, its a combination of things. He is a stubborn pitcher who likes easy innings, i.e. throwing pitches for guys at the plate to swing at and get themselves out. And also, his curveball has been less effective the past few seasons. He hasn't been able to throw it for a strike. So really he has no change of speed. His slider is outstanding, but I think he needs to throw his curve more effectively as well.
Hey, honestly. I hope you guys are right and I'm wrong. I'm a fan first and foremost. I sure don't wanna drag out all summer watching losing baseball. I simply fear the possibility and I think something has to change for us to avoid this season sliding into the abyss. I have my reasons. And it's interesting to me that none of you seem to want to peg how many wins we'll get or how many wins our 2-5 starters will get. One guy has come up with 74+ using logic that Oswalt is gonna get 20 and the remaining starters are gonna average 10. Well, whatever. Hope he's right. But I doubt it. I doubt Oswalt gets 20 and I doubt we have more than one other guy get over 10. Keep waiving them homer hankees.
It's interesting to me that you don't seem to want to explain your analysis of how the bullpen will win 10 or fewer. They've already won three -- only 8.6 percent into the season -- while pitching terribly and without a lot of offense. They're on a pace to win 30-35. When you explain how 10 or under is a reasonable figure for the bullpen, I'll peg how many wins the 2-5 starters will get. It's interesting to me that you haven't made any kind of argument to how this team is any worse than last year -- much less 11 games worse -- yet you're accusing people of waiving "homer hankees" for thinking this team won't lose 100 games. The Hawks have a better chance of beating the Celtics in the first round than the Astros do of losing 100 games. Deal with it.
I simply said around 10 games because I am convinced there is no way we get 52 wins out of our starters but I was giving them credit for about that amount. I'm calling the upper limit at 100 games. What's the lower limit? You want to analyze every one of my numbers? Ok, I'll readjust them. Oswalt 14 wins Wandy 10 wins Backe 8 wins Sampson 8 wins Chacon 6 wins Everybody else: 16 wins So, what is your numbers? And what is more laughable? My numbers or this: Oswalt 20 wins Wandy 10 wins Sampson 10 wins Backe 10 wins Chacon 10 wins Bullpen 15-20 wins In my opinion, the only guy that is willing to put down the numbers put down these numbers and they are laughable.
His numbers are a lot more reasonable than yours. Oswalt won't win 20, but to expect 8 or under for Backe, Chacon and Sampson all is utterly insane. If I had to guess, I'd go with 16 for Oswalt, 13 for Wandy, 11 for Backe and Chacon, 8 for Sampson and about 21 for a combination of the bullpen and minor leaguers. Though if Backe or Sampson has an injury (possible given their histories), you can up the percentage from bullpen/minor leaguers since a minor leaguer would be the replacement. Again, though, this is the most pointless exercise I've ever seen because there is very little correlation between a pitcher's actual ability and whether he gets a win. That is entirely dependent on luck, timing, the surrounding offense, etc. The reason you're not getting any responses is because you continually refuse to state why this argument you're making has any relative merit.
I was asked to make an argument because I stated in this thread that I felt we were headed for 100 losses. I don't really think most of us realize how precarious this team is with ONE LEGITIMATE MLB STARTING PITCHER! Everybody else is unproven or proven to be very mediocre at best (Chacon). For this team to hit even your numbers and play .500, some pitcher besides Oswalt is going to have to have a career year and the rest are gonna have to pull their average numbers or better them. I just don't see it happening. I think you are dreaming way too much. I think the odds are heavily stacked against us and point to a major injury/injuries/total breakdown of our paper thin pitching rotation. And our bullpen is paper thin too, much worse than last year.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM LAST YEAR? And not just different, but 11 games worse?!? Even if the bullpen is worse, it's offset by the fact that the offense is much better. What I don't think you get is that the reason we're arguing so much isn't so much that we disagree with your take that this isn't a contending team. Most likely, it's not. But the flaw you're emphasizing so much -- shaky starting pitching -- was even worse a season ago, and somehow you're claiming this year's rotation not only regressed but regressed by 11 games (a ton in this sport) even considering enormous upgrades on offense? Are you kidding?
To address the gaping hole in this logic--to predict the number of wins a team will get by attempting to predict the number of wins each pitcher will get and then adding them together is just stupid. W/L is a *terrible* stat for pitchers. They have control of only half of what goes into the W or L. Roger Clemens 1-0 2-hit losses, anyone? Or how about Jeriome Robertson winning 15 games with like a 27 ERA (exaggerration intentional)? Those W's, when looking at which pitcher actually (and often arbitrarily) finally gets credit for them, end up in wierd places. 4 or 5 go to AAA call-ups. A handful to middle relievers. The closer gets some wins by blowing someone else's win and the offense bailing him out. Heck, I think Mark Grace even got a W back in the 'day.
Rather than speculating what each individual pitcher will win, look at the team as a whole. Last year's team won 73 games and it can be argued that, offensively, with the exception of Pence, the entire team performed at or below expectations. It can further be argued that this year's team is offensively improved. Speed wise, this year's team is improved. So far defensively, this year's team is much better. The only question mark was Tejada over Everett, and so far, Tejada has been exceptional. Last year's rotation was essentially, Oswalt, Williams, Jennings, Rodriguez, others. I think it is fair to assume that, at worst, Oswalt = Oswalt and Rodriguez = Rodriguez. I think we can also assume that a healthy Backe >= Williams and Chacon >= Jennings. I think we can also assume that Sampson = Others. So the starters should be improved. That leaves the bullpen. At this point I think we can assume that Valverde = Lidge, Brocail = Wheeler (for 1/2 the season), Moehler = Moehler, Borkowski = Borkowski and at worst, Wright = Miller. That leaves Geary/Villareal vs. Others/Qualls. Based on my cyphering, you are basing a 10+ loss differential on Qualls being more effective that Geary/Villareal and the entire offense continuing to underperform. I just don't see it.
I'm so impressed with our starting pitching to date. Outside of Roy's two flubs and Sampson pitching with the flu, that rotation has been nails. Far exceeded my expectations. If that remotely holds up, this team will be very competitive.
Agreed. I think a lot of people don't realize the fact that Wandy and Chacon have the stuff to be good, reliable MLB starters. In the case of Wandy, it's likely something mental that's held him back (pitching on the road). In the case of Chacon, it's issuing far too many walks. But both of those guys have the stuff to be above average starting pitchers (sub 4.50 ERA, 175 IP and up), and it wouldn't surprise me if both did that.
if it's even HALF as good as its been, they will stay in the race. and i have to assume valverde will get back on track, too. so beyond that, the biggest potential potholes are bourn, pence and towles - they have be productive and that's asking a lot of some very young, inexperienced guys.
The only thing laughable is your assertion that this team will lose 100 games. That's 27 games worse than last season; even though this team has a better rotation and a better offense (on paper). Those numbers were based largely on their previous year's performance (or in the case of Backe and Chacon, pre-injury and pre-bullpen). I honestly don't see how you could intelligently come up with any other numbers...because even the numbers I came up with are based on the assumption that they will perform as well as they have in the past, and that the team will provide the same support (on defense and at the plate). There is no way of knowing what the hell will happen. Oswalt could have a down year yet still come away with 15-17 wins if the offense scores runs for him. Likewise, Chacon could pitch like he did in his last start and only win 5 games because our bullpen keeps blowing the lead. So, let's just throw out the numbers all together then. Let's look at the fact that this starting rotation - Oswalt, Backe, Wandy, Chacon and Sampson - is better or at least equal to Oswalt, Jennings, Backe/Albers/Patton, Woody, Sampson; and that Bourne, Loretta/Kaz, Berkman, Lee, Tejada, Blum/Ty, Pence and Towles should definitely be an improvement over Bidge, Burke/Pence, Berkman, Lee, Ty/Ensberg/Lamb, Scott, Everett and Ausmus. The bullpen will probably be equal to last years (with their struggles). Yet somehow, this team ends the season with 27 more losses?! How exactly?
The problem with these types of analyses is that they are entirely team-centric. But how well a team does also depends on the teams they face. In the central division, the Cubs have improved in their bullpen (adding Wood) offensively (adding Fukudome), and potentially in the rotation (adding Dempster). The Reds have added two ridiculously good young starting pitchers (Volquez and Cueto) and also a legitimate closer. Milwaukee probably stayed the same. The Cardinals are improved offensively with a full season from Ankiel and their various new outfielders, but their rotation is a questionmark (though it has been absurdly good thus far). Pittsburgh is Pittsburgh. But no one really got any worse from last year. So while the Astros likely improved in some areas, they are also likely playing in a better division overall - and they play something like 80 games against those division opponents, I think. I'd say the Astros improved offensively, got worse in the bullpen, improved in starting pitching, and lost depth in case of injury (especially in pitching). Whether that is a bigger improvement than other division members is unclear at this point.
Well, just when you think it couldn't get more depressing, in an 11-4 Colorado route, Taylor Buchholz steps to the mound against his former team with a 1.00 ERA and gets a 1-2-3 inning.
I just think its too early to be quote-on-quote "depressed" about the team. If they are still playing poorly at mid-season, then I'll be down with them. I'm still optimistic that they can turn the corner.
1. If you are going to go with high octane offense at the expense of defense, then you must have high quality pitching that limits the balls in play and limits baserunners, in other words, a high strikeout to walk ratio and low hits/innings pitched ratio. If you have pitchers that yield a lot of home runs and walks, then all your offense means N-O-T-H-I-N-G. 2. If it is clear that this team is a noncontender by June/July, then you could see the salary dump happen with trades for prospects. It's real simple guys. If this team doesn't get it turned around in a couple months and become competitive and if we are groveling in the cellar by, say, the end of June.........look for Wade and Mclane to throw in the towel and move a couple of our older higher priced talents for a ton of prospects. Logic ditates that would be Oswalt and Carlos. Then you are staring into the abyss of 100 losses. I'm not going away.
