And I thought some of you guys were bad (Astros related)

Hmm...

 

How many times have the Rockets barely made the playoffs?

The Rockets play in the Western Conference. That has been an extremely tough conference for a few years now. If it was the East, yeah, it would be easy. It's not...

But forget the playoffs then, if you want... Just look at the overall winning percentage. Not overwhelming...

 

Here is your first post in this thread:

"How many times have the Astros gotten beyond the NLDS?"

It seems you are basing success on the Astros getting beyond the NLDS to (I assume) compare them to the Rockets.

Technically, the Astros have made the "finals" of the NL in 1980, 1986, 2004 and 2005.

If your criteria for success is making it to the NLCS and beyond, it is more difficult to do that in baseball because of the following reasons:

1. Since less teams make the playoffs, chances to even have the opportunity to make the NLCS are far fewer. Again, in recent history, the Astros have had chances in 1997-1999, 2001 and 2004-2005. Had 8 teams in each league made the playoffs (like basketball), then the Astros would have had additional chances in 1995, 1996, 2002, 2003, and 2006.

2. Once in the playoffs, the road is more difficult because of the quality of teams that make it. As stated, the number 1 seed gets to play the number 3 or 4 seed in baseball unlike basketball's #1 vs. #8.

You cannot equate baseball playoff success to basketball playoff success. I suspect the Astros would have advanced beyond the NLDS many times had they gotten to play a 5th - 8th seed rather than a 1 or 2.

 

MORE TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THAN DON'T. Anytime the Rockets finished below 4th in the WC would be a year they didn't make the playoffs in MLB.

Over that span, one team has won 3 playoff series..the other, zero. One team has won a league championship. The other hasn't even advanced to a league championship....AND AGAIN...ALL THIS IN A LEAGUE WHERE MORE TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THAN DON'T.

Comparing winning percentage doesn't work out well. It doesn't translate between the 2 sports. The Bulls have the best record of all time in a single season in the NBA with a winning percentage of around 88%. Even the Mavs last season won 84%. If a baseball team won 88% of its games, it would win 142 freaking games. No team in over 100 years of baseball has ever sniffed that. The best single season record in MLB is 116 wins, which translates to a 71% winning percentage.

All time...it's absolutlely the Rockets with the advantage. But from 2007 on, I don't think it's remotely close.

 

If you can't compare playoff success, then we are forced to stick with overall winning percentage.

 

You can make this comparison...one team, in a league where it's harder to make the playoffs than the other, has won 3 playoff series and a league championship. The other hasn't won a playoff series over that same span of time.

I think this discussion would only happen on a Rockets message board. And I hate having to argue against the Rockets about anything. But this seems crystal clear to me.

 

I'm kind of trying to figure out where this was headed to begin with. Both the Astros and Rockets have enjoyed success in their respective sports by (generally) providing winning regular seasons and playoff appearances.

I think we can all agree on that.

I don't see any reason to denigrate one team or the other based on anything. To me as a fan, I simply hope for an entertaining team to watch and my personal entertainment comes from the team winning or putting out a product that I enjoy watching.

I am more of an Astros than Rockets fan but I have followed each team since their inceptions. If folks prefer the Rockets - great. If folks prefer the Astros - great.

You (not you in particular), can simply not say that basketball team X is better than baseball team Z because of playoff success. It is a fact that basketball teams have a better chance for playoff success and the reasons have been posted.

 

Can't compare playoffs...

Can't compare winning percentage...

Let's not compare the sports then. You can say the Astros were better, much better than the Rockets for two years in the past eleven, but to make any other statement ("string of success") that's not based on winning percentage or playoff performance is not really something you can argue.

 

Where did I say anything other than that the Astros have been much better than the Rockets over the past 11 years?? That was the entire discussion.

 

I responded to this.

I hardly ever criticize Houston's teams. I'm usually overly optimistic about their chances and never angry at players when they lose (because it's just a game). But I've seen similar statements to that one above, and I felt like responding.

 

They haven't been much better for eleven years. They were much better for two season. Maybe you've just enjoyed them more because you like baseball more than basketball? That's not a big deal.

 

Regardless of what you think of the Astros and Rockets, I don't think anyone can legitimately debate against the statement that baseball in the short run has much more variance in it's results than basketball. More variance means that weaker teams have a better opportunities to advance in short 7 (and in baseball's case 5) game series.

 

Here is how I would answer that statement as it relates to ME:

Between the years 1997 - 2005, the Astros have had better success than the Rockets because in every one of those years they either made the playoffs or were in contention late into the season (except 2000).

In basketball, it is not a big deal to make the playoffs and the season starts once the playoffs begin. So in essence, I equate basketball season success to how well the team I root for performs in the playoffs.

I give more credence to the regular season in baseball than I do in basketball because of the difficulty that teams go through just to get into the playoffs.


The above is how I see things and I have felt that way for decades so nothing will change my mind.

 

Guys isn't this just arguing semantics. Over the past 11 years (who came up with this number? 11 years? conveniently excludes a rockets western conference finals trip and a missed playoff year for the astros) the Astros have been better than the Rockets. (of course it covers a major rebuilding phase for the Rockets and the best 11 year period for the Astros) Whether they have been "much" better, significantly better, or just slightly better, it's pretty clear that they have been better over that time frame. Of course, the stros haven't exactly been world beaters during this period but they have had a nice sustained run of success they should be proud of.

Now if instead of 11 years you say the past 2 years, or the past 13.5 years, or the past 15 years, or the 25 years, or throughout their history, it's clear that the Rockets have been the much better team. But really why argue this, they have both been extremely successful for the past 15 years and we as Houston fans have been lucky to have two really good franchises to follow.

Also just wanted to say that you really can't make blind comparisons across sports. they are different games, they have different SOS, division rules for making the playoffs, etc. You can't say that they Rockets in 95 wouldn't of even made the playoffs in baseball, just like you can't say that, oh, the Rockets had a .671 winning percentage this year, if they were in baseball they'd be in first place in the majors by ~20 games. It doesn't work that way.

(btw. Non-Rockets fans try to be a little considerate, it's been a tough week for us Rockets fans )

 

I don't think there's a non-Rocket fan in the discussion here.

 

again...to finish in the playoffs in baseball means you have to be among the top 4 teams in your league. how often were the rockets among the top 4 teams in their conference over the last 11 seasons? i can answer for you...they weren't...never...never in the last 11 seasons were they among the top 4 teams in their conference. if the nba applied mlb's playoff structure, the rockets wouldn't have made the playoffs once over the course of this period.

so if you talk relative success related to the league each team plays in...i don't see it as close over this time period.

 

?????

 

were they?? did i miss something?

 

except for the past 2 years

 

duh...they were a 5 seed but the rules change on the seeding thing changed it...my bad!!!

so 2 times. they would have made the playoffs 2 times in that period of time.