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

Agreed! BUT--unlike basketball, that 4-seed had to work its ass off just to get in. It was much, much more difficult for that four-seed to even *make* the playoffs, so the fact that there is more variance in a a baseball postseason series may have more to do with the quality of the teams that actually get to participate than with the game itself.

BTW, I'm a huge Rockets fan. I don't intend to denigrate them at all. I appreciate your point that selecting 1997-2007 is a bit disingenuous in the grand scheme of things; the discussion just was about recent history is all.

 

why is it disingenuous? it's the past decade. over the past 10 years, plus one. i didn't say, 97-05...that might have been disingenous. but it wouldn't make the assertion that the astros were better over that period any less true.

a decade plus one is a pretty big period of time, though.

 

Uh you can't say that. first off yes they Rockets have been top 4 two times. Second, you're not quoting baseball playoffs rules correctly. It's not the top 4 teams, it's the division winners plus a wild card. Those don't also equal the top 4 teams in the league. Like for example in 1997 when the astros finished in 6th place in the league (would be worse if it was some kind of rpi formula that took into account sos) but made the playoffs.

Also they have played vastly different sos in harder conferences. The western conference is somewhat on par with the american league for this time frame. If the rockets were in the weaker league like the astros, they have a much higher top 4 rate.

Now you could argue, as you do, about success relative to the conference/league each plays in. But it's just luck that they are in the weaker/stronger conference that they are in. And if you believe that, then you'd have to admit that some of the Astros relative success over the Rockets is due to luck that has nothing to do with the Astros' actual merit.

 

Ok...I can't say it then. I'm glad you guys are here to let me know what I can and can't say.

 

I only said "a bit disingenuous", and only becuase just *before* the last decade is when the Rox were winning consecutive title and the Astros were just finishing a major rebuilding phase.

 

I don't disagree that it is much tougher to make the postseason in baseball than basketball. I think that even among top/equal teams there is much more variance in a single game/series in baseball than basketball.

I would imagine if you control for seeding history would bare this out. Like just look at the conference finals/ league championship series. or just look at 1 vs. 2 seeding in playoffs series. I would imagine there is a lot more "upsets"/variance in baseball.

 

I'm sorry you can say. But you'd be wrong.

 

Does it make it less disingenous if I say the Rockets were clearly better than the Astros from 1980-1996?

I think the Rockets have a far better franchise history, even excluding champinships. Even if they had just gotten to those Finals and not won them, I'd still say that. They went to the Finals 4 times in 16 seasons. I'd say that's pretty impressive.

 

with qualifications, i'm wrong.

looking straight out at performance, there is no question the astros were better over that timeframe. at least in my mind.

 

You are absolutely right, they have been better in their recent history.

 

We'll leave it at that. Different perspectives...

 

fair enough. go rockets. (just to be clear!)

 

Well... A lot of it has to do with how I view baseball. I'm a traditionalist -- I love speed, pitching, and defense. I love the strategy of it all, and I couldn't care less about the long ball.
This is an Astros team with mediocre to lousy defense and bad pitching. They won't win in the Postseason. I highly doubt they'll even make it there, and if they don't, they failed. There are only two things that matter in baseball: History and October. And the history of the Astros is pitching and defense.
I don't feel like I'm watching the Astros anymore. I feel like I'm watching the Rangers, and that's not fun. And besides, I'd rather win 1-0 or 2-1 than lose 4-5.
YES, the jury is still out on this team. There are 162 games in a season, and, last I checked, they haven't played all of them. In theory, the Astros could win the World Series. In theory, if I drop a quarter onto a table, it could pass right through the table and land under it.

I highly doubt either will happen. And if the Astros don't win the World Series, that season is a failure. Period. Nothing in any sport matters except winning everything.

 

I find it hard to believe that any fan of a team would NOT feel this way. I'd rather see an error filled, mistaken ridden victory over a beautifully played loss any day.

 

2 out of 3 ain't bad!!!

Ok, I'm convinced you're not watching. There's no way you can watch this team play right now and say they play lousy defense. They have a lousy defender at LF. But up the middle, they've been great so far.

That's just sad. So every Astros season has been a failure. Man, that kinda sucks you feel that way. For you it sucks, I mean.

 

Seems I just read somewhere that the Astros lead the majors in fewest errors and Matsui has 1/3 of them in limited action. Doesn't sound like a lousy defensive team to me, although it is still early.

 

I don't think it's remotely close to a lousy defensive team....and let me say, i've been SHOCKED by that. I bought into the "Tejada has lost a step.." stuff and thought we'd have really limited defense from that position. Everyone's performed well though (save Carlos, who isn't there for his glove)

 

I don't get to watch much of any MLB games anymore, so I have depend on radio PBP and highlights for impressions. Therefore, I know pretty much *nothing* about JR Towles as a catcher.

I'd be very interested to hear from someone who actually knows a blessed thing about catching (all you Ausmus haters are officially disqualified) about Towles's work behind the plate. Setting up, receiving the ball, footwork, arm, etc. I saw him jump in between Crydier Molweenia and Backe the other week; that was impressive to me.

 

I never caught a game in my life, so I always have to go off what I hear others saying about that. The nuances are so slight. But I think conventional wisdom is he's been better than expected.

 

Well I have watched and I have coached at different levels of baseball and softball. I can say that Towles is slightly above average overall behind the plate defensively. His arm is good, his footwork very good, and his bat is outstanding if compared to our previous catchers(who is still on the team). I think he handles the pitchers well and has a studious approach to scouting hitter's tendencies. I have heard through the grapevine that he spends a great amount of time going over the pitching plans and strategies with the pitchers. Brad has helped him too and Brad has said he is very receptive Brad's input, however, Brad also said that Towles asks for help when he needs and Towles is a very capable player. Brad said there is no need to "babysit" him either.

Obviously Towles needs more experience to really get improve and grow his game but so does most players that enter the league not named Puljos.