Did Jason Heyward sign for $210-230MM?... I missed the news. I'm also frantically searching for the post where I put a dollar amount on Jason Heyward............ I was responding to a specific claim made by someone else, re: the free agent market. I wasn't posting my "how I'd build the Astros..." manifesto; the thoughts/ideas have no relationship to one another. Generally, I'd prefer the Astros, if they do sign or trade for a player, to seek younger players less likely to become financial albatrosses. Fernandez, Heyward and/or, for that matter, Giles all fit that bill. But I'm not advocating they bring all of them in...
Because they've vastly decreased the chances of it being the worst bullpen for an entire month. Harris (who was never expected to be as good as he was) regressed, Neshek pitched hurt, Fields isn't a back-end guy yet, Qualls Qualls'd, and Gregerson pitched about as well as can be expected for a first-time closer but truly an 8th inning guy.... and it all came to a head in the one month they couldn't afford it to happen. I said the fluke-ish nature of his injuries could be considered the worst-case scenario. Which is why its right to say that you're basically stuck on the worst-case scenario to make your point. Because its based largely more on "until they do it, it won't happen", rather than actual expectations based on not only their recent performances but also historical reference of how young talented players typically improve, additions of live/talented arms without losing anybody typically makes a staff better, and players who have had fluke injuries don't always stay injured, and all the other metrics that indicate this team actually underachieved (not overachieved) last year... and should be better on paper. Now, if one of the Astros starts dating a Kardashian and decides to get out of shape.... and their trade addition turns out to be a divisive force in the locker-room... and their star player seems to be 15 years older than he really is.... then yes, a worst-case scenario of a team expected to be good on paper, but just flat-out awful in reality, could happen as we're all bearing witness to with the team on La Branch.
Well......... they play games in September and October too....... The Astros lost a number of games last year the last 6-8 weeks because of the bullpen. Even with the pen meltdown their PYT was 93-94 wins....... without a pen meltdown, and even with the injuries and not having Kazmir/CC all year they were expected to be a mid 90's team.
In my mind, they're fairly realistic to breakdown the way they're written. You say they "break the Astros' way"--that's because the team is in a good position. There is a best-case scenario to all of these that goes much further on the positive side that I think we're smart enough to avoid discussing. And the way I look at it, if we count these all as "more likely than not" to go the way they've been written...then we still leave room for some to falter. If 20-30% of things don't quite go that way, the team is still better off overall.
Oh I guess I'm wrong then. Can't look up Rasmus' stats at work, just going on my memory of him as a Card way back when which is obviously inaccurate now.
And they won a lot of games the first five months of the season because of the bullpen, not to mention quite a few those last 6-8 weeks. I find it silly that in a thread in which I'm being accused of wallowing in only worst-case scenarios, when it comes to the bullpen, at least, all anyone can seem to reference are only the bad outings in September-October...
I'm with you on the bullpen--it was very, very good. But I also don't see how you can argue against it being improved with Giles replacing the worst of them. And if the bullpen cost us any games across the season last year (which, over 170+ games, it certainly did), improvement should mean more wins. Regardless of whether it was good or not before.
Because September-October featured the WORST-case scenario that this bullpen could have been.... where Harris/Fields/Qualls are exactly who people thought they were, where Neshek was a free agent bust, and where Gregerson pitched like the first-time closer he was. You're making predictions of what could happen if everything goes worse than expected... others are pointing out what actually happened as a reason for why things didn't go well. Again, Giles has more closing experience going into this year than Gregerson had going into last year.
Talking about RP only, the move made us better, for sure. But the overall production for the upcoming year could be less than last. There is no way Sipp and Harris repeat last years numbers. Getting Giles may just keep us from being way worse. On the other hand, Neshek could improve. So could Fields.
Can we agree that Craig Kimbrel is an elite closer? Last year, he posted a WAR of 1.3. Aroldis Chapman, another elite closer: 2.7. Our closer posted a 0.8 WAR. So, at best - assuming an unproven closer ascends to uber-elite - Giles is worth +2 wins. That's the absolute best case scenario. And there might very well be a trickle down impact on the rest of the pen - though, again, they were very good... but it's simply not going to translate to a lot of additional wins.
Please post any predictions I've made... I'll wait..... All I've done is counter overly-optimistic, best-case scenarios. Again, read through those earlier posts - it wasn't a serious of "if"s - it was a list of absolutes: As just a small sampling. You seem to be under the impression I'm actively driving a doomsday narrative; I'm merely responding to a lot of givens...
Right; you're extrapolating the absolute worst-case scenario, exchanging Qualls for Giles and presuming it'll be better: I mean - did you see how many games they blew is this truncated sample size I'm conveniently using????!! I'm merely suggesting that the net is probably, ultimately, neutral because for the five months of the season you're ignoring, the bullpen was extremely good. Patently, 100% untrue. Saves alone, Gregerson had 19 prior to last year; Giles 16 - and that discounts the 300 innings of MLB experience Gregerson had on Giles. But according to bbref, Gregerson had totaled 192.2 IP in "save-situations" prior to last year, which best Giles' overall IP for his MLB career (115).
Not ignoring it... but there was a semblance of them pitching over their heads that led to the September where it all unraveled. I did not feel September was a total fluke... things just regressed to the norm that quickly, along with a likely overuse factor. Giles helps... and they didn't lose anybody. On the one hand, you say they may not be that much better with Giles because this bullpen was good already... but on the other hand, this bullpen benefitted from everything coming together perfectly, and some players exceeding expectations, something you caution everybody to not "assume" that will happen with the Astros next year. Gregerson was not a full time 9th inning closer till last year. Same goes for Giles. Gregerson's lack of closer experience was a huge question mark going into last season... and while he didn't completely fail in the role, he also didn't prevent the front office from seeking an upgrade both at mid-season and now. Even with just a half-season worth of opportunities, Giles has answered more questions about his ability to handle the 9th than Gregerson had going into last year (and this is in direct response to you saying Giles is largely an unproven closer... if thats the case, Gregerson was even less proven). Additionally, Giles has swing/miss stuff... that was a key upgrade this bullpen had to have with the only other player with that sort of ability being Josh Fields.
So they didn't lose any of the overachievers who eventually regressed to the mean over a 30-day period?... I get it; Giles (likely) realigns the bullpen so that everyone can settle into a more conducive role. My point is that even if his acquisition has that exact desired effect... what it likely means is that the bullpen will be as good as it was April-August... So the idea of it being an upgrade... yeah, OK - maybe it holds together down the stretch: but it's not like... replacing Jonathan Villar with Carols Correa. I never brought up Gregerson but his struggles - which, frankly, are being slightly blow out of proportion because a lot of them were higher profile - only serve to underscore my concern. It's one thing to pitch 7th & 8th innings, another to pitch the 9th inning - and not for two months on a last place team - but on a team that has much greater expectations. I think everyone just assumes Giles steps into that role flawlessly - and maybe he does... but we won't know until we know. You know? I don't think that's worst-case scenario... I just think that's being cautious... Frankly, it wouldn't shock me if Gregerson is still the closer when they break camp.
It can actually be a cumulative effect.... Giles can be an upgrade in the 9th, Gregerson an upgrade in the 8th, etc. etc. etc, not to mention it adds an extra plus arm to a bullpen that eventually wore out due to overuse of Harris and Neshek. . Giles has still has had more exposure in the role than Gregerson did going into last season. Seeing as how you ended up being satisfied with Luke, and are still willing to keep him as closer, I suggest giving the guy with swing/miss stuff and coming off an excellent debut in the role a shot. Second of all, closing is closing... in fact some could argue its "harder" to close on a last place team because you don't get as much frequent work. Giles also closed out a lot of good teams, who were all-in trying to win those game during his stint. (Mets, Cubs, Toronto, Dodgers). It would shock me, frankly. You don't give up the assets the Astros did to acquire a setup man.
Not according to bbref's save-situation parameters. You seem hell-bent on arguing a narrative you're making up in your head. When did I ever say he doesn't deserve a shot? In fact, when I have ever said anything negative about Giles, other than noting a lack of experience, which isn't an indictment by any means. And had he universally failed against the good teams, the fallout would have been?......... If you think any of those situations match, say, the situations Gregerson found himself in during the September Ranger series in MMP, we'll just have to agree to disagree. They gave up assets to acquire Gregerson - $18MM of them, in fact... Given Hinch's style, I'd wager Gregerson is the default closer and it'll be his job to lose.
You don't go from our closer to Giles and say it's worth +2 because Giles isn't replacing Gregerson in the pen. And, it's not that simple. In important games, you go from Harris or Fields or Qualls / Neshek / Gregerson to Sipp or Neshek / Gregerson / Giles. That's what you have to evaluate over the course of the season in close games, and I don't think WAR comparisons will account for that easily. Not that I think there's a good way to quantify it, but I'd love to see how many games were within 0 or 1 run in the final 3 innings and what our record was in those games. Because I bet that improves this year.
