Possibly. I thought it'd be interesting to check up on some of our former players traded in the offseason and see how their production compares to our replacements...just a thought that popped into my head as I was depressingly walking back to my car with the wife after the game. Luke Scott: .515 OBP, .714 SLG, .429 AVG, 1HR, 6RBIs vs. Michael Bourn: .283 OBP, .268 SLG, .195 AVG, 0 HR, 2 RBIs, 6 SB Brad Lidge: 0-0, 4 IP, 0.00 ERA, 2 SV, 2 SVO, 1 H, 1 R (0 ER), 3 BB, 4 SO vs. Jose Valverde: 2-0, 4 IP, 11.25 ERA, 1 SV, 2 SVO, 7 H, 5 R, 2 BB, 3 SO Dan Wheeler: 0-0, 5.1 IP, 0.00 ERA, 0 BB, 4 SO vs. Doug Brocail: 0-0, 4.2 IP, 1.93 ERA, 7 H, 1 BB, 1 SO Chad Qualls: 0-0, 6.1 IP, 0.00 ERA, 1 SV, 1 SVO, 2 H, 5 BB, 5 SO vs. Oscar Villareal: 0-2, 9 IP, 6.0 ERA, 4 HR, 1 BB, 3 SO Mike Lamb: .235 OBP, .313 SLG, .188 AVG, 0 HR, 5 RBIs vs. Geoff Blum (Ty on the DL): .320 OBP, .600 SLG, .320 AVG, 2 HR, 5 RBIs Adam Everett: .136 OBP, .095 SLG, .095 AVG, O HR, 2 RBIs ... 2 E, 2 DP, 5.90 RF, .952 FPCT vs. Miguel Tejada: .318 OBP, .585 SLG, .293 AVG, 2 HRs, 8 RBIs ... 1 E, 11 DP, 5.27 RF, .982 FPCT Now obviously it's early in the season and it's quite easy to be a Monday morning quarterback...but based on these early stats, seems Wade got it right on the offensive side of things. Ty (hopefully when he gets back) and Blum are outperforming Lamb, Everett's hot Spring has turned icy cold, while Tejada has been Tejada with somewhat surprisingly pleasant defense. The one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb here though is Luke Scott, who's on a tear. And while Bourn's speed and stolen bases have been nice, he isn't getting on enough to make it worthwhile yet. Still, Scott's not a leadoff guy and if we kept him we wouldn't have Tejada but instead Everett, so this is a wash. Now on the pitching side, our old bullpen would be mighty nice to have right now. And this is something I was thinking about tonight. The season is still very young, but shoot I'm starting to miss Qualls, Wheeler and Lidge...hell their shaky performances last year would be an upgrade over what we have now in Villareal and Valverde (Brocail has done nicely though). I guess you could take Wheeler out since we wouldn't have Ty. But just Qualls and Lidge right now is definitely >> Villareal/Brocail and Valverde. In any case...I'm just frustrated and depressed right now having to watch a 3-8 team that is supposed to have a strong lineup and bullpen anchored by our staff ace, none of which is performing to expectations. And it's been said a lot but the only that has gone right so far is the one thing wasn't expected to do too well in the first place.
Nothing surprises me with this team. We could come roaring back. I wouldn't be surprised. It can be debilitating to be a Houston sports fan. You just have to take the good with the bad. Right now...it's all bad. I'm not about to start taking Prozac because our freaking team can't get it done currently. I may, however, begin resorting to box score watching only because I can only watch so much fiasco baseball and keep sane. I mean...when it ceases to become fun watching our team play baseball...then the fans themselves tend to feel like they are punching bags or gluttons for punishment. Granted, that feeling sucks. One thing for sure...you can never evaluate the Astros and how the roster will perform from looking at stats on a piece of paper. Like you eluded to, some players tend to play better once they leave Houston. Maybe Houston really is cursed. Hey, come to Houston if you want to explore the darker side of baseball and how bad you can play at times (not only individually but collectively)...or how great you can play at other times. There's no rhyme or reason here. It's just Houston baseball.
The one year I really, really stopped watching was 2000. Killer offense..no pitching. Just awful. They started playing better in the 2nd half of the season..but the 1st half was just a joke. That's what I'm afraid of. I don't find softball compelling. 6 homeruns is silly.
Luke Scott was always underrated by the Astros for some reason. i know he wasn't a superstar, but he was putting up numbers. The Valverde deal was just dumb imo. The difference between he and Qualls wasn't significant enough imo. I know he racked up a ton of saves last year, but that's just a counting stat. It doesn't really tell how good a pitcher he was or wasn't
I don't like how Coop uses the pen. Oscar Villarreal has pitched in almost every game this season. Bob Brenley ruined his career his rookie season when he pitched him in 86 games at 21 years of age. Brian Moehler should have retired last season and Coop still has him. Same thing with Dave Borkowski. These two guys shouldn't be on the team. They signed lefty Tim Byrdak is the spring to minor league deal and should bring him in. He had a very good season last year with the Tigers. Love to have more than one lefty for a change. I wish they even considered bringing in either Robinson Tejeda or Claudio Vargas as a reliever because IMO they have big upsides because of their arms. They could flourish in the pen. It would have been a low risk, high reward situation. Moehler and Borkowski have no upside and you know at the end of the season their ERA will be in the high 4's.
1. Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. I think I'm going to do some heavy drinking now. 2. Our starting pitching has been pretty good so far, with the exception of Roy. If I would have predicted that after 3 starts, Roy would have an ERA of 9.00, you would have decided that I was too stupid to keep talking to me.
Luke Scott never really got a freaking chance the last couple years. He was yanked in and out of the lineup like a yoyo. Garner insisted on platooning him even when he was smoking the ball off of lefthanders. Scott's numbers always started going up when he would get a little consistent playing time, then Garner would hold him out of the lineup for a week or so inexplicably. Tough to get in a groove when you're not being given the chance to play.
I've always been huge on Qualls and thought he should've gotten the closer opp. before a move was made. At the same time, he's not filling that role in Arizona. He's not even 8th inning setup (Tony Pena is). You can't say what he would have done under the pressure of the 9th, as sometimes guys just can't transition. But if you wanted to keep Qualls and Lidge..then sure. Then you'd still have a hole in the OF without Bourn since we are still assuming the deal for Tejada. A little too much speculation for me. Plus Lidge..let's wait and see more than a couple of appearances. If you're crazy enough to trust him after 2 appearances, then you didn't watch enough
As I've said numerous times before, for a majority of the time, Garner's "inexplicable" decisions were guided by Scott's constant nagging groin and elbow injuries, which kept him out or relegated to PH duty for 2-5 days at a time. The local media did a terrible job of reporting this. The Astros didn't make it well known since it wasn't significant enough for him to not dress or think about the DL, but at the same time, reporters usually didn't ask the question and assumed Lane or whoever to be starting for matchup reasons. Newspapers are depressing. For whatever reason, so many have decided that more "issue" stories -- you know, the JdJO specials -- are the way of the future and the way to counter declining circulation and Web competitors. But a lot of beat reporters are so caught up in these "big" stories that they either overlook or don't care about the day-to-day ins and outs of their beat, such as Scott's injuries. It's a real shame. I know I'm straying a bit off topic here, but Scott's situation reminds me of that. I used to be the same way as a lot of folks, constantly questioning why Scott wasn't an everyday player. Then I started going into the clubhouse on a daily basis and I had my answer. I wish him the best in Baltimore, but find it doubtful that he doesn't start to break down physically in the next few weeks. I also don't think it's fair to compare him to Bourn, in the sense that if Bourn weren't here Scott would be. It seemed like that in November after the Lidge trade, but in reality, it seems they were set on making the Tejada trade -- and I don't think anyone is disappointed in Tejada's production these days. So, the what ifs surrounding Luke seem to be pointless. I also don't get why we'd be upset over the Valverde deal -- historically, at worst Valverde is Qualls' equal, and he's likely to be better. But even in the worst case scenario, Burke and Gutierrez had very, very little value -- not worth getting frustrated over. As someone said in the game thread, the most depressing aspect is Oswalt, of course. With the exception of Valverde, many of the other moves are working out. There's production from the bottom of the lineup, for once. There's more speed on the basepaths. The 2-5 starters have been decent. But this team, if it has a chance, is constructed around the idea of Oswalt taking the lead and being dominant every five days. Instead, he's pitched as the second coming of Woody Williams. There's the difference in a winning team and the cellar.
Lidge's skills have never been in doubt when healthy. His 2nd half numbers last year were also outstanding. I was always one that defended Lidge. It seems fans and media types always seemed to dismiss mechanics and injuries as reasons for his poor performance, and thought everything was due to the Pujols homer, which is absurd. But I understand why the trade was made - in order to acquire a leadoff hitter and true CF, which we didn't have. Pence was adequate in CF, but nothing more than that. He could make up for playing balls poorly with his good speed, but Bourne is a huge upgrade over him defensively. Scott and Bourne, while both OF, are different hitters. So its kind of unfair to compare them at the plate. Bourne definitely has gotten off to a slow start, but his job isn't to drive in runs or hit HR. His power numbers - slugging, HR, and RBI aren't ever going to look like Scott's, plus Scott never hit at the top of the order where you aren't exactly gonna get a ton of RBI chances. Bourne's job is to get on base, steal bases, score runs, and play a good CF. The bottom line is, he needs to get on base more, but he has shown the ability to steal bases, give us speed which we sorely lacked, and play a good CF. Plus, in addition to all that.. its way too complicated to get into the Scott v. Bourne discussion because its not like they traded them for each other straight up. If so-and-so was here, then we wouldn't have this guy, and this guy would be here instead, and so-on. Plus, IMO, Luke Scott every chance to prove himself, but he'd always get hurt or go on a horrendous cold streak following a hot streak. He was the epitome of streaky hitter. As far as Valverde, I wasn't a fan of that acquisition either. Hopefully he proves me wrong, but to be honest, at worst, he is at least Qualls' equal. Who knows how Qualls would have even handled being closer? Its too early to say that Qualls would have been better. Too many what ifs. If we didn't trade Lidge to get us Bourne, we'd have no true CF or a leadoff guy. Maybe Kaz could play leadoff, but Pence probably will never be a true #2 hitter unless he drastically changes his approach at the plate. He's better suited for heart-of-the-order because of his aggressiveness.
I forgot to mention one major player from last year... Jason Jennings: 0-2, 7.45 ERA, 9.2 IP, 12 H, 8 R, 6 BB, 2 SO I'd say, right now, Backe, Chacon, Wandy and Sampson have done better than this. So far, I can say I'm glad the Astros didn't show an ounce of interest in him during the offseason (even though at the time I thought it'd be good to offer some kind of low-end deal since our starting depth was lacking) On the Bourn vs. Scott issue...obviously it's hard to compare them straight up because they are completely different players. I just compared them in the sense that Bourn is part of our outfield trio and Scott is no longer. RBIs and HRs aren't gonna mean much for him so much as runs scored, on base percentage and stolen bases. So far he's excelled in one and if he can just get on base a little more I think it's safe to say our 3-5 hitters will bring him home. What I do think is interesting, is that it's hard to say I wish we had this player or that still. Cause every single one of these players seemed to be linked to the previous deal the Astros made. Well first they had no leadoff man since Biggio retired and Taveras was long gone. They dealt Tejeda, but in gaining a productive ss they lost a productive outfielder. So they bring in Bourn and gain a lead off man and center fielder, but they lose their closer. So, they go after Valverde, who is more proven than Qualls (and like others have said at his worse would equal Qualls) and they get a closer but lose a setup man. So then they bring in Villareal and Brocail. Now, I'm not sure if it all happened in that exact order, but it's kind of amazing how all of it is linked together. Obviously Wade had to make a change almost for the sake of making change. If Lidge plays like his old self for the entire year and Valverde scuffles a bit, sure we'll miss him. But at the same time, him, along with some of these other guys, probably needed a change of scenery to reignite their careers. No guarantee that if Lidge does well in Philly, he would have done the same in Houston. Also I think part of what is depressing, is not only that the team is floundering right now, that Oswalt is throwing meat balls when he's on the mound, that the hitting hasn't quite hit full throttle yet or that some of our former players are finding new life...but that this team is so different they don't seem to have an identity or have found their chemistry yet. I know those are kind of overused and cliche words in baseball, but it's true. I know I haven't developed a connection to a lot of these players, and losing right out of that gate certainly doesn't help that. It kind of reminds me of the Rockets 5-6 years ago. When Rudy left and the last vestiges of our championship team had gone and JVG was turning over the roster every season...it was a little depressing cause I didn't really know many of the players. I kept thinking to myself, who are these guys? I'm sure it'll all come together though. They may contend this year, they may not, but I'm hoping at least they become competitive and show an energy and fire that was missing last season. On Borkowski, I think in the time that he's been here he's done exactly what he's been asked to do. No bullpen is going to be full of sub 3 ERA guys. He's not gonna dominant the whole season, but he's not a Gallo or Miller either, where you cringe every time they come into the game. Last night he came out and threw some scoreless relief. He's an innings eater, and every bullpen needs that. I'm more worried about the tail end cause that seems to be where runs are being relinquished (Villareal and Valverde).
I don't know that I want to incur the wrath of the stat gods, but I think this kind of thinking gets taken too far. Homeruns are a counting stat...runs scored are a counting stat...saves are a counting stat. They're not without value. The only stats that really matter are the runs on the board....a counting stat. If a guy comes in and converts a save nearly every time, that means his team is winning over and over and over again. His job isn't to come in and strike out every guy...or make sure no one gets a hit...it's to make sure the lead he has when he takes the ball doesn't go away. If a player does that, then there's value in that, whether Billy Beane likes it or not.
1. you're just starting now??? 2. oh, i agree. last night just scared the crap out of me. outside of roy, i've been pleasantly surprised with our starters. i wish we had another option the other day for sampson's start as was clearly feeling the effects of the flu, though.
TOO RIGHT !!!!! I am very sore about Luke Scott basically being tossed aside.... I was waiting to do a Luke Scott post......Dang it ! DD
The problem with saves is not really that they are a counting stat. Like you said, some "counting stats" have value. The problem with basing any kind of baseball analysis with saves, is that it is pretty bad as a descriptive statistic and essentially worthless as a predictive statistic.
If you come in a game with a lead of 3 runs or less...and you do this 50 times...and 48 times out of the 50 you come away with your team winning....then I'm ok with you. And I don't think you can pretend that doesn't matter.
A couple things. It's not just a pitcher out there when he pitching. He is not in complete control of his side of the action. Defense mainly plays significant role in run prevention. An absurd amount of randomness (luck if you will) also plays a huge role in any one outing or any one season. Therefore any analysis (any stat) that doesn't take this into account is incomplete. Also, i feel that viewing saves the way you do is a result orientated view that doesn't take into account the underlying factors which drive the result. Let me try to make an analogy so you might understand a bit better. You are a lawyer right? Imagine you are a client or a hiring partner a lawfirm examining the performance of two potential candidates based on the results of a trial they each have this week. Like saving games in baseball is the closer job, winning a jury trial would be the lawyers job. Lawyer A is drunk the entire time during the trial. He fails asleep during various points through the trial and is other incompetent. By complete dumb luck he arguing to a jury that for whatever reason, like him and his client, and they give him and his client a favorable verdict. Lawyer B performs terrific during his trial. He is professional and competent and by all professional standards does a good job during the trial. But he has a bad case and he loses the jury trial. Now you are thinking of hiring one of this two. Is jury wins a good metric to analyze their performances? The primary purpose of a lawyer's job is to advocate on behalf of their client and obtain the best possible outcome (to win their jury trial). Lawyer A did that and Lawyer B did not. Who did a better job in their case? Who is a better lawyer going forward? See the problem with this kind of results orientated thinking?
But he didn't have only 2 blown saves last year... he had 7 (he was also 1-4, which indicates some not so great performance in games he came in when tied). Also, his ERA has been very consistently inconsistent over the last 4 years (good year... bad year... good year.... bad year).... with this year being due for a "bad year". The bottom line is that I don't feel he was an upgrade... and one simply shouldn't use just the "save" statistic to illustrate that.
I don't understand the "at worst he's Qualls equal" argument with regard to Valverde. Qualls was pretty consistently excellent for us, 80-85 innings of above average relief work for three years. Valverde has been pretty erratic over his career. At his best, he's better than Qualls, though not by that much because of his limited appearances - at his worst, he's much, much worse than Qualls has ever been.
