What's even better is that there's 2 first-time GMs in the division who've held the job for a combined 10 months.
I'm sure there are pennant winning teams that were offense oriented. Why are you limiting yourself to pennant winning teams, when the playoffs are a crapshoot? The Padres and Dbacks last year were pitching & defense teams that were beaten out by the Rockies, who have zero big name pitchers but did have a league MVP candidate. The 05 Astros season was a magical ride, but that's not the only formula that works. For an example of an offense heavy team that made the postseason, you can look to last season's Phillies. Neither they nor the Dbacks won it all, but both had a viable formula to score more runs than they gave up, and both were winners. And I agree with you that Wade did what he could do. There just weren't obtainable starting pitching to be had. Not with what we had to work with. He built the best 2008 club he could based on the available parts.
The Rockies got GREAT pitching down the stretch last season and in the playoffs. I'm not sure the 'stros have a staff capable of that. I'm just not sure. And the Rockies defense was incredible. Very, very good. I'm not saying the 05 Astros approach is the only approach. I'm saying I'm unaware of an approach that gets you a pennant without killer pitching. I've seen teams win pennants and rings with great pitching and average hitting...I haven't seen it the other way. And I've watched franchises like the Rangers commit to softball-style lineups, ignore pitching needs and find themselves out of the race from year to year by June 1. I don't wanna be a naysayer. I love my 'stros, win or lose. I'd be more comfortable with the tables being turned, though...with them having a lineup that all of the hoopsters here scoffed at and a pitching staff that kicked ass.
right?? the baseball tonight gang hates the astros. even my friends who aren't 'stros fans pick up on it and comment to me about it all the time.
In Wade's last 5 years with the Phillies, they had more wins than any team in the NL East with the exception of the Braves. Since many folks want to credit Hunsicker with the Astros World Series team, then I suppose Wade should get some credit for the Phillies division winning team in 2007. It remains to be seen how good Wade will be as GM of the Astros, but to say he is the worst in the NL Central is a bit premature, especially considering the Pirates GM is new, the Cardinals GM is new, and the Reds have averaged 76 wins in the 2 years Krivsky has been GM. Many folks think that the Astros got fleeced on the Billy Wagner trade (and history has proven them correct). Wasn't that a Hunsicker/Wade deal?
Baseball is 50% run production and 50% run prevention. Produce more runs than you give up and you win. It doesn't matter if it's 11-10 or 1-0. Offense (including hitting and baserunning) makes up 100% of run production or 50% of a team's value. On the other hand pitching does not make up 100% of run production. Fielding plays a significant role. Lets assume it breaks down something like this (i'm sure this isn't entirely accurate, but you get the idea) pitching is ~70% of run prevention, while fielding is the other ~30%. If that's true that means that offense (50%) is more important than pitching (~35%).
The other team's defense makes up part of the run production as well (albeit, generally a small part). For example, the first 3 guys can get on base via 2 base throwing errors and you are leading 2-0 with each player having a .000 average and no RsBI. Also, keep in mind that if you never give up a run, you will NEVER lose, so run prevention has more of an impact that run production as it pertains to wins and losses.
By the same logic the other team's hitting/offense makes up a part of run prevention. Again I don't see it. It's true that if you never give up a run you'll NEVER lose, but if you never score a run, you'll NEVER win. That should even it out.
To explain it better, it is easier to give up 2 runs and win than it is to score 2 runs and win. I would much rather have a team that gave up 2-3 runs a game for 162 games than to have a team that scores 2-3 runs every game.
Gotcha. I see what you are saying, and i'd agree that it's easier to win under that scenario, but for different reasons. If you only give up 2 runs a game, then you'll most likely win because you'd only need an average offensive output to win. If you only score 2 runs a game, then you'd need an exceptional defensive/pitching performance to win. Obviously an average offensive performance occurs more often than an exceptional pitching performance. However a corollary of this, is that it's easier to win when you score 7 runs a game than when you give up 7 runs in a game. That's because it's easier to get an average pitching performance than an exceptional hitting performance. Again these would seem to even out. Basic point is that we've all hear the cliches about defense wins championships, but there is nothing magical about run prevention that would make it outweigh run production. Imagine a scenario where a team gives up 1 run per game over the course of the season, but also only scores one run per game. Best pitching performance of all time, right? Well guess what? Their expected won-loss percentage under such a scenario would only be .500. In reality it typically takes a good offense and a good defense/pitching to be an elite level team.
Franchise....You are a jerk. Please go away forever. Many people are concerned about the Astros season, but why be so negative before they pitch the first ball? Never mind....I already know the answer. It is because you are a class a1 jerk.
Are never ending complaints about the rotation going to replace the endless Ausmus/Everett criticisms of yesteryear? Yes, the rotation is weak. But jeez, we only lack a solid number 2 and depth. Backe, Wandy and Sampson are very capable pitchers at the back end of the rotation. If memory serves, during our championship runs a few years ago both Backe and Wandy were present in one of the best starting rotations in baseball during those few seasons. And how does this team have no chance of finishing at least even, when the organization took away the weakest links in the rotation (Jennings and Woody), hopefully added more consistency in the pen (Villarreal/Valverde replacing Qualls/Wheeler/Lidge) and added more pop to the offense?
