And them losing right now has little to do with them as well (hell, Everett was our best hitter during the 11 game losing streak). It has everything to do with your best players... and if your best players aren't performing consistently (Berkman, the bullpen), you're not going to be good.
Of course we need our best players playing better like Berkman. That does not, however, make the rest of a team insignificant. For example, as great as Hakeem, etc. were in 1994 and 1995, The Rockets would not have won the championshps w/o important contributions from players like Sam Cassell and Mario Elie. My criticism of players like Ausmus and Everett are not a pass for the poor performance of players like Berkmann. The entire offense is a disappointment or failure this year (save Lee, Pence, and Loretta).
Yes... those Rockets teams won with those role players. And even though I HATE the minions who come out here and compare the Rockets (or the NBA) to baseball, I'll play along. So, you think Sam Cassell and Mario Elie = Everett and Ausmus? Not by a long shot. I'd say Cassell is more like what Hunter Pence is giving us now (valuable rookie), and Elie is more like what Biggio gives us still (veteran with occasional outbursts). Or, Cassell could be Sampson, and Elie could be Qualls/Wheeler. Either way, those Rockets teams would be nowhere if HAKEEM wasn't PLAYING LIKE HAKEEM! Berkman needs to hit! Having Lane, Everett, and Ausmus do average will not mask his deficiencies, just like it wouldn't mask Olajuwon only scorind 12 points a game, and having only 1 double-double in 2 months of a season (Note, lance only has 1 double... see the comparison!). That is all.
So, you believe Everett and Ausmus should contribute on the level Cassell and Elie did? That's laughable. Nick was right on the money--if they didn't get us to the WS in 2005, they're not keeping us from it now. You can't have it both ways.
What's more laughable is that his comparison hinges on the Rockets having success if (and only if) Hakeem is playing god-awful (like Berkman is now). The Rockets would have been the worst team in the league with the 94 bunch and no Hakeem.
My point is that the success of a team is a team effort. Role players are important. The Astros offense was not good in 2005, despite wonderful seasons by people like Berkman. If the offense had been better that season (aside from Berkman and Ensberg), perhaps they could have won that series. Certain role players have been bad/inadequate for a long time (e.g. Ausmus) and should have previously been replaced. This statement does not negate the fact that Lance Berkman needs to hit better for this team to have a chance to fully achieve its potential. No team is made up of 9 Hakeems or Berkmans. The success of a team is also affected by how the role players play. It is laughable if you do not agree with this statement.
So basically, you're complaining about something that could have been complained about everyday since 2001 (when this team re-acquired Ausmus, and acquired Everett)... awesome. Yes, role players are important... I never disagreed with that (so you can stop laughing). Yes, the team needs more offense besides just Berkman. I was, however, under the slight assumption that Lee and now Pence could provide some added offense (those being two pieces that weren't here last year). I was also under the assumption that Loretta would be some added offense. So, you have 1.) Lee, 2.) Pence, 3.) Loretta as additional stars/role players that we didn't have last year. You have a historically solid hitter in Lamb who can play first and third. You have Biggio who is forced to be in the lineup for his 3000, but have Burke (a guy who can get you a serviceable OBP with occasional pop) waiting to take over.... but you still don't have Berkman hitting. You show me an offense that is still great (in any sport) when their best all-around hitter flat-out falls off the face of the earth, and then you have every reason to call out every single marginal role player... till then, nothing else matters.
We only had 2 real hitters that year named Ensberg and Berkman. Pitching is what got us to the WS. This offense doesn't differ much at all. Lee is making up for what Ensberg did in 05 with a little extra pop but Berkman is struggling. I not only blame the players for a horrific offense but also the reason they are our players. Pitching is what got us to playoffs then the WS, it definitely wasn't the hitting that year either. Phil Garner knew all he could do was manufacture runs and that's what they did. Just enough to barely beat the other teams. However, hitting ultimately did lose us the WS since the pitchers did their jobs, but at least we got there for once. I thought the Astros would at least try and address the offensive problems that off season after no runs lost us the WS. Yet the bats still haven't been improved when you look at the roster and the pitching has gotten worse. It's like we we're just happy to be there and maybe we'll try again in sometime in the future. That's why i said if we had those pitchers now we would be a threat for the division title and then maybe more. Just like we did it before. You will never hear me defending the hitters for not doing their job.
Biggio and Lane both hit 26 homers that year. Both had OPS around .800. I'd say both qualified as real hitters. While the offense was far from spectacular that season, it still didn't sink to the level that the 2007 offense has sunk to.
What? In the first 3 games of the World Series, we gave up 5, 7, and 7 runs. Both the bullpen and the starting pitching imploded. In game #1, Clemens gave up 3 runs in 2 innings. In game #2, Qualls, Wheeler and Lidge all gave up runs in the late innings. The offense scored 6 runs, including two in the ninth to tie the game. In game #3, Oswalt gave up 5 runs in 6 innings. The offense scored 5 runs in that game. Certainly the offense wasn't exceptional, but they didn't lose the World Series. The pitchers underperformed while the offense did about as well, if not better, then in the regular season.
This team has decent pitching as is...Pettite and Clemens certainly would not be any kind of saviors when the offense can only score 1 run a game.
I understand that the common fan (especially of the Astros only since around 2004) may have all these idiotic views.... But when I turn on the radio, and hear John freaking Lopez (who's supposed to have a semblance of knowledge, since he writes for what is supposed to be a major newspaper), go out there and tout his blog about "who to keep, and who not to keep"... and then essentially bases it solely on who's having a good year, and who is not having a good year ("that Mark Loretta... boy, we should keep him"), it makes it that much harder to take this city seriously as a major sports town. Its ugly right now... as it was in 2000 when our pitching was thin. Did Gerry make any miraculous moves in 2001 to save us from that? Not really... Alou came back, he signed Kent Bottenfield (great signing), and Wagner was no longer hurt. Oh yea, they also called up some kid named Roy Oswalt. Maybe next year, Patton gets the nod. Maybe they get a boost if Lance returns to form. Maybe Pence is the real deal, and will keep up a 1.000+ OPS for the rest of his career. There are some positives, some negatives, and they ALL deserve to be discussed/explored. It would be a HELLUVA lot more interesting than the usual drivel (Lane must go! Everett must go! Ausmus must go! Pupurra is fat!).
You are correct, i was wrong. Being at game 4 watching them rush our mound must have screwed with my memories when Backe pitched a clutch shutout and we lost 1-0. 5 runs allowed over 14 innings isn't to bad for game 3 since the cruciall blow was 2 runs in the final inning. A healthy Clemens in game 1 might have lowered the score. We still never got blown out losing by 2, 1, 2, and 1 again. I just remembered plenty of missed opportunities to score that didn't happen.
They are definitely descent when healthy. Descent won't get us anywhere with our hitting. However if we had 2 additional star pitchers we could go into every game with more confidence just knowing we need to manufacture some runs to win. We all know this team can't out slug anyone else. Which seems to be what we've tried, mainly because we've had to.
Lopez is beyond idiotic. Seriously. I read his blog over the weekend, which included the gem that "lidge might be out of the league next season." How someone who is paid to cover sports, including the local 9, in this town could arrive at that conclusion after watching lidge over the last month is absolutely beyond me. I'm not sure he is actually watching. Then listened to him yesterday on the way to a meeting with a client. That guy's grasp of baseball is more akin to fantasy league stuff than the real thing. He talks over and over again about where the Astros made mistakes with players, never suggesting what the better alternative was at any juncture. It is easy to pick moves (or non-moves) apart after the fact...it's far more difficult to show what the opportunity costs of those moves or non-moves actually were.
Honestly, I blame the fans. The city should demand better, but settles for the Lopez's, Justice's, Vandemeer's, and Rich Lord's of the world. Even Matty J (who I know reads this) has been more of an entertainer recently (which he should be... given his new gig in the morning). Charlie has been here what, 15-20 years? And he still remains the only level-headed broadcaster who seems somewhat educated? You go to other markets... even SMALLER markets... and the focus is much more cerebral. They don't let the host seem dumber than the callers.
