How un-excited are you about the Astros this season??

Could not agree with you more. Wish I could have heard the game even though we lost, but I am here in Chicago this week. Blah Cubbie land! Will be nice to be home and be able to listen to the games on XM.

Go Astros!

 

Could not agree with you more. We do have the pitching IF Pettitte can stay healthy and Backe is as good as he showed flashes of in the playoffs. I do worry about our bullpen, but I am excited about Qualls. Not sure what I think of Franco being an Astros as well as Burba and Wendell.

 

If the Astros were a woman, I'd need Viagra.

 

First of all, I would argue that 98 was they're best offensive team. Second of all, even if that is true, the best Astros teams had good pitching and good hitting. Of course they didn't have a good record in 2000 when their pitching completely fell apart. That's more of an abberation than anything else.

The Astros have to get something from the young guys in the line-up to compete. It will be nice to see the future of this team finally.

 

Exactly... which is why I'm saying you need pitching, not hitting, to be successful.

All teams with good pitching have good records... regardless. The same cannot be said of teams with just good hitting.

And, 2000 was their most successful offensive season, by the stats only... guys like Lugo, Chris Truby, and Meluskey put up some big offensive numbers (showing that offense can come from anywhere... but pitching is damn hard to find).

 

This is simply not true. Look no further than the 2003 Dodgers, who led the league in pitching by a good half run per game, yet missed the playoffs. Or Cleveland in 03, who finished in the top 5 in the AL in pitching, but were a losing ballclub. The Astros struggled last year when the hitting sucked, but the hitters picked it up down the stretch and turned the season around.

Great teams generally have top-10 pitching, and top-10 hitting. If hitting were such a nonfactor, there wouldn't be any point in getting offensive players, you could just field 9 slap hitters and spend all your money on starting pitching.

 

Well, it may not be an inevitable maxim that Nick observes, but it *is* more common for teams with average hitting and great pitching to succeed than for teams with average pitching and great hitting. See: Astros, 1986. Also see: Cardinals, 1980s.

 

Any examples that aren't 20 years old?

 

Thank you...it was a sight to see last year all these people buying astros gear, coming into my bar that had never been there for one Astros game all season all of a sudden be cheering and pretending they are fans....One thing i can never stand is a bandwagon fan...

Play ball.....

 

Outside of Gonzo's 50 and Travis Lee, how prolific were the 2001 D-backs? Also, some of the recent Yankee champions were solid offensively but noone hit over 40 dingers (IIRC). These just off the top of my head.

 

the dodgers were a pretty average offensive bunch last season, right? right in the middle of the NL pack in runs/game.

in the NL last year, none of the teams that made the playoffs finished out of the top 6 in giving up fewest runs/game relative to other NL teams. the astros were the worst of that group at 4.31/game.

the twins and A's were below average against AL teams in runs/game. both of those were playoff teams last season, alone.

in the AL last year, none of the teams that made the playoffs finished out of the top 6 in giving up fewest runs/game relative to other AL teams. the yanks were actually the worst of that bunch, giving up 4.99 runs per game.

small sample size of only one year, though.

 

I already cited the Dodgers as a recent example... and while they didn't make the playoffs, they were NOT a bad ballclub.

Granted, you need some offense... but do you need an offense comprised mostly of all-star type players? (which is what it would have been w/ Kent and Beltran back).

I do believe the Astros have enough on offense to succeed... they don't have just 9 slap hitters... and that's why I'm excited about this season.

(I'll re-adjust my previous statment... you do need some offense... just not superstar offense).

 

The D-backs were in the top 3 in the NL in runs scored that year. Those Yankees championship teams didn't have a great home run threat, but they scored enough runs to place them top-5 in the AL every year. You don't need home runs, you can play small ball and steal a million bases like the Marlins, but you've got to have a good offense. The BoSox last year had very good pitching, but it was their league-leading offense and a gutty Curt Schilling that broke the curse.

 

he's not talking about winning a world series, though. he's talking about being competitive. some have said this team will suck...won't be competitive. he's saying that he likes the chances because the pitching is good...that good pitching keeps you in enough games to keep you competitive. good hitting doesn't necessarily do that....the texas rangers a couple years back come to mind as poster boys for that concept.

 

EXACTLY.

The most you can ask for any year from a team like the Astros (or Cardinals)... teams without exhorbitant payrolls... is to remain in contention. And then IF things just go your way (a win streak here and there, a young player coming out of nowhere to produce, no major injuries) then you might just have a contender.

And in the playoffs...we all know that "all bets are off". Regular season success means virtually nothing.

Frankly, I can't believe everybody feels comfortable predicting ANYTHING.... especially after last year:

The Cardinals last year were expected to be at the most a 3rd place team... unless things somehow broke their way... which they did w/ virtually no major injuries on offense, and an intact pitching staff (till the end of the year with Carpenter).

Meanwhile, the Phillies, Marlins, and Cubs were the "for sure" April bets to at least make the playoffs... and we know what happened to them down the stretch.

 

Touché. The details were foggy in my mind, which is why I posed my examples as questions.

 

The Rangers are definitely a good example of bad pitching + good hitting = bad team. But I can provide just as many examples of the opposite, they just don't get the notoriety. The 2003 Indians, the 2002 Mets, the 2001 Angels, etc. were all teams with good pitching, poor hitting, and sub-.500 records.

If you want to believe that the Stros will be competitive this year, cool, then believe that. I don't think they'll be terrible either, I just don't believe they're a playoff team. But making sweeping generalizations about all teams that just aren't true is not the way to make your argument. There's a long history of teams with good pitching who fail to compete due to inept offenses.

 

You're right. Those are good examples. I'm saying that I think those are harder to come by than the other way around. I'm saying that I'd rather have, at the start of a season, a pitching staff i have confidence in than a batting lineup i have confidence in. I'd take my chances with stronger pitching over stronger hitting.

 

I agree. If the pitching can carry us until June then we have the ability to add a bat via trade.

 

Keep in mind, I'm forming my "wide-based" assumptions on not just "good" pitching.... but GREAT pitching.

Now, asking for GREAT pitching out of Clemens, Oswalt, Pettite and Backe may be a stretch... but it is not out of the realm of possibility, and its highly more likely that two of them are going to have cy-young calibur seasons than most of the teams that were mentioned as teams with "good" pitching (who ended up sub .500) by SC.

"good" pitching with average offense wins you some games. "Great" pitching with average offense keeps you in contention.

My honest (astros-colored glasses off) expectations are:
1.) Oswalt has a BETTER season than last year... which was, IMO his worst season on the mound in his career. Sure, he made every start... but when he's "on" he's nearly unhittable, and that was not the case last year. Clearly the rib-cage bothered him enough to where he couldn't pitch 100%, but it wasn't enough to keep him out.

2.) Clemens will predictably have a worse season... but it will still be better than most pitchers out there. His stuff is still electric enough to dominate... but I might start to worry more about fatigue during the season, as well as one of those "leg" injuries that sometimes happens to older players (I don't believe his arm will ever give out...)

After that, its a toss-up. I'm 50/50 whether or not Pettite will fully regain his form... and i'm 50/50 whether or not Backe is a viable "full-season" mlb starter.

The more likely scenario, is that Pettite struggles early but has a better second half.... and the NL catches up to Backe, but he still could win 10-15 games, and have a sub 4.00 ERA (which would be just fine).