Completely agree. Pitching is the main priority. Just look at the other Texas team if you want to see what happens when you only have bats. I believe this team will make a mid summer trade of some kind for more power with the bats. BUt I feel good about this coming season still. I feel good about Lane have a "major" role with the team this season.
For those of you familiar with John Lauck's Astroday column, he reiterates the exact sentiments from my post above in his latest entry (http://home.att.net/~j.lauckii/ ) It will be pitching, however, by which the Astros win or lose their games this year. Not offense, and not even fielding defense behind those pitchers, critical as that element is. It will be up to Oswalt and Clemens and Pettitte and Backe, along with Lidge and Qualls in the 'pen, to make their pitches when it counts, and even up the odds for the Astros' less-potent offense and shaky OF play. Relying on pitching: that's progress, whether we like to think of it that way or not. It's progress because that's the way you win; that's baseball at its best. Every team seeks pitching, and is defined by it every season. The ebb and flow of success in baseball is measured, not by waves of home runs, spectacular as they may be as they crest and crash before us, but by the quality of pitching thrown upon a team's shore every year by the tides of the game, and by the expertise of the eyes that scour the inviting sands month after month, patiently looking for the most valuable shells. Some years you find an abundance, including a pearl or two beyond price, and the team succeeds; some years, the shells are scarce and unremarkable, and the team suffers. But still, you must look, every year, without fail. You may believe that the Dodgers of the 1960s won NL pennants and World Series with their pitching, and you'd be right. But Yankee teams as far separated from each other in time as 1927 and 1978 and 1998 won pennants and championships not only because they had Murderers' Row lineups but also because they had Waite Hoyt and Catfish Hunter and Andy Pettitte around to shut the other team down 3-2 or 4-3 on the hot August days in the Bronx or in Kansas City when nobody really had the energy to run around the bases. The Astros have such pitching entering this season, which is why, even with the prospect of Lane and Burke and Ensberg perhaps being less than we hope they'll be as hitters, I remain optimistic that Houston's going to be better than most people think it will. It might even have dawned on ESPN's baseball crew Saturday night as they did the interview, Hey, these guys almost went to the World Series last year, and all of their pitching is back. Houston's still flying under the radar of most media outlets, but through a stressful winter, when most people noticed only the names of those who chose to leave the team, a few people have calmly observed the names of those who stayed and those who are coming back. Many of those key names will be pitching for the Astros once more in 2005, and they will be giving Houston its best chance to win. You can, for the moment, call what the Astros are doing "keeping the core together," if you wish. Because the search for pitching is perennial and the conservation of it is so difficult, you can also call it progress.
Seriously... I posted, and then I went over to his site... and to my suprise, he basically said the exact same thing (thus I posted that as well). Honestly... I never lie!! (please, somebody belive me!).
I agree completely. But what baffles me is when people talk about the offense they talk like Lance Berkman won't return at all this season. You can't evaluate the offense without him in it because that is not going to be the case for a vast portion of the year. Once he returns in May, the offense looks like this as of right now: 1. Biggio-LF 2. Everett-SS 3. Bagwell-1B 4. Berkman-RF 5. Lane/Ensberg-CF/3B 6. Lane/Ensberg-CF/3B 7. Burke-2B 8. Ausmus-C That offense does not suck. Sure, it's not as good as it was when Beltran/Kent were both playing here, but 1-6 is still solid, and who knows what Burke can do or what trade options will be available between now and midseason. The bottom line is I think people are acting like Lance Berkman will not play at all this year, and that isn't going to be the case. And if the Astros pitching can stay healthy, it's plenty good enough to compete for the postseason in the NL. knock on wood
Wish I could share that enthusiasm. I don't view Everett at #2 as "solid", nor is Ensberg at #5 or 6 anything special coming off a disappointing 2004. Biggio and Bagwell will be OK, Berkman's a stud when he's healthy, and imo Lane will be a solid, if unspectacular, OF. 1 currently injured superstar, 2 aging former superstars, and a bunch of guys who have alot to prove.
I believe ya Nick! I think this year the Astros will be alright. I think they will have to make a move somewhere during the season to address either the bullpen and/or hitting just as they did last year.
Solid does not mean anything more than decent, believe it or not. I characterize that offense that I listed as an average or so NL offense, a dropoff from last year but not nearly as bad as may fans are proclaiming it to be. Also, I only put everett 2nd because I felt the balance of the lineup would be better like that, than with him hitting 7th. If burke gets on base well, flip the two. I don't where you think I believe this offense is awesome or elite, I never said that, nor do I believe that. But I believe it is good enough if the pitching comes through to their talent level to compete for a playoff spot in the NL, that is all I am trying to say. In fact, my concern is much more about the defense right now. I feel you need to be really strong in two of pitching, hitting, defense to be a playoff team. Right now, the Astros have the pitching, but they need to get better either offensively or defensively(they're about average in both) to really solidify their status. And it's much easier/cheaper to become good defensively(ie Mike Cameron would make them good defensively). But as of right now I'd say this team wins anywhere from 83-85 wins with the current roster.
You're putting words in my mouth, I didnt say or think that. I don't think the offense is average though. Just speaking offense, I think we're above average at 1 spot (RF), average at another 3 spots (LF, 1B, 2B), and below average offensively everywhere else. I think we're not terrible, but we'll be a less than average offensive team as presently constituted. And I don't agree that you count pitching, hitting, and defense all equally. Pitching + defense are one element, preventing runs. Hitting is scoring runs. I think you have to consider those 2 factors - scoring and preventing runs - equally in evaluating the team. A team that can't score, or can't prevent the other team from scoring, won't win.
there have been average offensive teams that have competed well and won. i can't remember the last time a team with below average pitching competed well with sticks alone. not trying to be argumentative...just thinking "out loud."
I think the Cards did pretty well for themselves last season, and that starting staff was average at best.
he said that we would win 83-85 games......and i am saying 83-85 wins will get us 3rd in the WC chase
This is the same team that needed a minor miracle to make the playoffs last season minus Kent and Beltran. Berkman is coming off major surgery. The only chance they have is if their pitching is outstanding and the young guys being brought up make a huge splash.
Decent (but not great) starters... nobody was really "below" average (but you're right that they had no aces in 2002). Of course, they had an amazing bullpen, with four light's out pitchers (including the phenom Frankie Rodriguez pitching a lot in those playoffs). I don't think they would have made it that far without their bullpen carrying the load for Washburn, Lackey, and Appier.
Carpenter was above average, and again nobody was really "below" average, and they probably had one of the best bullpens in baseball (Calero, Tavarez, King, and Izzy). Of course, their starting pitching was awful in the playoffs... if we had just had one less Pete Munro, and one more decent starter, they never would have beaten us.
You guys keep bringing this point up, but who are they going to trade? They can't trade for anyone without putting the immediate future of the club in serious jeopardy. I can't rule out a trade happening, but I woundn't expect a Beltran-like aquisition from this club; and it's highly likely they will not even be in position to make such a move in the first place.
