so if Kobe wants to be traded again this year.....and he says his number 1 choice is the Rockets, are you gonna be upset when it doesn't happen?
Yeah, stats in a particular year may not reflect how good a team is that particular season. And it can also show that a good stats team is really an average team. Heck the Astros NL record for fewest team errors in a season (!) doesnt really mean the Astros have outstanding defense. Could just mean they played the balls hit directly to them and didnt take fielding or throwing risks. But its saying if a team consistentally plays to what the run differential stats suggest, lets say the 2008 Astros but over a 10 season stretch, then possibly only 3 of those years would they have a winning record. Break the trend one year, but don't count on it year after year. The stats tell me when they were bad they were REALLY AWFUL. But when they were good it was just barely decent enough to eak out a win and counted on everyone coincidentally being good at the same time. Which I'm glad about, it was a nice ride. But it means instead of believing 1 move gets you ahead of last year, its 1 move is necessary to keep current THEN 1 more move to get ahead. So you dont have to rely on a 2nd half miracle run every year.
Yes... it proves that run differential is an accurate measure of a good record. The Astros were an incredibly streaky team.... inconsistent throughout the season. That's why they play 162 games... which basicallly evens out all those streaks and still allows (most of the time) the best team to get through. That doesn't happen in the playoffs however (your Cubs argument)... its such a small sample size, and thus its largely a crapshoot based on any given days performance by a starting pitcher. The Astros had plenty of horrid performances from Brandon Backe down the stretch, they had trouble scoring runs after Lee went out, and their bullpen was spotty at the start of the year. They started playing better when Roy started pitching better... but ultimately, this team was NOT a playoff team, and shouldn't have had as good of a record as they did. Now, I'm not saying they're a 60 win team or something. They're around a .500 team which has a chance to get better if they get more pitching (and get a few more guys on base in front of Lance/Lee). And in the end, they overachieved this season... the run differential simply supports that.
And as we can clearly see, NOT for the 2008 Houston Astros. The run differential was NOT an accurate measure of our record. Even BrooksBall just said it wasn't an absolute stat, which is true. Taking non-absolute stats and applying them on every single team, and then criticizing the teams that fall in the exception is wrong. They didn't make the playoffs but Ike played a big role in it. It really looked like to me that they were on the way to making it, even with that run differential. Someone already pointed out that the D-Backs made the playoffs last year with a mediocre run differential. And what do you mean they shouldn't have had a good record as they did? Please! Once again, the run differential stat isn't even close to being an absolute stat. There are exceptions to every rule and the Astros were a clear exception. We were 13 above .500 before Ike for a lot of reasons, not just Oswalt. Obviously he exploded in the 2nd half, Wolf pitched like a true #2 starter, Moehler gave us quality starts, Lee and Wigginton were on fire before they both got hurt, Valverde was on fire and the rest of the pen was solid, etc. This team in that stretch I mentioned was a great team. The best team in the 2nd half. They EARNED that record with their performance on the field. Don't let blowout losses give you false misconceptions. We are a #2 starter and a starting catcher away from a playoff birth next year.
Huh? Terrible comparison. If A-rod flat-out said "I want to be an Astro"... and the Astros barely paid notice to it... I would be pissed. Same here... if the Astros don't at least entertain the thought (ie - put at least one day of phone calls/research into possible scenarios they could get this to happen)... I will also be upset.
according to most reports, Wade has been trying to land Peavy for quite some time. That doesn't mean they are any closer to actually doing it. A-rod is a decent comparison, because as stated.......there is little to zero chance of it actually happening. research, call, entertain the idea all you want, it ain't happenin. No need to get upset over it.
Then that goes for EVERY SINGLE FREE AGENT that signs with a team other than the Astros. The only difference in this situation is that Peavy has said he wants to come here. I'm not saying its likely to happen... I'm saying I'll be pissed if the Astros don't at least try.
Of course we're going to try. The Padres GM and scouts will take a look at our farm system and laugh their asses off. Then they will hang up the phone. No Peavy. Our owner isn't willing to buy a #2 starter, and we don't have the resources to trade for a #2 starter. Wade cries, Sura faints, etc.
If the Lakers are LOOKING to trade Kobe (not just if he wants to).. with Kobe's clause to reject trades if he doesn't like them.. if the Rockets are on a list of 6-8 teams that he's willing to go to.. and if he says the Rockets are his #1 choice and he and Yao claim they're buddies and hang out in the offseason (not huge, but still a small factor)? Then yes, I would be disappointed if it didn't happen...or if they made a statement early on that it wasn't gonna work out. Gotta try for players of that caliber.. and given that situation, gotta try real hard
The biggest diference here is that the Rockets are already a championship-caliber team without Kobe. There isn't a big need for him here. That said, if he indicated the the Rockets were his number one preference if the Lakers were to trade him, I would expect the Rockets to look into it. And they would. McGrady has one year left. If you could get Kobe without giving up much else, I think it's a no-brainer. The Astros definitely can make this deal, but it would likely take more than the farm system has to offer. There are three ways the Astros could get Peavy. 1. Pence, Wandy, James and Norris The Astros won't do this one because it offsets minimal salary, and we all know that Drayton is working on a budget (fact, not criticism). The other two are 3-ways: 2. Pence, James, Tejada- Pence and James to the Padres, and Tejada goes to a third team, which sends a couple of prospects to the Pads. This one is tougher because you have to find a third team that is close to being there who can use a one-year rental at SS, and they would probably want the Astros to pay a portion of his salary. 3. Valverde (and maybe another prospect) - a team like the Mets who really need a closer may be willing to send three good prospects (and possibley one of ours) to the Padres, who then send Peavy to us. As I said, this can be done. It just depends on how much the Astros value their prospects and current peices, as well as how much they value Peavy. It also depends how much other teams value the Astros commodities, and if that value is acceptable to the Padres. Not an easy deal to get done.
The Astros may have a chance simply because a.) other rich teams aren't willing to give up their top prospects for Peavy when they can just sign Sabathia/Lowe/Sheets, and b.) the market may not be as much of a sellers one with the economic crisis, and teams seeing how the Rays and Phillies had success. That being said, the Astros should try to win with Roy and Lance while they can. The good draft picks they're hanging on to now (Rays/Phillies development strategy) are still a few years away from being ready.
wandy has throw-in value, no more. james and norris are not top line prospects. tejada was dealt last winter for flotsam; he had a decent year (especially by astro SS standards), but a year that nonetheless continued a downward trend. on the open market, i'm guessing he has almost no value, especially given his $13M salary. like tejada, valverde was dealt last winter for chad qualls and chris burke. there is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks that he's fetching "three good prospects" a year later. i don't think it can unless the padres get desperate and/or peavy starts making definitive demands. i DO agree 1) pence would have to be the centerpiece (which i'm more than OK with); 2) they're going to have to look elsewhere to try and secure additional parts... but i just don't think they have anything of value to offer other than oswalt, berkman and/or lee. and trading one of them to secure peavy would be counter-productive.
That's one hell of a window. We've been hearing about that sucker closing since '98. I think we've all died of frostbite by now.
