Timmmmmmmmmmmmmmberrrrrrrrrrrr

Wow, we are reducing to arguing about how bad the Astros suck.

"They are a 100 loss team!"
"Nay, you are a moran! They are an 88 loss team!"

 

It has little to do with your actual prediction and everything to do with how you present your case. There are plenty of folks in here (myself and Major, for example) who disagree on plenty of items. I can't even guess how many Taveras debates we've had, for example. But even though we're on opposite ends of the spectrum and have different predictions, I respect his position (whether it's ultimately right or wrong) because he makes a case using valid evidence and responds when his evidence is questioned.

In your case, your logic is just absurd. The idea that the Astros are hanging on by a thread because of Roy Oswalt -- an underachieving pitcher with an ERA over 5 -- is insane. The idea that the 2008 version of Roy Oswalt is a difference in 10-15 games, from a positive standpoint, is absurd. (Hell, I'm not even sure the difference in Johan Santana and Jason Jennings for a full season would be that much -- and in the argument you're making, you'd only have half a season at most without Cy Oswalt and his 5.04 ERA.) I and others have provided substantive evidence to show how ridiculous some of your claims are, if look back on the first page. You, on the other hand, respond occasionally with vague generalities but usually ignore it altogether.

People "give you hell" not because of your predictions. There are plenty of folks with differing predictions than mine, and I respect those, even though I disagree. The reason you get so much heat is the complete troll-like method in which you present your case. Evidence is your friend. Try it.

Also, as for the specifics of 100 losses, you're the one who made the claim. There are plenty of folks with doubts about the Astros. They're more than justified. If you want to say the future of this season and this franchise is bleak right now, go right ahead. I'm with you. But don't exaggerate for effect -- because when you do, the true merit of your argument is lost amid the lunacy and hyperbole. If you want to claim the Astros are somehow 11 games worse than in 2007 as well as significantly worse than the pace they're on right now (with most of the pitching staff pitching far worse than their career numbers, indicating some improvement is likely), you need to have specific evidence to make that claim.

You're the one mentioning 100 losses. You said it again, in the first post of this thread. Don't cry about other posters holding you to your specific claim, if you're going to continue to make it. Let it go, if it's not important to you.

 

This thread is almost about as logical as the ridiculous trade proposals you are accustomed to littering the GARM with. Get a grip.

 

Ok...I can kind of see where you are going with this...but it's really hard to justify this viewpoint because Oswalt going down is not at all similar to say, Yao or T-Mac going down. Baseball is an entire different animal than some other sports; it is a team sport but so much of it is individualistic. And so much is based on matchups. If Oswalt goes down or gets injured I doubt it changes how this team plays cause whoever fills his place only has to put up an ERA better than 5 and they're already pitching better than Oswalt (and, based just on ERA, every one of our starters right now is pitching better than him). And lets say Oswalt was pitching like a Cy Young candidate and he goes out...it's still not necessarily the end of the world cause you still have 4 other pitchers that can give you wins. Plus whomever you plug in Oswalt's place only has to pitch better than the other team's starting pitcher.

You ever heard of the saying momentum will carry you as far as the next day's starting pitcher? Might want to think about that before you spout off that word in a baseball context.

Next you say to quit looking at stats on a piece of paper, but then you say to look at wins and losses....wins and losses are on a piece of paper.

Then you throw out assumptions on the team's performance based purely on phrases like "grinding it out" and "long, hot summer." That means nothing to me when it's not backed up by something more tangible. Sure the long season takes a toll on the players, but the team can just as easily go on a roll at the end of the season as they can at the beginning. As evidence to support my claim, I'd like to reference the Rockies amazing run last year.

And lastly, this team has been far out of the race by the All Star break before and they've come roaring back...sure that's more the exception than the rule...but what the Astros did in '05, the Rockies last year and on the flip side the Mets fall last season and the Cardinal's near collapse the year before proves that things can change quickly in a sport where you play 6-7 games a week. The Astros probably won't chase down the Cubs, but if you look at the Wild Card standings, St. Louis currently leads at 10 games over .500 and they've been playing way above their heads...Florida and Milwaukee are next at 6 games over...those teams are completely within reach if our pitchers start playing just to their average.

 

No, what's going to be funny is how you disappear from sight once again if the Astros win their 63rd game in late August or early September.

I'll eat my crow for you if the Astros win near 100 losses--"near" being within 5 or so games. Fair?

Of course, you won't be around when that doesn't happen.

See you during the next losing streak.

 

Kind of like all of your Astros related posts in May when they were playing well?

 

So you are admitting that you are completely ignoring the numbers? Got it.

With the exception of the other 4 starters who have not been pitching to their career numbers, thus indicating room for improvement.

Oswalt is not likely to get traded this year. The reason being his numbers so far in 2008. A team is not likely to give you a good return, even in prospects, for somebody who is seriously underperforming. Never sell low.

How can you argue that somebody is not a baseball expert when they use the statistics and you ignore them?

Have you ever watched a baseball game? I mean seriously. You seem pretty clueless. Shadows and mirrors? That's funny. During our slide, sure we had some real awful pitching performances, but we also lost games 2-1 and 3-2. The real difference between this losing streak and May is that our offense went into the tank.

Agreed.

Ah yes...no need for actual numbers when you can use the tried and true, amorphous metric of common sense. Classic.

Actually, most of our starters have an ERA under the league average. So they are a bunch of slightly above average pitchers.

What???!!!!

I can't tell you the number of times in the 80s that I saw Nolan Ryan "pick up" Bob Knepper and help him to a win. That is so incredibly ignorant of how baseball works that it is actually sad. Starting pitchers do not pick each other up and coddle each other to wins. This is clearly the dumbest baseball related comment I have ever read.

Yeah, because in BASEBALL, a game heavy in statistics, why should the numbers matter?

 

Making a wrong assumption? I was extrapolating future behavior based upon what we've already observed! You disappeared during the first three weeks in May, during which the Astros had the best record in the Major Leagues.

The way things are going, you're right. At least you're admitting it.

 

Joe Mauer's turned out pretty good for the Twins. Some others have been in the majors for a limited time (Jeffrey Clement) or at another position (Mitch Maier).

Considering the number of catchers taken in the first round in the past few drafts (3 in '07, 2 in '06, 2 each in '03, '04, '05, 0 in '02, 1 in '01, 3 in '00) you have an awfully small number of players to study. Anyway, just because a catcher (or any position really) was taken in the 1st round, that doesn't mean he'll be a bust. If that's the case I guess no one should take a pitcher in the first round since Todd Van Poppell was such a bust.

 

The Astros aren't in need of a turnaround to avoid losing 100 games. Hell, they aren't in need of a turnaround to avoid losing 90 games. Does this team need to turn it around to make the playoffs? Sure. To avoid losing 100 games? Sorry, no.

No, they'll continue on a very similar W/L clip (35-41) that they're on right now. Nowhere close to 100 losses.

You're moving the goalposts. The Astros don't have to be anywhere close to .500 to make your prediction of 100 losses idiotic. And again, you are clueless. Almost every single member of the pitching staff is pitching far worse than their career numbers. PLEASE EXPLAIN OR SHOW how the pitching staff is overachieving, or that the wins are "shadows and mirrors" from the pitching staff. EVIDENCE.

I am looking at wins and losses. The percentage they're on right now is nowhere remotely close to the percentage needed to lose 100. As for what they'll look like in July and August after "grinding" it out, guess what? All the other teams play the same number of games, and a handful of them will be out of the race too. No difference.

The odds favor the Astros not making the playoffs. That wasn't, however, your initial argument. Your initial argument was that this is a 100-loss team, and the odds show the possibility of that happening to be almost microscopic. Stop trying to move the goalposts to hide that simple fact.

 

You know...for the Astros to lose 100 games they'd have to go 27-59 the rest of the way. As horribly as they have played at times so far this season, they'd have to play historically bad baseball to reach that milestone.

 

Well, recent history says you won't get an answer from jopatmc as the Astros just won a series. Once the Rangers finish taking two of three from us, or perhaps after we get swept by the 'Sox, he'll be back crowing (even though they'd be on a 91-loss pace at the time).

 

stros are most likely going to be around .500 by the time the season ends.

 

Your flawed premises and complete disregard for the statistics remain the same I am sure.

 

Well, agreed that nothing has changed.

So, on April 21 the Astros were on pace to lose 97 games. That is the latest date they were anywhere near a 100-loss pace (the day before, their pace was 102 losses, and it gets even uglier before that). Since then, their highest win percentage had them on pace to win 93 games (that was May 15, and nobody believed the Astros would win 90 games).

If you take the "losses pace" from every day of the season, including the first four games when the paces were 162, 162, 108, and 122, the average is 88 losses. Currently their pace is 87 losses.

So, still believe they'll lose 100?

(I'm trying to get as many Astros-related posts from you as I can as in the unlikely event that they win four of the next six we're not likely to see you for a week.)