The Crawfish Boxes: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Headlines: BC Beats BU 4-3 in 58th Beanpot Championship

I think the Astros will be a .500 team in 2009--am I just biased?

This will be a little bit stream of conscious—just warning you.

Somewhere around the first week of December, probably, I was sure that our dismal, dismal off season maneuvering was going to relegate us to the bottom of the basement.  A solid ninety loss season is about all I could wrap my mind around.  To be totally honest, part of me still jumps to that conclusion when nay saying begins about the 2009 season.

Then came the Community Projection Project.  I wasn't really excited to do it because I thought it was going to be super, super depressing.  Then, I filled it out, you gave some input, I tweaked it, some outsiders suggested tweaks in the methodology, and there we were: a .500 team.

A .500 season is nothing to brag about.  Part of me would rather us be a basement dwelling team on a budget, with an eye on pouring money into player development, than a .500 team at nine figures, but .500 can make a season exciting.  Maybe not exciting, but worth watching at least.  Some statistical noise—luck, if you will—pushing us in the positive direction, and suddenly I might need to wake up early (for me) every morning during September and post play off odds again.

With Spring Training coming into full swing, prognostications about the impending season become the topic du jour.  Lately, I've read, heard, and discussed a lot of negative opinions in regards to the 2009 Astros.  It strikes me as ood too.  This is the exact same team as last year, only we don't have Ty Wigginton, who missed 1/3 of the season in 2008, at 3B.  Most cite Pythag-records as their claim, which is valid, but those methods are crude,and can't quite capture the value of high-caliber defense.

Dismissing those qualifiers and thinking about how lucky the 2008 Astros were to out perform their Pythag-record that much, doesn't it make sense to think about how unlucky the Astros were in 2008?

In the interest of front page space, I'm now going to make you have click the link to jump...so JUMP.

Star-divide

Here's a quick list, off the top of my head, at 3:30 AM (don't worry dad, I have nothing of importance to do tomorrow) of the unlucky things which befell the Astros in 2008:

  • Roy Oswalt was terrible for two and half months.  Whether he was pitching through an injury, which I know clack and I think is the case, or just plain unlucky/ineffective—we were a team without an ace for half a season.
  • Wandy Rodriguez missed a significant portion of time due to a groin strain.  So there was a solid six weeks we were a team without an ace, or a number two.
  • Carlos Lee got his pinkie shattered and missed the last month of the season.
  • Hunter Pence had to adjust to a league that adjusted to him, and was dismal for the first few months.
  • Kaz Matsui missed the first few weeks of the season with a freak (I hope) injury.

If the Astros really were lucky in 2008, imagine how much better they could have been if their luck was ALL good?

Pence seemed to have rounded into form by the seasons end, and most projection systems agree that he'll see a pretty sizable set-up in 2009 from 2008.  Hopefully Carlos Lee won't have another digit shattered again, and although I know Kaz will go down with some injury this year, Drew Sutton looks like a more than serviceable replacement.  In 2009 we also have Brian Bogusevic waiting in the wings to take a crack and wrenching CF from being an offensive void, and clack has managed to demonstrate that if Coop is smart about it, CF doesn't have to be very void like regardless.

Sure, Roy Oswalt and LaTroy Hawkins pitching in the WBC is iffy from a regular season effectiveness standpoint, but we only have one year's worth of data to make judgments about, so we're not even sure if that's a real issue of concern.  Yes, Wandy is already tweaking muscles, but Spring Training is also replete with muscle tweaks that seem ominous.  I am also aware that Moehler, Hampton, and Ortiz would seem like a formidable way to stock a rotation circa 2001, but we really only need one of them to perform well, one of them to perform not terrible, and the other one can ride the pine or head to Round Rock.  I don't think it's out of the question to expect that at any point in the season those circumstances can't be existence, so that doesn't seem overly dire either.

I know this reads like a fan's exuberance clouded judgment trying to paint some rose tinted gloss on our prospects, but I think the above points are fairly fair...right?

Now comes the audience participation part:

Poll
Is it absurd to think that the Astros could be a .500 team in 2009? (you have to read the full article before voting...or, at least, please do)
Nope, it's reasonable enough.
65 votes
Yes, take off the fan boy outfit and use your brain.
33 votes

98 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 18 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

In one sense, your .500 projection is more objective than most of what we read...

because it’s mostly based on math. I haven’t seen anything outrageous or unreasonable in any of the projection assumptions that go into it. Many people react the opposite mostly out of a distaste for the less than ideal ways that Wade has patched holes in the lineup.

My calculations before 08 basically indicated a 81-83 team for last season. And the loss of Wigginton and Wolf aren’t likely to be as significant as people suppose.

I also get frustrated when people use the Pythag differential to reach a conclusion about 09. It’s one thing to use Pythagorean under or over performance to describe what happened in the past; but it’s not an appropriate method for predicting what will happen in the next year. “Luck” in terms of the Pythag record is purely based on the relationships among runs, run against, wins, and losses. It tells you nothing about players’ over or underperformance in scoring and saving runs in 08.

Having said that, I still think the Astros teeter between .500 or better and collapsing. A collapse is always possible. There are too many positions where the projections have a wide swath of uncertainty, either because the players are erratic, inexperienced, or aging.
That’s why they play the game, as the saying goes. I think the Astros are more vulnerable than most teams to injury.

Even though I have decrying the starting pitching situation, like most fans, this season.. I am starting to think I should be more concerned about the Astros’ offense than then the defense. Offense at catcher, 3d base, and CF could be pretty bad. We are hoping that young players at catcher and CF will perform more like their projections than what they hit last year, and that a platoon can cut our losses at 3d base. And the Astros don’t have a lot of depth for those positions. Wade has accumulated enough re-tread pitchers that I think he will have some depth in AAA.

by clack on Mar 6, 2009 6:22 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

offense at catcher?

Lasagn… er, I mean Palmisano!

by ol Pete on Mar 6, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Do you Brewer-ites have faith in him?

I suppose we should have asked this question awhile ago?

The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.

by DyingQuail on Mar 6, 2009 11:56 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, you know, its hard to give high quality evaluations from my scouting position on the sofa. He’s supposed to be pretty good defensively and he has hit pretty well a lot of the time including in the AFL. He’s just getting older, so this opportunity could be great.

by ol Pete on Mar 6, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not into mathmatical calculations...

but I would put the Astros over/under of wins at 75. My family and I are huge baseball fans, my son plays select ball and we will attend a game or two and watch all the others, but I’m not overly optimistic about this season.
However I have learned to never count out our ’Stros!

GO TEXANS!!!!

www.houstonsportsrule.blogspot.com

by Texanmaniac on Mar 6, 2009 7:37 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

I'd say

the Astros are going to finish somewhere between the community projections and BP’s Pecota projections: between 68 and 83 wins. That’s a huge gap, and that’s because there are so many questions regarding playing time for position players, the health of the starting rotation, how well that rotation fares, etc.

I still think around 75 wins is the most appropriate prediction. I still think it’s reasonably optimistic, but it’s doable.

by Only_A_Lad on Mar 6, 2009 7:48 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

also

“reasobable?”

by Only_A_Lad on Mar 6, 2009 9:05 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for catching that

In my defense, it was 4 AM when post was clicked.

The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.

by DyingQuail on Mar 6, 2009 9:20 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

.500 nothing to cheer for

The real problem is not that you are wrong about us possiblly being a .500 team, its that you are too right. The Astros are stuck in a funk of mediocrity. Not good enough to actually compete, not bad enough for the powers to be to realize the need to rebuild. This is evident by us not giving Johnson a true chance to make the team. Blum and Boone are fine for a team that wants to remain mediocre. A team that wants to actually improve will recognize the weaknesses of this team, i.e. the fact that its very very old, and allow us to be bad to see what we’ve got in the kids. I fear a 90 loss season is what we need to become competetive again.

by aarcraft on Mar 6, 2009 9:31 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

johnson

hit .218 in AAA last year. He needs more time in Round Rock. I think it’s pretty reasonable for Coop, Ed Wade, and Co. to want him to stay in AAA for a little while longer.

If he hits .350 coming out of the gate, then I’d call him up. This isn’t like what happened with Pence in 2006/2007.

by Only_A_Lad on Mar 6, 2009 10:01 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

True

But that was only 30 games, 100 at bats. His numbers in AA were solid. He is not highly rated outside of the organization, however, so I could be off. I think my overall point remains valid.

by aarcraft on Mar 6, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah, he hit .328 in Corpus Christi

but still…

Truthfully, I’m hopeful for Johnson, but not optimistic. He has the same problems Pence has – low average free swinger – and I’m not confident he can adjust to ML pitching with only 30 games of AAA pitching under his belt. Of course, Pence hit right away in the majors once he got promoted (and he only had 25 games in AAA), so who the fuck knows what will happen?

Still, I’d give him one more month in the minors. Couldn’t hurt. If he falls on his face, then he has time to adjust in a no-pressure environment and he doesn’t waste an appearance in the big leagues.

by Only_A_Lad on Mar 6, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I Agree

that one more month in the minors couldn’t hurt. However, that doesn’t appear to be the strategy. The strategy appears to be give the job to Blum and Boone and let Johnson compete for the position in 2010. at which point, he will be 25 years old. Im not saying Johnson is the answer at third. Im saying the Bumble-B’s are certainly not the answer, and the fact the Astros have assured us of a season with them is a sign that the team is striving for mediocrity.

by aarcraft on Mar 6, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

regardless of what the Astros expect to happen...

Chris Johnson can force the Astros’ hand by torching the opposition at Round Rock. If he hits well enough—like Pence did in two months at Round Rock in 2007—the Astros will be forced to call him up. It’s a “problem” you don’t mind having.

by clack on Mar 6, 2009 5:25 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Excellent point

The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.

by DyingQuail on Mar 6, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

the pythag thing

Valverde plus quality guys in the 7th and 8th along with some blowout losses whack that thing. Or has closers and/or blowouts been analyzed somewhere and dismissed?

by ol Pete on Mar 6, 2009 10:40 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

I think you have a point...

I mentioned it also in past posts. One way to beat pythag is to win more than your share of close games. A good late inning bullpen, particularly at the closer position, is important to winning close games. On one of the Astros’ spring broadcasts, they mentioned that the Astros only lost one game while leading after 7 innings in the second half (after Hawkins was signed and Sampson went to the bullpen) last season. ( I can’t recall the exact number of leads held after 7 in the second half, but the W/L was impressive.) In addition, if you both win more than your share of close games, plus have a weak 5th starter and weak middle relief, such that you have more than your share of blow losses, that can screw up the Pythag even more.

by clack on Mar 6, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Crawfishboxes, the SBNation blog for the Houston Astros.
Start posting about the Astros »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Pitching Mechanics/Terms To Look/Listen For

Recent FanPosts

Johns_small
Vallejo and Lyon News
Small
Beating a Dead Horse: Should Berkman be a LHB?
Small
Pre-Spring NL Overview/Predictions
Small
Looking ahead to the 2010 mlb draft
39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Fbod6_small
Boys of Summer Revisited
Kids_small
Outsider's Astros prospects 30-21
Small
McTaggart: Wandy and Astros going to arbitration
Nsapcs13_large_small
Gumbel, Pearlman throw Bagwell into the McGwire mess

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

THE CRAWFISH BOXES GETS SOCIAL

Picture_88_medium The Crawfish Boxes on Facebook

Picture_89_medium The Crawfish Boxes on Twitter

NL Central Standings

W L PCT GB STRK
St. Louis 91 71 .561 0 Lost 6
Chicago 83 78 .515 7.5 Lost 1
Milwaukee 80 82 .493 11 Won 3
Cincinnati 78 84 .481 13 Won 2
Houston 74 88 .456 17 Lost 3
Pittsburgh 62 99 .385 28.5 Lost 2

(updated 2.9.2010 at 5:43 PM CST)


Humble Blog Managers

Woodstock_small HighLeveragePerformer

Lovelance_small DyingQuail

Old_school_dome_logo_small David Coleman

Editors

Nsapcs13_large_small clack

Fbod6_small farm_stros