Only one side of the coin?

Another off-day, another post. 

Sometimes people seem to forget that baseball is played by two teams, and a fan should always guard against expecting their team to win every night. The Astros make it difficult on their fan base because they are either stone cold or red hot, with little in-between. 

What made the recent Phillies series so special is the arrogance of some of the Phillie Phanatic towards the four-game set. They misjudged where the Astros were in relation to themselves, and needing to gain some ground on the NL East leading Atlanta Braves, being swept by Houston was a bitter pill to swallow. 

It is very easy when you watch a team for 162 games and only see another team for three, six, or even 15 to know very little about the team you are playing, glance at their W-L record and expect to win. As a fan, you could be forgiven for doing that, but not a sports writer. 

That's why this article, written after the second game of the season so infuriated me. Most of it is a rant at the officiating for tossing Ryan Howard, and missing the call on Michael Bourn's bunt-single, but it takes a swipe at the Astros, wondering out loud what was more humiliating- the poor umpiring or watching the "offensive powerhouse known as the Phillies.....score just four runs in 25 innings to the lowly  Houston (Triple A) Astros."

The article spends a good amount of time bashing the arrogance of umpires, but a commenter muses, "You make several references to the arrogance of the umpires, after starting off by calling the Astros a AAA team and acting like the Phillies are simply above losing to them."

The author's excuse is then "this is a Philly website" and that they "should not be losing to a team with a $50-60 million dollar (sic) payroll," and "If you're back to back NL Champs, yes, you are supposed to beat up on these teams."

Is that an excuse for treating your opposition like a punching bag, shipped into town to lie down and take a beating? Not really. It ignores basic facts, like the Astros are now 16-7 at Citizens Bank Park, or are the only NL team to have a winning record against the Phillies since 2004, in large part because they failed to record a single victory against Houston in 2004 or 2005. You can only beat what is in front of you, and while having  to state the obvious, if you don't play better than your opposition, you will lose.

The Astros are now nine games under .500, eight behind second place St. Louis, and tied for third with the Brewers in the NL Central. They had an abysmal start, but since June 1st (a stretch of 82 games, over half a season), they have played 45-37 ball. Not bad at all. 

Take the Astros recent series with the Mets. The series looked evenly poised going into the deciding third game until most of us realised it was R.A. Dickey facing us. Frustrating as it was to be shut down by a guy pitching at 70 miles per hour, having seen the knuckleballer match Brett Myers two weeks earlier it was hardly surprising. 

The Cardinals had the same problems as the Phillies a week earlier, they came into a series with the Astros, whose starting pitching has been superb lately, with a lineup full of slumping hitters (and Pedro Feliz, he does not count as a hitter). Yet they knew what they were facing in the Astros, having played 12 games against them already in 2010. 

Any given day any team has a chance to win. The Orioles, who started the season 2-16 recently swept the Angels, and on the road too. They allowed just one run all series, and doubtless this will perturb Angels fans', swept by a team that has a terrible run-differential and is currently 35 games under .500, but they have averaged just 3.7 runs in the last two months, while Baltimore is 17-11 under Buck Showalter.

No team has a divine right to win, something fans, and especially writers should always bear in mind.