Who gets the start on Tuesday?

EDIT: I guess with the day off, we don't need a fifth starter until Saturday:

Tues - Javier
Wed - LMJ
Thur - Greinke
Fri - Valdez
Sat - TBD (end of the James starter experiment?)

Deluxe said:

---

Who gets the start on Tuesday?

EDIT: I guess with the day off, we don't need a fifth starter until Saturday:

Tues - Javier
Wed - LMJ
Thur - Greinke
Fri - Valdez
Sat - TBD (end of the James starter experiment?)

---

Ugh.

CFTXAG10 said:

---

---

Sucks that the Marlins will actually have to play.

W said:

---

this is from MLB's website:

A pitcher receives a win when he is the pitcher of record when his team takes the lead for good -- with a couple rare exceptions. First, a starting pitcher must pitch at least five innings (in a traditional game of nine innings or longer) to qualify for the win. If he does not, the official scorer awards the win to the most effective relief pitcher.

There is also a rarely used clause where an official scorer can deem a relief pitcher's appearance "brief and ineffective." (For example, if a reliever relinquished a one-run lead by allowing three runs, but was still in line for a win after his team scored four runs in the following inning -- that may qualify.) If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher who followed that "brief and ineffective" pitcher. Which relief pitcher earns the win specifically is also up to the judgment of the official scorer.

------------
so in Sunday's game...if Scrubb had given up the tying single in the 10th and finished the 10th...the official scorer could have given Framber the win. (and Taylor would have gotten the save for holding the lead in the 11th)

that's where the free runner on second could make the official scorer do something in 2020 that he would not have done in 2019. Since it wasn't Framber's fault that the runner was on 2nd base to start the inning

---

By your own logic though Framber still would have needed to be the pitcher of record at one point. Also explains that an inning consists of two halves. Your example says the "ineffective pitcher " loses the lead but it is regained Right away, before another pitcher took the mound.

An official scorer is never taking a win away from a pitcher who came in with a run deficit or tied game and while he was the pitcher the team took the lead....your quoted rule and the applied mythical scenario does not apply.

Expected #s (I removed <10 ABs)


A few thoughts.

• Reddick is doing a great job not hitter grounders and more line drives. Plus when he's hit the ball 100+ his LA is between 17 & 23. Problem is he's not hitting the ball hard all the often. Something to keep an eye on.
• Like Reddick, Carlos is doing a great job with LA. Well above avg in hard hit% too,
• The last 2 games have been kind to George. 2 balls hit 110 & 114 MPH (homer and single) plus those walks have brought his #s up.
• The professional hitter is outperforming his #s a little in this small sample. But no one excepts him to hit .400. His lack of Whiff & Ks are so damn impressive.
• Ted ted ted, he leads the team in exit velocity, but he's gotta elevate more. Those hard grounders into the shift will turn into doubles and homers. He's seeing the shift 84%(!) of the time. Gotta adjust or the #s won't get better. Also, stop needs work on Ks.
• Altuve has been horrible and there is basically nothing redeeming about his #s except for his sprint speed. His legs look healthy and rested

redline248 said:

---

Once Houston lost the lead, after Valdez left the game, he was never going to be the winner

---

Reason #3,456 why the win stat is pointless.

I agree. I'm not sure what stat can be easily thrown on screen for an average or new fan to go, "wow, he's a really good pitcher," though.
ERA can be misleading and isn't all that straight forward, whip even more so.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something

Farmer1906 said:

---

redline248 said:

---

Once Houston lost the lead, after Valdez left the game, he was never going to be the winner

---

Reason #3,456 why the win stat is pointless.

---

It's not pointless, it's just not nearly as important as it has been made out to be for most of the history of baseball.

It tells you who was pitching when the winning team got the lead (unless it's a starter that doesn't go five innings, which is also stupid). It's not a good gauge of a good pitcher. It's the pitching equivalent of the game-winning RBI, which was in vogue at some point in the late 80s but it's not something that was talked about much anymore because it's not really that big of a deal if it happens in the second inning.

The advanced stats are certainly much more indicative of who the good/valuable baseball players really are than the traditional ones, but baseball needs traditional statistics for casual fans, which is most fans. Casual fan is never going to get into stats that start with an X or is a five letter acronym.

Just take Ws as they they are. They tell part of the story.

and the L's tell part of the story too.

Roy Oswalt made me a believer in the L column.

he always had a great winning %, because he rarely had a terrible outing and usually went deep into games.

he was 129-64 through the first 8 seasons of his career (2001-2008).

and the Astros only won more than 90 games in 2 of those 8 years. (93 in 2001 and 92 in 2004)

When the lead runner scores in extra innings, surely that run doesn't count against the pitcher's ERA does it? How about team ERA?

Usually not very much of the story. So much of that is based on run support and defense.

Farmer1906 said:

---

---

So we are cheating again?

W/L is pretty worthless for relievers.

For starters it's not, though. From a macro sense, it's a great way to show which starters can go deep into games and stay competitive.

Lance McCullers can pitch 4 innings of shutout ball every time he comes out, and he would look fantastic on a stat sheet... but in reality you've got a starter that killed your bullpen for all those games.

Nuke LaLoosh said:

---

W/L is pretty worthless for relievers.

For starters it's not, though. From a macro sense, it's a great way to show which starters can go deep into games and stay competitive.

Lance McCullers can pitch 4 innings of shutout ball every time he comes out, and he would look fantastic on a stat sheet... but in reality you've got a starter that killed your bullpen for all those games.

---

At the same time, Jeriome Robertson managed 15 wins as a starter for us in 2003 on a 5+ era. Like all stats, it never tells the complete story.

I hope so but it doesn't sound promising.

Dusty said this weekend they're monitoring his swing count. That seems odd to me and not sure why they'd need to do that if he was just getting up to speed.

MLB Power Rankings-The Athletic

Quote:

---

5. Houston Astros
Record as of 8/2: 5-4
Last week's ranking: 3
Probably still elite. Probably still in the larger conversation with the Dodgers and Yankees when it comes to the best team in baseball. But there are cracks in the faade.
Justin Verlander will be missing for a while, with what's either a season-ending injury or a forearm strain that might improve with rest. Schrdinger's ligament! And while it's not as if the Astros lack depth Cristian Javier was one of the best starting pitchers in the minors last year it's hard to replace someone like that. With Verlander gone, everything else looks just a liiiiittle bit shakier. Zack Greinke is 36. Framber Valdz had a 5.86 ERA last year, with a ghastly walk rate. Lance McCullers Jr. missed all of last season. Is this the cavalry?
And at the risk of being indelicate, note that the hitters might not have the same confidence in the pitches they're about to swing at.
Probably still elite. Probably still one of the very best teams in baseball. But without Gerrit Cole, and without Verlander, it's a team that's possible to side-eye. It's been a few years since we could do that.

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

---

Would be fun to post this on that silly thread made by the cardinals fan and say just imagine the runs per game once George, Altuve, and Bregman get it going.

Ag_07 said:

---

I hope so but it doesn't sound promising.

Dusty said this weekend they're monitoring his swing count. That seems odd to me and not sure why they'd need to do that if he was just getting up to speed.

---

I'm hoping he's back in 3 weeks, or at least by September. I'm not hopeful on the 10-14 days away

Beat40 said:

---

Dan Shedd said:

---

MLB Power Rankings-The Athletic

Quote:

---

5. Houston Astros
Record as of 8/2: 5-4
Last week's ranking: 3
Probably still elite. Probably still in the larger conversation with the Dodgers and Yankees when it comes to the best team in baseball. But there are cracks in the faade.
Justin Verlander will be missing for a while, with what's either a season-ending injury or a forearm strain that might improve with rest. Schrdinger's ligament! And while it's not as if the Astros lack depth Cristian Javier was one of the best starting pitchers in the minors last year it's hard to replace someone like that. With Verlander gone, everything else looks just a liiiiittle bit shakier. Zack Greinke is 36. Framber Valdz had a 5.86 ERA last year, with a ghastly walk rate. Lance McCullers Jr. missed all of last season. Is this the cavalry?
And at the risk of being indelicate, note that the hitters might not have the same confidence in the pitches they're about to swing at.
Probably still elite. Probably still one of the very best teams in baseball. But without Gerrit Cole, and without Verlander, it's a team that's possible to side-eye. It's been a few years since we could do that.

---

---

To the bolder point, these guys are idiots. They love to completely ignore 2019 when MLB confirmed the Astros weren't cheating. Oh, and to the couple of posts above me, they seem to ignore we're cranking out a similar runs per game as 2019 without our top three guys having it going. Again, these guys are idiots.

I cannot wait for Springer, Altuve, and Bregman to get hot to shut these dumb takes up.

---

Baseball writers are some of the most confidently stupid people on earth. They have the perfect balance of pretentiousness and disconnection with reality

Once Altuve starts hitting at a high clip again, I feel like a lot of the "2017 cheaters" talk will die down a bit. Right now social media and writers are happy because Springer Altuve and Bregman are all slumping and they can say "no trash cans and they suck without cheating"

Obviously we know how good they are and that springer is prone to slumps, Bregman always starts slow. Altuve is the one we aren't used to slumping this bad. Once he starts hitting and raises that average... the narrative will die down

tjack16 said:

---

Once Altuve starts hitting at a high clip again, I feel like a lot of the "2017 cheaters" talk will die down a bit. Right now social media and writers are happy because Springer Altuve and Bregman are all slumping and they can say "no trash cans and they suck without cheating"

Obviously we know how good they are and that springer is prone to slumps, Bregman always starts slow. Altuve is the one we aren't used to slumping this bad. Once he starts hitting and raises that average... the narrative will die down

---

Think I agree with this. If Altuve gets it going, it will shut some people up. Springer has shown some signs of coming out of it. Bregman too.

Think they're about to breakout of it. Hopefully they get right in Arizona!

bluefire579 said:

---

Nuke LaLoosh said:

---

W/L is pretty worthless for relievers.

For starters it's not, though. From a macro sense, it's a great way to show which starters can go deep into games and stay competitive.

Lance McCullers can pitch 4 innings of shutout ball every time he comes out, and he would look fantastic on a stat sheet... but in reality you've got a starter that killed your bullpen for all those games.

---

At the same time, Jeriome Robertson managed 15 wins as a starter for us in 2003 on a 5+ era. Like all stats, it never tells the complete story.

---

Robertson's 2003 season is always fun to look at.

the Astros had a 19-12 record in the 31 games he started that year.

he had a blow-up start in his first game...giving up 8 earned in 4 innings.

and then he had a terrible, terrible month of August. Giving up 22 earned runs in just 28 innings pitched in 6 starts

So is what I'm reading correct in that the Cards only have 3 players test positive? The rest are staff members?

Again...Why are we cancelling games for 3 players? Use the 30 man roster, the taxi squads, and the players at secondary locations to play games.

THAT'S WHAT EVERYTHING IS THERE FOR

Ag_07 said:

---

So is what I'm reading correct in that the Cards only have 3 players test positive? The rest are staff members?

Again...Why are we cancelling games for 3 players? Use the 30 man roster, the taxi squads, and the players at secondary locations to play games.

THAT'S WHAT EVERYTHING IS THERE FOR

---

They had 7 players and 6 others on the staff test positive total so far.

but then looking thru Robertson's game logs...

April 10th...1 earned run in 7 innings vs. the Reds.

May 16th...2 earned in 6 innings vs. the Phillies.
May 22nd...1 earned in 5+ innings vs. the Cardinals.

June 1st...2 earned in 6 innings vs. the Cubs.
June 22nd...1 earned in 5 innings vs. the Rangers.
June 28th...6 shutout innings vs. the Rangers.

July 3rd...3 earned in 7 innings vs. the Brewers.
July 9th...1 earned in 7 innings vs. the Reds.
July 22nd...7 shutout innings vs. the Pirates

August 8th...6 shutout innings vs. the Expos.
August 24th...2 earned in 7 innings vs. the Reds.

Sep 10th...1 earned in 6 innings vs. the Brewers.
Sept 16th...2 earned in 7 innings vs. the Rockies

those performances accounted for most of his wins. He was just wildly inconsistent. He had a bad ERA in 2003. But not necessarily a bad year