Farmer1906 said:

---

How many games would we have to win in a row before you started believing we were contenders to make a run? Anothe sweep? 10? 15 like the Red Sox? 20!!?

---

There is no amount of wins that will make this team a contender for anything more than an early exit. Our entire success is 100% on Yordan maintaining MVP level performance. And even then, they will pitch around him in ANY situations in the playoffs should we make it there by some miracle. So you would be hoping on Paredes / Walker / Altuve to essentially carry the run production.

Farmer1906 said:

---

How many games would we have to win in a row before you started believing we were contenders to make a run? Anothe sweep? 10? 15 like the Red Sox? 20!!?

---

I'd say just getting to .500 in the next 3 weeks

Until we are .500 I can't believe we will contend for anything

Yeah, home run or bust is related to efficiency when you can't string hit after hit. Walks are probably also up in comparison, but strikeouts and whiffs just make it a whole different equation.

Farmer1906 said:

---

linkdude said:

---

DrZ said:

---

Yordan is my favorite player. great year. MVP Triple crown
He is on pace for 120 rbis
That would tie him with Bagwell's fifth best season.
Not even counting 94. He was on pace for 170 when strike occurred.
That year he had 116 rbis after 110 games. Yordan has 77 after 104

---

run scoring environment is night/day in 2026 vs mid-90s. It's home run or bust for most teams now.

Not to take anything away from Baggy, still amazing production.

---

There were just more runs scored back then. I attribute that to 1. Steroids and 2. The pitching was way worse. Guys didn't throw as hard, with as much spin, and faced the order 3-4 times when they weren't as effective.

---

The difference in runs scored is pretty negligible. In 1998 when McGwire hit 70 the average runs per game was 4.79 vs. 4.5 today.

The pitching wasn't worse at all, just different. If you measured velo with the tools and methods today the average fastball would be about 92 vs. 95 today. Plus, the average start back then went 7+ innings vs. 5.1-5.2 today. So not only do they not usually have to face the line up 3x or more the pitchers empty the tank on every pitch vs. keeping some in reserve. Look at a guy like Verlander - he always kept 99+ in reserve but generally cruised about 94 with lower effort and threw a lot of innings with long outings.

Guys could also use sticky stuff and they didn't trade out scuffed balls nearly as much as today so I think the spin rate stuff is a wash.

There are definitely more guys throwing harder today but that's more a function of the style of pitching and valuing pure stuff over pitchability. Walks per 9 innings are the same at 3.4 (this surprised me) while Ks are up from 6.6 to 8.5-9. While stuff accounts for some of it, some is pitchers rarely facing the lineup a third time and some is approach at the plate where power/XB are prioritized vs. contact hitting.

In 1998 there were 49 qualified hitters who hit .300 vs. 7 this year. I think a whole lot of those guys who were hitting .300+ back then could have hit for a lot more power if they weren't going more for contact and vice versa for the guys today. I'm not saying these guys could all hit like Tony Gwynn but a change in philosophy would likely have a big difference.

tjack16 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

How many games would we have to win in a row before you started believing we were contenders to make a run? Anothe sweep? 10? 15 like the Red Sox? 20!!?

---

I'd say just getting to .500 in the next 3 weeks

Until we are .500 I can't believe we will contend for anything

---

Even then I'm not convinced.

The pitching rotation is way too shaky and really the entire staff.

Who, besides, Yordan scares an opposing staff consistently? I doubt we could get much for Walker so maybe let him ride things out but I've moved to believing we need to be sellers and restock the farm system. Everybody except Yordan and Altuve (because what can we actually get for him?) is fair game for a trade.

And as talented as Cam Smith is, he needs more time in AAA to see top-tier pitching unless you're OK with continuing to run him out there and let him get experience at the MLB level that he would have gotten in the minors under the way things used to work.

Just. Get. In.

Off-days ... near the trade deadline

Ag_07 said:

---

Just. Get. In.

---

Obligatory

the runs scored back then were not as big a difference than you think. We have scored 800 runs in a year ten times. Four of them were recent. Bagwell's 94 shortened year. 93 - 716 95 - 747. That is not a large amount

tjack16 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

How many games would we have to win in a row before you started believing we were contenders to make a run? Anothe sweep? 10? 15 like the Red Sox? 20!!?

---

I'd say just getting to .500 in the next 3 weeks

Until we are .500 I can't believe we will contend for anything

---

#ChaseThe.500

Ag_07 said:

---

Just. Get. In.

---

Not worth the lost opportunity cost of holding on to sellable valuable assets.

TarponChaser said:

---

In 1998 there were 49 qualified hitters who hit .300 vs. 7 this year. I think a whole lot of those guys who were hitting .300+ back then could have hit for a lot more power if they weren't going more for contact and vice versa for the guys today. I'm not saying these guys could all hit like Tony Gwynn but a change in philosophy would likely have a big difference.

---

steroids also did wonders for batting average

Caminiti was a .264 career hitter for the Astros

but a .295 career hitter with the Padres from ages 32 to 35

OK...but that wasn't the point.

I was replying to you saying that there was no amount wins to make this team a contender. I disagree

If you're in the playoffs you're a contender. There are numerous examples of middling teams getting in playoffs and then making a deep run.

Get in then win 13 games

Unlikely...Yes
Impossible...No

W said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

In 1998 there were 49 qualified hitters who hit .300 vs. 7 this year. I think a whole lot of those guys who were hitting .300+ back then could have hit for a lot more power if they weren't going more for contact and vice versa for the guys today. I'm not saying these guys could all hit like Tony Gwynn but a change in philosophy would likely have a big difference.

---

steroids also did wonders for batting average

Caminiti was a .264 career hitter for the Astros

but a .295 career hitter with the Padres from ages 32 to 35

---

Pitchers were on steroids too.

Gausman has always owned us and he would be an innings eater in the rotation. Being a groundballer also helps at home.

The #BlueJays are listening to trade offers on SP Kevin Gausman and OF Daulton Varsho, per @ragazzoreport pic.twitter.com/BQHf1WEaHS

— MLB Deadline News (@MLBDeadlineNews) July 23, 2026

Feel like Varsho has owned us too especially at MMP

TarponChaser said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

linkdude said:

---

DrZ said:

---

Yordan is my favorite player. great year. MVP Triple crown
He is on pace for 120 rbis
That would tie him with Bagwell's fifth best season.
Not even counting 94. He was on pace for 170 when strike occurred.
That year he had 116 rbis after 110 games. Yordan has 77 after 104

---

run scoring environment is night/day in 2026 vs mid-90s. It's home run or bust for most teams now.

Not to take anything away from Baggy, still amazing production.

---

There were just more runs scored back then. I attribute that to 1. Steroids and 2. The pitching was way worse. Guys didn't throw as hard, with as much spin, and faced the order 3-4 times when they weren't as effective.

---

The difference in runs scored is pretty negligible. In 1998 when McGwire hit 70 the average runs per game was 4.79 vs. 4.5 today.

The pitching wasn't worse at all, just different. If you measured velo with the tools and methods today the average fastball would be about 92 vs. 95 today. Plus, the average start back then went 7+ innings vs. 5.1-5.2 today. So not only do they not usually have to face the line up 3x or more the pitchers empty the tank on every pitch vs. keeping some in reserve. Look at a guy like Verlander - he always kept 99+ in reserve but generally cruised about 94 with lower effort and threw a lot of innings with long outings.

Guys could also use sticky stuff and they didn't trade out scuffed balls nearly as much as today so I think the spin rate stuff is a wash.

There are definitely more guys throwing harder today but that's more a function of the style of pitching and valuing pure stuff over pitchability. Walks per 9 innings are the same at 3.4 (this surprised me) while Ks are up from 6.6 to 8.5-9. While stuff accounts for some of it, some is pitchers rarely facing the lineup a third time and some is approach at the plate where power/XB are prioritized vs. contact hitting.

In 1998 there were 49 qualified hitters who hit .300 vs. 7 this year. I think a whole lot of those guys who were hitting .300+ back then could have hit for a lot more power if they weren't going more for contact and vice versa for the guys today. I'm not saying these guys could all hit like Tony Gwynn but a change in philosophy would likely have a big difference.

---

4.79 vs 4.45 (last season) is about 55 runs per team. Yordan has been ~17% of the RBIs for the Astros this year. We're talking about ~10 fewer RBI. I don't think that is negligible.

I think you are greatly mistaken on the velo conversation. I know it measured it at different points depending on the equipment. But we can easily see the increase in median fastball from 2015 to 2026 of 1.6 MPH. I have a very hard time believing there isn't another 3-5 more in velo difference from the mid 90s to 2015 based on philosophy alone.

The max effort, bullpen heavy, tunneling masters, data through the roof pitching of today is far, far superior than that of the 90s. There is no way I can be convinced otherwise.

DrZ said:

---

the runs scored back then were not as big a difference than you think. We have scored 800 runs in a year ten times. Four of them were recent. Bagwell's 94 shortened year. 93 - 716 95 - 747. That is not a large amount

---

Are you factoring in the Rays and DBacks? Its better to look at it on a per team bases.

The Red Sox continue to view Zach Neto as a strong fit in Boston, per @Ken_Rosenthal

Boston expressed interest in the Angels’ shortstop this past offseason, but talks didn’t progress to the point of exchanging names. pic.twitter.com/mDCMVHvSID

— Just Baseball (@JustBB_Media) July 23, 2026

I'm gonna be so pissed when they fleece the Sox with the guys we should have gotten for Pena and then start beating our arses annually

MaxPower said:

---

I'm gonna be so pissed when they fleece the Sox with the guys we should have gotten for Pena and then start beating our arses annually

---

But but but...we might get a wild card berth if we just give away K. Alvarez and Neyens in return for some mid RP and a 32 year old High A catcher.

txags92 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

I'm gonna be so pissed when they fleece the Sox with the guys we should have gotten for Pena and then start beating our arses annually

---

But but but...we might get a wild card berth if we just give away K. Alvarez and Neyens in return for some mid RP and a 32 year old High A catcher.

---

I think we have a better shot at the division than WC.

Those two would net at least a good reliever. Maybe Mason Miller.

Back to Neto and shortstop values.

2025-26 SS wRC+ (min 400 PA)
1. Jeremy Pena - 135
2. Kevin McGonigle - 133
3. Bobby Witt Jr - 126
4. Heraldo Perdomo - 124
5. Francisco Lindor - 123
6. CJ Abrams - 122
7. Corey Seager - 121
8. Colson Montgomery - 119
9. Jacob Wilson - 116
10. Bo Bichette - 115
11. Elly De La Cruz - 115
12. Zach Neto - 115

Even with 1 less year of control, I think Pena is more valuable than Neto. Whatever the Angels get would probably be similar to what we could have gotten for Pena.

Off day question. I've seen a lot of chatter here and online that we have to extend Pena. Let's say he's willing to do 5 years, $200M. That means you are paying him $40M a year starting next year. You solved the "who plays SS in 2028" problem.

My question is how are you improving this team in 2027 or even 2028 for that matter? We are projected to be around $200M in payroll next year without Pena so after that contract we are basically at the tax threshold without adding anyone. We have a garbage farm so the best we can do on the trade front is another Burrows dart throw. Unless Jim is opening up the check book big time I just don't see how we are doing anything other than a 2026 roll it back and I'm not sure why this team is one anyone would want to witness again.

Farmer1906 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

I'm gonna be so pissed when they fleece the Sox with the guys we should have gotten for Pena and then start beating our arses annually

---

But but but...we might get a wild card berth if we just give away K. Alvarez and Neyens in return for some mid RP and a 32 year old High A catcher.

---

I think we have a better shot at the division than WC.

Those two would net at least a good reliever. Maybe Mason Miller.

Back to Neto and shortstop values.

2025-26 SS wRC+ (min 400 PA)
1. Jeremy Pena - 135
2. Kevin McGonigle - 133
3. Bobby Witt Jr - 126
4. Heraldo Perdomo - 124
5. Francisco Lindor - 123
6. CJ Abrams - 122
7. Corey Seager - 121
8. Colson Montgomery - 119
9. Jacob Wilson - 116
10. Bo Bichette - 115
11. Elly De La Cruz - 115
12. Zach Neto - 115

Even with 1 less year of control, I think Pena is more valuable than Neto. Whatever the Angels get would probably be similar to what we could have gotten for Pena.

---

Arias and Eyanson for Pena and call it a day.

DrZ said:

---

Yordan is my favorite player. great year. MVP Triple crown
He is on pace for 120 rbis
That would tie him with Bagwell's fifth best season.
Not even counting 94. He was on pace for 170 when strike occurred.
That year he had 116 rbis after 110 games. Yordan has 77 after 104

---

Bagwell mostly batted 3rd in the order during his prime years and Yordan has mostly batted 2nd this year. There is a massive jump expected RBIs between those positions in the order even though they are only 1 spot apart.

2-hole hitter: Produces roughly 0.094 RBI per plate appearance.

3-hole hitter: Produces roughly 0.130 RBI per plate appearance

In addition, the OBPs of the 1990s Astros teams were way better than recent Astros teams.

1994 Astros OBP: .347 (Ranked 6th in the National League during a strike-shortened 115-game season led by MVP Jeff Bagwell)

2026 Astros OBP: .315 (Ranked 11th in the American League mid-season, paced by individual team leader Yordan Alvarez

Bagwell top RBI seasons:

1997 - 135 RBIs - .344 team OBP
2000 - 132 RBIs - .361 team OBP
2001 - 130 RBIs - .347 team OBP
1999 - 126 RBIs - .355 team OBP
1996 - 120 RBIs - .336 team OBP

Astros team OBP from 2019 to present:

2019 - .352
2020 - .312
2021 - .339
2022 - .319
2023 - .331
2024 - .322
2025 - .315
2026 - .315

MaxPower said:

---

Off day question. I've seen a lot of chatter here and online that we have to extend Pena. Let's say he's willing to do 5 years, $200M. That means you are paying him $40M a year starting next year. You solved the "who plays SS in 2028" problem.

My question is how are you improving this team in 2027 or even 2028 for that matter? We are projected to be around $200M in payroll next year without Pena so after that contract we are basically at the tax threshold without adding anyone. We have a garbage farm so the best we can do on the trade front is another Burrows dart throw. Unless Jim is opening up the check book big time I just don't see how we are doing anything other than a 2026 roll it back and I'm not sure why this team is one anyone would want to witness again.

---

1. I don't think we'll do a deal like that.
2. He's going to be cheaper in 2027 since he's in his final arb year.
3. I think we'll be under by more than 40 M, so we should be able to sign another piece.
4. Correa would be back, so there is another big bat we don't have this year.
5. I want to think we can develop at least 1 average big leaguer. We haven't had one since Pena.

BTKAG97 said:

---

DrZ said:

---

Yordan is my favorite player. great year. MVP Triple crown
He is on pace for 120 rbis
That would tie him with Bagwell's fifth best season.
Not even counting 94. He was on pace for 170 when strike occurred.
That year he had 116 rbis after 110 games. Yordan has 77 after 104

---

Bagwell mostly batted 3rd in the order during his prime years and Yordan has mostly batted 2nd this year. There is a massive jump expected RBIs between those positions in the order even though they are only 1 spot apart.

2-hole hitter: Produces roughly 0.094 RBI per plate appearance.

3-hole hitter: Produces roughly 0.130 RBI per plate appearance

In addition, the OBPs of the 1990s Astros teams were way better than recent Astros teams.

1994 Astros OBP: .347 (Ranked 6th in the National League during a strike-shortened 115-game season led by MVP Jeff Bagwell)

2026 Astros OBP: .315 (Ranked 11th in the American League mid-season, paced by individual team leader Yordan Alvarez

Bagwell top RBI seasons:

1997 - 135 RBIs - .344 team OBP
2000 - 132 RBIs - .361 team OBP
2001 - 130 RBIs - .347 team OBP
1999 - 126 RBIs - .355 team OBP
1996 - 120 RBIs - .336 team OBP

Astros team OBP from 2019 to present:

2019 - .352
2020 - .312
2021 - .339
2022 - .319
2023 - .331
2024 - .322
2025 - .315
2026 - .315

---

This year, the 2-hole is 0.116 vs. the 3-hole at 0.127. That is partially skewed because better hitters hit 2nd vs 3rd.

The gap in RBI this year is 118, but the gap in Runs Scored is 149 the other way. While it doesn't really work this way, 2 holes have produced 31 more runs than 3 holes.

If we don't do a deal like that he isn't signing anyway. You may be able to get a lower AAV if you sign him for 7 or 8 years but nothing about Crane suggests he would even consider that. As for 2027 salary, yes it may be lower in terms of dollars paid out but for luxury tax purposes that is irrelevant as it's based on the average value. Jim operates based on the tax threshold, not the actual salary commitment.

Curious why you think payroll without Peña will be less than $200M next year. We are at $235M this year and only have 5 free agents who are making a combined $12M this year. Hoping Imai idiotically opts out or someone dies?

MaxPower said:

---

If we don't do a deal like that he isn't signing anyway. You may be able to get a lower AAV if you sign him for 7 or 8 years but nothing about Crane suggests he would even consider that. As for 2027 salary, yes it may be lower in terms of dollars paid out but for luxury tax purposes that is irrelevant as it's based on the average value. Jim operates based on the tax threshold, not the actual salary commitment.

Curious why you think payroll without Peña will be less than $200M next year. We are at $235M this year and only have 5 free agents who are making a combined $12M this year. Hoping Imai idiotically opts out or someone dies?

---

I was doing rough math based on Fangraphs payroll. It shows ~95 M less before you factor in Arb and non Arb players. But I don't think it counts the options that are likely going to be picked up.

95 M
-39 M Arb
-9 M non arb
= 47 M
- 19 M Imai
- 12.3 M Paredes
=16.7 M lower

It actually comes out to more like 216 M more. Not even close to 200 M or the 186 I was thinking. I was way off. Pena, even with a slightly lower AAV (cheaper Arb yea) would put us over the cap. We'd be better off just making that kind of offer once he hits UFA.

Ultimately Jim needs to pick a lane. Either he is the guy who is going to pay in free agency or he's going to run a payroll below the luxury tax. If luxury tax is his goal then he is going to have to trade some of these guys. The math isn't mathing

MaxPower said:

---

Ultimately Jim needs to pick a lane. Either he is the guy who is going to pay in free agency or he's going to run a payroll below the luxury tax. If luxury tax is his goal then he is going to have to trade some of these guys. The math isn't mathing

---

The dumbest course is to be neither. Don't sign the big names to big contracts in FA and don't re-sign your own FAs or extend guys before they hit FA, but still go over the luxury tax anyway. If he isn't going to extend or re-sign our guys approaching FA, and he isn't going to go hard after the big FA signings, he HAS to start letting our GM trade those guys while they still have value so we can build from within. Straddling the fence does nothing but get you racked when your feet slip.

If we actually don't sign free agents and don't extend players, how do we spend so much money?

Farmer1906 said:

---

If we actually don't sign free agents and don't extend players, how do we spend so much money?

---

35 year old washed up 1st basemen mostly.

The last couple of years was dead money from Abreu, Montero, Pressly/Z Greinke 12.5M deferred payments (IIRC) accounting for a decent chunk of payroll. You could consider Correa's contract this year to be dead money as well.

3 people on the roster are guys we extended. That's not too bad but there are quite a few guys we could still extend and be better 2-6 years down the line.

The big money we've spent in free agency has been pretty bad besides Hader.

So we definitely do spend money, we just don't necessarily spend smart money anymore