chico chupacabra wrote:

You may have goaded me, but it's still my choice to respond. Don't
give yourself that much credit. I'm not.

I'm done with the pertsonal crap. If it's baseball, I may respond
(especially when you make it easy). For instance, the Luke Scott
garbage you brought up.

ML

chico chupacabra wrote:

Not surprising that you snipped his OPS, which was over 1.200 over the
same time frame. It's the Chico way...don't let the facts get in the
way of a good rant.


Also snipped. My error was regarding Wilson's OPS, which at .735 (over
the last 30 days) was STILL 300 points below Luke Scott's.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Mark Liard wrote:


And thereby demonstrate your lack of self-control.


I'd never take credit for your poor character. That's all on you.

Mark Laird wrote:


No, it really isn't.


And your phony triumphal point is a strawman: my objection wasn't that
Scott was on the team at Wilson's expense, it was that Jason Lane and
certain others were.

chico chupacabra wrote:


If you genuinely want to talk baseball, how have the Astros improved
without Wilson? They're still under .500, they haven't scored a run in
~20 innings, and with a few exceptions -- namely against the
lowly Pirates and the game Saturday when Ohka totally imploded in the
first inning -- they've hardly had any offense in recent weeks. This
isn't a team that will go far in the playoffs if it even makes it.

chico chupacabra wrote:

I believe they have, albeit slightly. The hitting numbers don't
reflect it, as the offense is still pathetic in general. They are
still going through painful stretches of ineptitude, but they are also
scoring runs in bunches more than they were earlier in the season. As
I said, it's *slight*, but it's still improvement.

They're still under .500, they haven't scored a run in

They are 20-19 since August 1. I don't recall the exact date Wilson
was released, but that timeframe at least coincides with his drop in
PT. As much as is wrong with this team, it would be foolish to say
that this team is better BECAUSE he's gone. I don't know anyone who
can honestly believe that. Nonetheless, they have been a slightly, and
I stress the word "slightly", better team since his departure.


ML

Mark Laird wrote:


That's where it *should* be reflected since PW doesn't pitch.


The stats don't show it. Wilson will probably still be second in Astros
RBI when the season ends. He has almost as many RBI as a Cardinal as
Luke Scott has playing as an Astro this season, and Wilson's played in
half as many games and has half as many AB as a Cardinal as Scott has
as an Astro. I know Wilson strikes out too much, but Houston knew that
when they signed him. I know his power numbers are in decline, but so
are the other players like Lane the Astros could've ditched instead.


He was optioned on 8/12, unconditionally waived on 8/15.


Only because the schedule included about 10 games with the Pirates,
which Houston would've won with or without him. Against better teams --
like the team on which he now plays and even teams the quality of the
Brewers -- his absence is missed.

chico chupacabra wrote:

Not if the reason they are a better team is the pitching. You asked if
the Astros were a better team *since* his release, which I believe they
are, not *because* of his release, which I don't think anyone believes.
As I said, there are too many problems on this team to blame Wilson
for them all.


I said it's not reflected in the offensive numbers myself. It's only
reflected in the W-L columns, whcih is the only stat that really
matters, IMO.

Wilson will probably still be second in Astros

And 12-15 against the Mets, Phillies, Red, Padres, and Diamondbacks.


And I disagree. His numbers since the All-Star Break are horrid. The
OFers in the lineup (not Lane, Palmiero, etc.) are hitting circles
around him.

ML