I still can't believe it...Ensberg having a "magical" season.

[ROXRAN]

...You read the article in the chron, and I don't think the feeling or the understanding has sunk in. How can you put Ensberg with the great Albert Pujols in the same level?...

This year you can, the numbers now pretty much mirror one another...

Watching Ensberg is like watching David Blaine do street magic...You see it, but you can't come to terms with what you are seeing! You just want to pull Ensberg to the side, and ask him: "How did you do that,.. how did you do that?"

How has Ensberg done this? Tell me if anyone has seen this kind of production coming before the season... What has he done last year? Nothing! That's what, and now he has made his production go from watered down nothing coffee to filled count on it money...

It's not right...What we are seeing from Ensberg is something I can't believe. I don't know when I will start believing it, but until then, I will continue to enjoy the show and the run to the playoffs, due in large part to something fun and magical...

[Stack24]

The best was when they showed the salaries of Pujols, Lee, and Ensberg against each other and the stats they are putting up this year. We have him at a nice bargain alright.

[lost_elephant]

I was at the game yesterday and everytime the guy went up to bat, you got this fluttery feeling in your stomach that something great is about to happen. Everytime, and then he delivers with a monster double out to right center that bounces over the fence adding 2 needed runs to the board.

After all the success this season, he's still humble. I saw someone hit a popfly and I saw Morgan running from 2nd and rounding third until the ball was caught, hustling and scraping like he was some rookie just trying to make the team. I saw the guy make a mistake and got caught in a rundown in todays game, and usually I see players kind of give up in that situation, but he just kept pushing and forced an error and made it to third. He's got alot of heart.

[v3.0]

Seems to me he changed his batting stance this year, especially his foot stance, thought it had something to do with his breakout year...

[PhiSlammaJamma]

He's swinging the bat with that same confidence you see with guys like bonds alou, and pujols. Either the light went on or he's on roids. I dunno. But he looks way different. Absolutely no fear. I didn't see gim that gitst year. But Day'um, he looks confident.

[Svpernaut]

I really thought he would come around and be a superstar, and he is defiantely going to be just that. I love the fact that he is a stand up guy, as well as an amazing player too... like tonight he pointed a kid out in the crowd to give a ball to, he is the first and last guy before every game to give autographs to the kids, and tonight after the game they showed a shot of him going up and praising Bruntlett... he's an all around great guy and amazingly great player.

[Stack24]

Seems to me he changed his batting stance this year, especially his foot stance, thought it had something to do with his breakout year...

Yeah, one of his old coaches told him his stance last year was different from when he was hitting in high school and college and even the year before. So he went back to that stance this year and opened up a bit wider and boom, he is having a monster year. I dont think he will be changing up anytime soon.

[Svpernaut]

I think his struggles of last year helped give him the confidence we see in him now... What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

[Deuce Rings]

Many off season decisions and statements by Astros management had me shaking my head in disgust before the season and the first month of the season and certainly one of them was the rumors out of Spring Training about Morgan Ensberg batting clean-up. I mean at the time I was thinking "Clean Up??!!!".....what has this guy done to merit such a promotion? I don't know if Astros managment saw the full extent of this coming from Ensberg this season, but you have to nod your cap to them on this one. You could argue they didn't have a choice after the Beltran and Kent departures, but they could have gone out and purchased a replacement on the free agent market in the form of a Burnitz-type and decided to give the chance to Ensberg.

[Joshfast]

....and some people thought Beltre should have been plan B.

[HAYJON02]

I love Fox Mulder. Turned into a hell of a 3rd baseman. He's making me not miss having Spiers, Castilla or Caminiti anymore. If only his last name was Bensberg...

[Uprising]

Morgan rocks.

[Joshfast]

I love Fox Mulder. Turned into a hell of a 3rd baseman. He's making me not miss having Spiers, Castilla or Caminiti anymore. If only his last name was Bensberg...

I will always miss Spiers - but Bruntlett is like having Spiers kid or something though. :cool:

[HAYJON02]

Morgan rocks.
And I love that they call him Mo. Its washing away that unpleasant "other Mo" taste..

[No Worries]

Career year. Enjoy it while it lasts. I am.

[Raven Lunatic]

How has Ensberg done this? Tell me if anyone has seen this kind of production coming before the season... What has he done last year? Nothing! That's what, and now he has made his production go from watered down nothing coffee to filled count on it money...



Well, when Morgan finally admitted this season that he played much of last season injured, his sub par performance started to make a lot of sense. His first half season when he busted on to the scene with those 18 homers was really more telling of what to expect from Morgan than last year. This year just proves it.

[Aceshigh7]

I admit, I was wrong about Ensberg. Hard to believe now, but I used to advocate benching Ensberg and making Mike Lamb our everyday 3rd baseman.

[gwayneco]

I admit, I was wrong about Ensberg. Hard to believe now, but I used to advocate benching Ensberg and making Mike Lamb our everyday 3rd baseman.

At least that was a logical position to take in 2004 and early this year. But Jimy Williams insistence in 2003 on playing Geoff Blum at Ensberg's expense should have gotten him fired. The Astros only missed the playoffs by a game that year, and I can't help but wonder if about 75 more ABs from Ensberg would have done the trick.

[white lightning]

In 2003, with roughly the same amount of at bats for the year as he's had to this point, he hit .291 with 25 homers, so I don't think that the power he's shown thus far is a big shock to anyone on the Astros. The surprising stat was last years lack of power. I think we can expect more 30+ homerun seasons from him in the future. Just think back to last year's team, and then say "Let's get rid of Beltran and Backwell and see what happens". Could anyone imagine how well they have done to this point?

[today]

Morgan's name always reminds me of Good Will Hunting, and this classic baseball-related scene:

Chuckie: Morgan, if you're watching pornos again in my moms room, I'm gonna give you a beating!

(Morgan Comes Downstairs wearing a baseball glove)
Morgan: Sup Fellas?

Billy: Why don't you jerk off in your own house, dude?

Morgan: I don't have a VCR at my house.

Chuckie: Come on, not in my glove.

Morgan: I didn't... I didn't use the glove.

Chuckie: That's my Little League glove.

Morgan: What do you want me to do?

Chuckie: I mean, what's wrong with you? You hump a baseball glove?

Morgan: I didn't... I didn't... I just used it for... for cleanup.

Chuckie: Stop jerking off in my mother's room, please!

Morgan: Is there another VCR in the house?

Chuckie: It's just sad bro.

[Svpernaut]

Just think back to last year's team, and then say "Let's get rid of Beltran and Backwell and see what happens". Could anyone imagine how well they have done to this point?

Some of us did, see my sig :-)

[BigM]

Career year. Enjoy it while it lasts. I am.

i'll be enjoying it alot longer than just this year.

when i watch ensberg this season i get the same feeling i did two years ago when he was seemingly hitting a homerun every at bat and blossoming into a great player. if you consider he played most of last year hurt, this season is his actual continuation from his breakout '03.

this may very well be his best statistical year, i don't know, but i can easily see him hitting .290 30+hrs 100+rbis for the next 6 or 7 years. he's looking like a great player.

[Svpernaut]

this may very well be his best statistical year, i don't know, but i can easily see him hitting .290 30+hrs 100+rbis for the next 6 or 7 years. he's looking like a great player.

Don't forget the 40+ doubles and 100+ runs!

[Nick]

In 2003, with roughly the same amount of at bats for the year as he's had to this point, he hit .291 with 25 homers, so I don't think that the power he's shown thus far is a big shock to anyone on the Astros. The surprising stat was last years lack of power. I think we can expect more 30+ homerun seasons from him in the future. Just think back to last year's team, and then say "Let's get rid of Beltran and Backwell and see what happens". Could anyone imagine how well they have done to this point?

Both Ensberg and the team have already said publicly that he had a very sore/strained elbow last year that severely limited his power. He played through it, and didn't tell anybody, because he was a gamer.

He obviously has one of the best power swings in the league... its so smooth when he makes direct contact... but he also needs the elbow behind it to make it go. Last year, he'd make the same swing and it would look like a HR... but it would be a meaningless pop fly to shallow left-center.

Whatever they did to help his elbow get better ended up being one of the top reasons we're in contention this year. It saved his career, saved this team, and will possibly lead to even greater things in the future from him.

(also, whoever fixed Pettite's elbow earns mucho respect as well... this guy is having his best year EVER... and he's been pitching for 11 years).

[MadMax]

the power numbers don't shock me. seriously. we saw he was capable as a very young guy hitting homers back in 2003. i'm not shocked there.

the combination of power and good average is surprising to me. i figured he could hit homers and hit around .265. he's hitting closer to .300 with that kind of power. very impressive.

[Oski2005]

I still can't believe it...Ensberg having a "magical" season.

And I still can't believe it's not butter.
http://tinypic.com/adkvn4.jpg

[Hammer755]

To me, Ensberg is another example of the poor player development plan that the Astros have been suffering from the past few years. He is 30 years old, which is pretty old for a guy to be having such a huge jump in production. If the organization would have given him significant AB's in 2000 or 2001 instead of waiting until 2003, Ensberg may have reached this level 2 or 3 years ago. It looks like the same thing will happen to Burke, and there are other examples up and down the organization - Jason Lane, Luke Scott, Charlton Jimerson, Hunter Pence. All of these guys have had or have the potential to have their developoment seriously stunted by the club's lack of willingness to advance players through the minors and onto the big league club.

[Svpernaut]

To me, Ensberg is another example of the poor player development plan that the Astros have been suffering from the past few years. He is 30 years old, which is pretty old for a guy to be having such a huge jump in production. If the organization would have given him significant AB's in 2000 or 2001 instead of waiting until 2003, Ensberg may have reached this level 2 or 3 years ago. It looks like the same thing will happen to Burke, and there are other examples up and down the organization - Jason Lane, Luke Scott, Charlton Jimerson, Hunter Pence. All of these guys have had or have the potential to have their developoment seriously stunted by the club's lack of willingness to advance players through the minors and onto the big league club.

Yeah, the Astros don't know what the hell they are doing with their farm system! They've just somehow been in contention nearly every year for over a freaking decade!

[bobrek]

To me, Ensberg is another example of the poor player development plan that the Astros have been suffering from the past few years. He is 30 years old, which is pretty old for a guy to be having such a huge jump in production. If the organization would have given him significant AB's in 2000 or 2001 instead of waiting until 2003, Ensberg may have reached this level 2 or 3 years ago. It looks like the same thing will happen to Burke, and there are other examples up and down the organization - Jason Lane, Luke Scott, Charlton Jimerson, Hunter Pence. All of these guys have had or have the potential to have their developoment seriously stunted by the club's lack of willingness to advance players through the minors and onto the big league club.


Ensberg was drafted in 1998. He played A ball in 1999, he played AA in 2000 (and a handful of games at the ML level), he played AAA in 2001, he made the majors in 2002.

Giving him significant at bats in 2000 would have meant he made the jump from A to the majors. Not many players have ever done that.

[Hammer755]

Ensberg was drafted in 1998. He played A ball in 1999, he played AA in 2000 (and a handful of games at the ML level), he played AAA in 2001, he made the majors in 2002.

Giving him significant at bats in 2000 would have meant he made the jump from A to the majors. Not many players have ever done that.

A high-round draft pick out of one of the best baseball programs in the country should not still be at AA after 2.5 seasons, which is what happened to Ensberg. He then rotted in AAA for 2 more seasons, which was a complete waste. 2000 would probably have been a stretch, but he should have been in AAA by then, and been promoted in 2001. He had no business spending all of 2000 at AA, where he was 24 and completely dominating the Texas League.

[bobrek]

A high-round draft pick out of one of the best baseball programs in the country should not still be at AA after 2.5 seasons, which is what happened to Ensberg. He then rotted in AAA for 2 more seasons, which was a complete waste. 2000 would probably have been a stretch, but he should have been in AAA by then, and been promoted in 2001. He had no business spending all of 2000 at AA, where he was 24 and completely dominating the Texas League.

So you think that Ensberg should have sat on the bench (for most of the year) in 2001 behind Castilla or should he have gained additional experience and a consistent amount of at bats in AAA?

Is it the least bit possible that the Astros handled Ensberg correctly which allowed him to become the player he is?

You do realize he hit under .240 in A ball in 1999? So are you sure he should have made the jump from A to AAA?

[Hammer755]

So you think that Ensberg should have sat on the bench (for most of the year) in 2001 behind Castilla or should he have gained additional experience and a consistent amount of at bats in AAA?

Is it the least bit possible that the Astros handled Ensberg correctly which allowed him to become the player he is?

You do realize he hit under .240 in A ball in 1999? So are you sure he should have made the jump from A to AAA?

Where did I say he should have jumped from A to AAA? What I said was that it was apparent in 2000 that he didn't belong in AA, and should have been promoted to AAA as soon as the club realized it. He could have spent the last half of 2000 and first-half of 2001 in AAA, then been with the big club by the end of the year.

Doesn't it make sense that if you would have gotten him to the big-leagues 2 seasons earlier, then he would have been playing like this 2 seasons earlier? Studies consistently show that big-league players generally peak around age 27 or 28. Some don't peak until age 30, so I'm not saying conclusively that Ensberg would have played better with an earlier debut, but the career arcs of thousands of players are a pretty good indicator that he would have. Good players simply should not spend their 25 and 26 year old seasons at AAA.

[Svpernaut]

A high-round draft pick out of one of the best baseball programs in the country should not still be at AA after 2.5 seasons, which is what happened to Ensberg. He then rotted in AAA for 2 more seasons, which was a complete waste. 2000 would probably have been a stretch, but he should have been in AAA by then, and been promoted in 2001. He had no business spending all of 2000 at AA, where he was 24 and completely dominating the Texas League.

Yeah, because someone who dominates the Texas League is a proven success story right? Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Luke Scott. Also, where are you getting your math from in the first place? he was drafted in 98, which made his first full year in our system 1999, and he made the majors for four games in 2000, and then came back in 2002. His drought in 2001 can be directed to the fact that for 124 games that season we had Vinny Castilla in the lineup... and in those 124 games Castilla hit 24 homers and drove in 86 runs, far more then Ensberg would have hit in an entire rookie season. Not to mention the fact that Castilla made 7.25 million that year.

Other then Jimy Williams platooning him with Geoff Blum in 2002 his advancement through our system was right on par to what it should have been. Castilla was a better option in 2001, and 2002 was a nice welcoming to the league. Should he have gotten more playing time then Blum, maybe but he only hit .242 in the 49 games he did play in... so he didn't exactly make an amazing case for himself (Blum hit .283 in 2002). We traded Castilla to the D-Rays before the end of the 2001 season because they knew Ensberg was the future.

If Ensberg would have made the league in 2001 he wouldn't be the player he is today... and it didn't make sense with Castilla on the team. As much as I love the guy he wasn't blessed with the natural talent of a Pujols or Cabrerra... and he sure as crap wasn't going to be an amazing hitter right off the bat. He's what you call a "smart player" and the majority of his offensive success is from learning, not God given talent. He has amazing talent, but he also is a player that calculates the intricacies of the game... he's even said he thinks too much.

[bobrek]

Where did I say he should have jumped from A to AAA? What I said was that it was apparent in 2000 that he didn't belong in AA, and should have been promoted to AAA as soon as the club realized it. He could have spent the last half of 2000 and first-half of 2001 in AAA, then been with the big club by the end of the year.

Doesn't it make sense that if you would have gotten him to the big-leagues 2 seasons earlier, then he would have been playing like this 2 seasons earlier? Studies consistently show that big-league players generally peak around age 27 or 28. Some don't peak until age 30, so I'm not saying conclusively that Ensberg would have played better with an earlier debut, but the career arcs of thousands of players are a pretty good indicator that he would have. Good players simply should not spend their 25 and 26 year old seasons at AAA.

What about the fact he would have languished on the bench of a pennant contending team in 2001 behind Castilla?

In addition, he was essentially handed the 3rd base job in 2002 but had a miserable start and Blum eventually took over and had a very good year.

[Hammer755]

What about the fact he would have languished on the bench of a pennant contending team in 2001 behind Castilla?

In addition, he was essentially handed the 3rd base job in 2002 but had a miserable start and Blum eventually took over and had a very good year.

The Castilla signing was a waste of money - he got paid veteran money to provide league-average production (I'm not sure how much the Astros actually paid, so it may not have been that big of a risk). I'm not saying Ensberg would have done better, but he couldn't have been much worse.

And the fact that Jimy Williams jettisoned Ensberg after only 100 AB says more about Williams than it does about Ensberg. This is exactly what I'm talking about - the front office's decision not to advance the players quickly enough and to make boneheaded moves for 'proven vets' like Castilla are bad for the development of the young guys.

[Oski2005]

The Castilla signing was a waste of money - he got paid veteran money to provide league-average production (I'm not sure how much the Astros actually paid, so it may not have been that big of a risk). I'm not saying Ensberg would have done better, but he couldn't have been much worse.

Ok, now we know you have no freaking clue what you are talking about and are just bitching for bitching's sake.

In 122 games with the Astros, we got Vinny off of waivers I believe, he hit .270, banged 23 HRs, and knocked in 82 RBIs. That was in 122 games. If he had been in houston taht whole season, his numbers would have been something like 27 HRs and 98 RBIs. That's based on the total amount of games he played that season. Of course, in Tampa, he wasn't playing much at all and it's therefore concievable he could have had a 30 HR and 100+ RBI year in Houston. His production here in 122 games was way more than the "league average", so even without the possible full season stats, your argument is still totally f'd in the a.

[bobrek]

The Castilla signing was a waste of money - he got paid veteran money to provide league-average production (I'm not sure how much the Astros actually paid, so it may not have been that big of a risk). I'm not saying Ensberg would have done better, but he couldn't have been much worse.

And the fact that Jimy Williams jettisoned Ensberg after only 100 AB says more about Williams than it does about Ensberg. This is exactly what I'm talking about - the front office's decision not to advance the players quickly enough and to make boneheaded moves for 'proven vets' like Castilla are bad for the development of the young guys.

The Astros paid next to nothing (relatively speaking) for Castilla. Castilla's offense and defense in 2001 was a major factor in the Astros winning the division.

[Svpernaut]

The Castilla signing was a waste of money - he got paid veteran money to provide league-average production (I'm not sure how much the Astros actually paid, so it may not have been that big of a risk). I'm not saying Ensberg would have done better, but he couldn't have been much worse.

And the fact that Jimy Williams jettisoned Ensberg after only 100 AB says more about Williams than it does about Ensberg. This is exactly what I'm talking about - the front office's decision not to advance the players quickly enough and to make boneheaded moves for 'proven vets' like Castilla are bad for the development of the young guys.

Are you smoking crack? Ensberg would not have hit 24 homeruns and 84 RBIs in 2001 in the majors... As mentioned above the Astros were in playoff contention, and the thought of starting an unproven rookie over a proven vetern is ridiculous. Hunsicker WOULD have brought Ensberg up had he not broken a bone in his hand and missed the final 3rd of the season.

As far as Jimy not playing him in 2002, Morgan didn't prove himself. He hit just .206 in spring training. Feel free to point out ANY of his stats that would have led you to believe he should get more playing time then Blum in 2002? I'm no Jimy Williams fan by any stretch of the immagination, but in 2002 he went by who played better... and throughout the entire season that was Blum. Blum did better in every average based offensive category, and he did it by a landslide.

It is easy for you to sit here 3 seasons later and say Jimy was stupid in 2002 for playing Blum over Ensberg... but that year Blum was the better player and better option. Ensberg wasn't nearly as good of a fielder as Blum was in 2002. Blum only had 8 errors in 824 innings (275 total chances) at 3rd base, and Ensberg had 8 errors in just 328 innings (112 total chances). The bottom line is Blum led Ensberg in EVERY category, offensive and defensive so saying the Astros screwed up not playing him is laughable to say the least.

[Hammer755]

Ok, now we know you have no freaking clue what you are talking about and are just bitching for bitching's sake.

In 122 games with the Astros, we got Vinny off of waivers I believe, he hit .270, banged 23 HRs, and knocked in 82 RBIs. That was in 122 games. If he had been in houston taht whole season, his numbers would have been something like 27 HRs and 98 RBIs. That's based on the total amount of games he played that season. Of course, in Tampa, he wasn't playing much at all and it's therefore concievable he could have had a 30 HR and 100+ RBI year in Houston. His production here in 122 games was way more than the "league average", so even without the possible full season stats, your argument is still totally f'd in the a.

Vinny's OPS+ (OPS corrected for park factor) in his time with the Astros was 102 - so not league average, but just 2% above. Remember, Enron Field was even more of a bandbox then than it is now. Vinny's OBP was a paltry 0.320 and his SLG% was only 0.492. Those numbers tell the story more than '23 HR and 82 RBI'.

[Oski2005]

His slugging was ONLY .492? That would put him in the top 50 this season and 52 overall that year. Where did you find the average ops+ for the league? I had to calculate it quickly and got 97. Either way, you still assert we payed him a lot of money when we clearly didn't. So what we payed vs what we got was a steal. Add that to the other arguments of Ensberg not showing many signs of being the player he is now even after 2001 and I still can't see how you would argue Ensberg should have been playing instead of Vinny. Plus, Dierker said during the game that we wouldn't have made it to the playoffs had they not added Vinny. I'll take the managers word over your stat hunting any day of the week.

[PhiSlammaJamma]

What happened that made the scores come way down at Minute Maid. It seems like much of the park is permanent. No more 10-9 scores? What happened?

[Svpernaut]

Vinny's OPS+ (OPS corrected for park factor) in his time with the Astros was 102 - so not league average, but just 2% above. Remember, Enron Field was even more of a bandbox then than it is now. Vinny's OBP was a paltry 0.320 and his SLG% was only 0.492. Those numbers tell the story more than '23 HR and 82 RBI'.

Your argument is laughable dude... Vinny Castilla was a big reason the Astros even made it to the playoffs that year. We got him for roughly 2 million dollars, and the Devil Rays forked over 5+ million to him. Yeah, let's throw an unproven minor leaguer into the everyday starting lineup... at a key position like 3rd base. The Astros made the playoffs that year, what the hell are you complaining about? Ensberg was second fiddle to Blum in 2002 in EVERY category, what the hell are you complaining about?

[Oski2005]

What happened that made the scores come way down at Minute Maid. It seems like much of the park is permanent. No more 10-9 scores? What happened?

I don't think any changes have been made to the field. I think it was mental. If pitchers believed they were going to get shelacked, then they got shelacked. Now they know it's possible to pitch there.

[Svpernaut]

What happened that made the scores come way down at Minute Maid. It seems like much of the park is permanent. No more 10-9 scores? What happened?

The pitchers learned how to pitch there. If you keep the ball out of left field MM is a very pitcher friendly park.

[Hammer755]

His slugging was ONLY .492? That would put him in the top 50 this season and 52 overall that year. Where did you find the average ops+ for the league? I had to calculate it quickly and got 97. Either way, you still assert we payed him a lot of money when we clearly didn't. So what we payed vs what we got was a steal. Add that to the other arguments of Ensberg not showing many signs of being the player he is now even after 2001 and I still can't see how you would argue Ensberg should have been playing instead of Vinny. Plus, Dierker said during the game that we wouldn't have made it to the playoffs had they not added Vinny. I'll take the managers word over your stat hunting any day of the week.

If you read my post again, I clearly did not say that the Astros paid a lot of money for Castilla. What I said was that I didn't know how much they paid and how much Tampa paid. And I haven't said that I would have given Ensberg the starting spot over Castilla.

What I have said in this thread:
1.) The Astros have a history of stunting players development by their lack of advancement through the organization, Ensberg being the topic of this thread.
2.) Castilla's season in Houston is vastly overrated.
3.) Ensberg probably would have been putting up these numbers earlier had he been promoted earlier.

I just remembered why I don't post much in this forum any more. Jeez, you start throwing some numbers around,and people either twist your argument to what they think you said or automatically dismiss your logic because, heaven forbid, you use some actual facts to back up your opinion and not just gut instinct.

[gwayneco]

Although Hunsicker was the most successful GM the Astros ever had, this is the one chink in his armor. He was way too skeptical of young players. We see this from fans too. They are more content to go with guys they know than to take risks on younger players. And then when the younger players don't set the world on fire after 100-200 ABs, they want to go out and get a mediocre veteran to replace him.

[Buck Turgidson]

Doesn't it make sense that if you would have gotten him to the big-leagues 2 seasons earlier, then he would have been playing like this 2 seasons earlier?
No. Not in the least. Not even a tiny little bit.

Ensberg was a very flawed offensive player until about a month into this season. It was all mental, he's had the tools forever. Sometimes it just takes a couple of years before guys "get it". If he hadn't been hurt last year, there's a chance we would have seen this Ensberg a year sooner. Who knows? Other folks have covered the Castilla angle in '01, so I won't repeat their comments.

Your comments about "another example of poor player development" using Jimmerson, Burke, Pence, Scott & Lane are utter crap. Think about those players & then tell us why they are poor examples of what you're attempting to say.

Here's the ages of when some prominent Astros youngsters got their first taste of major P.T. (most made their debut a year earlier):
Berkman 24
Qualls 25
Lidge 26
Burke 25
Lane 27
Ward 24
Oswalt, Redding, Miller all 23
Everett 26
Ensberg 26

You're tilting at windmills again, Mssr. Quixote.

Biggio & Bagwell were 23, starting on a team with zero hope of competing, and were much, much better "prospects" than any of the position players above, outside Berkman.

All players are not created equal. Some are ready earlier, some take more time. The makeup of the roster & the expectations of the team play into this as well.

[gwayneco]

No. Not in the least. Not even a tiny little bit.

Ensberg was a very flawed offensive player until about a month into this season.

Did you sleep through his 2003 season?

[Buck Turgidson]

What I have said in this thread:
1.) The Astros have a history of stunting players development by their lack of advancement through the organization, Ensberg being the topic of this thread.

3.) Ensberg probably would have been putting up these numbers earlier had he been promoted earlier.

I just remembered why I don't post much in this forum any more...because, heaven forbid, you use some actual facts to back up your opinion and not just gut instinct.
These are nowhere close to being "facts".

[bobrek]

What I have said in this thread:
1.) The Astros have a history of stunting players development by their lack of advancement through the organization, Ensberg being the topic of this thread.
2.) Castilla's season in Houston is vastly overrated.
3.) Ensberg probably would have been putting up these numbers earlier had he been promoted earlier.

I just remembered why I don't post much in this forum any more. Jeez, you start throwing some numbers around,and people either twist your argument to what they think you said or automatically dismiss your logic because, heaven forbid, you use some actual facts to back up your opinion and not just gut instinct.

Actual facts:

1) Ensberg was promoted a level each year he was in the Astros organization.

2) The Astros had a 3rd baseman who put up solid numbers on contending teams in 2001 and 2002 in the persons of Castilla and Blum, which prevented the immediacy of Ensberg starting and kept him in the minors where he got consistent at bats rather than relagating him to spot starting and pinch hitting. Arguably (not a fact) this led to him being a better hitter and overall player since he did see consistent playing time.

3) The Astros have been contenders for a playoff berth every year since 1994 (with the exception of 2000). They MUST be doing something right with respect to putting the proper players on the field.

4) Burke has been unfortunate in so much as he has been stuck behind Biggio and Kent at 2nd base.

5) You can add Hidalgo (22), Abreu (23), Wagner (24), Hampton (22), and Elarton (23) (among others) to Buck's list.

[Buck Turgidson]

Did you sleep through his 2003 season?
Not in the least. He had flaws. As I said, all mental (except for the portion of last year when he was using that ridiculous spread-out quasi-Bagwell stance, would love to know what he was thinking there, and if the elbow had anything to do with it). I know there's no numbers I can pull out to provide your desired "concrete evidence", but that doesn't mean you can disqualify the non-quantifiable.

You may not like to, or able to, form sound opinions based on observational or anecdotal evidence - analyze a swing or pitching mechanics, discuss the mental approach , sound out the multiple factors entering into a manager's decision, or any number of other things - but don't have the arrogance to assume that that means nobody can.

And in no way am I discounting the use of stats here, they're a wonderful tool, and there's people in every single MLB front office and dugout who are paid a bunch of money to understand and utilize those stats, integrated with copious amounts of observational evidence (video & scouting reports).

Statistics without context and context without statistics are equally flawed.

[gwayneco]

Not in the least. He had flaws. As I said, all mental (except for the portion of last year when he was using that ridiculous spread-out quasi-Bagwell stance, would love to know what he was thinking there, and if the elbow had anything to do with it). I know there's no numbers I can pull out to provide your desired "concrete evidence", but that doesn't mean you can disqualify the non-quantifiable.

You may not like to, or able to, form sound opinions based on observational or anecdotal evidence - analyze a swing or pitching mechanics, discuss the mental approach , sound out the multiple factors entering into a manager's decision, or any number of other things - but don't have the arrogance to assume that that means nobody can.

And in no way am I discounting the use of stats here, they're a wonderful tool, and there's people in every single MLB front office and dugout who are paid a bunch of money to understand and utilize those stats, integrated with copious amounts of observational evidence (video & scouting reports).

Statistics without context and context without statistics are equally flawed.

If you think he was flawed in 2003, then I wish he would bottle those flaws and give it to Ausmus, Everett, Taveras, and Lane.

[ROXRAN]

The main thing is I think we can all agree he has found a stance to keep! ...