Everybody always emphasizes that there will be competitions in Spring Training, where in theory the winner earns a roster spot. Wojo appears to have won his the 5th starter spot. Clearly there are other factors, like having options left and having clocks start. I would like to see Wojo giving his shot. The Astros starting rotation has three marginal 5th starters, Dallas, McHugh and Obe, who have developed beyond their prospects.
I do not follow ERA typically and had no idea he had a low 4 ERA when this discussion started. Peacock, Straily, Woj, and Deduno are all projected to produce more than Hernandez in defense independent stats in the projection systems I follow. When I say production for a pitcher, I am generally referring to things more or less directly under a pitcher's control (Ks, BBs, HR, HR/Fly Ball, pop ups). 34 year olds are not known quantities. Everyone is a prospect in regards to future performance. Hernandez has a decent chance that aging catches up to him and he produces negative value. Granted, outsi
Keuchel and McHugh definitely moved way past expectations. Obie was projected by most to be a solid, but unspectacular rotation workhorse, which is what he appears to be right now. But I agree with your sentiment. Wojo has had good results, backed by metrics this spring. It's ST of course but results are results. They shouldn't have wasted breath about this competition nonsense if one guy inarguably won the job, but didn't get the job.
I know this is semantics, but I don't like the word "has" as it implies Dallas and McHugh are still BoR guys.
I totally agree, and it isn't like Woj hasn't posted good stats in the minors. He struggled some last year, but wasn't healthy. He has earned the job. It would be different if it was remotely close (like Deduno & Hernandez were this spring), but he's been great. Not to mention, he is 26, there isn't much reason to assume he needs more time to be major league ready.
Astros lineup today Altuve Springer Valbuena Gattis Carter Castro Lowrie Singleton Marisnick It is a good lineup according to Hinch.
Flip Valbuena and Springer, and I would call this an idea lineup. Not sure why Valbuena is hitting 3rd.
Not to quibble, but I'll let you look up the list of pitchers that got great/very-good/above-average around and after they reached that age. It blows my mind that in a couple of the major sports (NBA/MLB), 20/23ish is considered "old" for a prospect that still has growth potential, and at 25ish you are practically a fossil.
Players' pro careers in both sports are starting off pretty early... and the truly special ones (in both leagues) not only make their debuts early but start to excel early. Thus, in a world where every "prospect" is expected to do great things (before they actually play a MLB game), a 23-26 year old IS old... because its more likely than not that this player will not be doing consistently "great" things, but will more likely be a role player-type that may have a handful of good seasons. Basically, people need to recalibrate expectations of prospects... there's only a few that will ever make an all-star team, let alone carve out an above-average MLB career.
Sorry. 4 Altuve (2b) 5 Valbuena/Lowrie 9 Springer (OF) 3 Carter DH/1B/LF 6 Correa/Lowrie 7 Gattis LF/DH/1B 2 Castro (C) 3 Singleton 1B/DH 8 Marisnick
Billy Wagner was 24, Hidalgo was 23, Hampton was 22, Moises was 25, Bagwell was 23, Biggio was 22, Randy Johnson was 26, Shane was 26, C4 was 24, Bell was 24, Lima was 22, Elarton was 22. That's when your '98 Astros made their debuts.
Mostly all college players... and the truly special ones out of the bunch (Bagwell/Biggio) didn't spend a lot of time being stashed in the minors. The remainder fit the spectrum of role-players with some good years... some with a few all-star appearances... and some who never lived up to expectations. Randy Johnson is the exception... not the norm.
I wouldn't qualify them as the "truly special ones." They fit the spectrum of "good" players who made some all-star teams. The view that an "old" prospect won't amount to much is compounded by the fact that most "great" players (or "truly special" players) in this game have made their debuts very early... simply because they were that good. Again, I don't think all 25 or 26 year olds making their debuts are incapable of carving out a quality career... just explaining why the "stigma" exists.
Nick, you're making this whole "stashed" argument ludicrously more important that it should be. Some players are ready quite early and some aren't. Some will never be, some need a few extra years (Phil Nevin ring a bell? Curt Schilling? Randy Johnson? A thousand other solid players that didn't hit their stride until they were in their mid 20's?) Eric Anthony was thought to be a star, they brought up when he was 22, was that a good idea? Cesar Cedeno was 19 and he was a badass. Caminiti was 24. Cameron Drew? Whatever happened to Willie Ansley? If you want to use some sort of "all-time-great" ruth/williams/mantle/pujols/trout standard, then yeah, everyone else has been found wanting.
Just trying to "unblow your mind" as to why people consider old prospects who don't make their pro debuts till after age 25 as "never will be's". Again, I feel all these guys eventually can fill a role. Some do it quite well and even make some all-star teams... but most don't. Hell, the recent World Series Cardinals teams (some drafted by Luhnow) featured a bunch of late bloomers who bloomed for them... and then faded away into oblivion. I'll take that sort of transient "success" on a team that seems to already have their young core "stars" in place (or on the launching pad).
