A pick after the 30th round making the majors in any capacity is a scouting win, though James is probably a better example. Jankowski apparently taught Peacock how to throw his slider, so you could contribute some of his (and by extension, McHugh's) success to him. That's all I got.
Based on Jankowski's 4.1 inning performance, I respectfully disagree. I suspect there are a number of players who can come straight out of college as a 30+ round pick and perform just as "well" with no development whatsoever. I am not denigrating the Astros' ability to recognize and develop players, but Jankowski is not the poster boy of "success".
Getting an occasional player from the bottom rounds is great, as is having players succeed in the big leagues without ever being on a Top 100 list. But the reality is that for virtually EVERY good team ever, their success was built (and sustained) on the top of the draft and with prospects rated very highly (I.e. Top 100 lists). Rough research shows that ~80% of big league stars were either drafted in the top 2 rounds or signed a hefty international bonus, and roughly that same % were on Top 100 lists at some point. A team needs to average developing 1 core position player and 1 core pitcher every year. Take a look at Houston’s pipeline of “key” players making their mlb debut by year: 2011: 2B Altuve/(Lyles) 2012: 1B Marwin/Keuchel 2013: C Stassi/(Cosart) 2014: OF Springer/(Folty) 2015: SS Correa/McCullers 2016: 3B Bregman/Devenski 2017: OF (Fisher)/(Martes) 2018: OF (Tucker)/James 2019: Alvarez/Whitley 2020: Toro?/Bukauskas 2021: Beer/Solomon? 2022: McKenna?/Freure? 2023: Nova/Schroeder 2024: Joe Perez?/Macuare? 2025: Perry?/Rodriguez? Sure, some top prospects will bust, some obscure prospects will succeed, and the roster will be impacted by other moves (trades, waivers, free agent signings, extensions). But without being successful in the top 2 rounds and without consistently developing (and keeping) prospects who populate the Top 100 lists, no team will be successful. And at this point, without some big surprises, Houston’s pipeline of those types of players appears to have dried up after this season (or possibly next if Bukauskas, Martin, and Alvarez are delayed a year).
No GM is consistently hitting on the first two rounds over the long term. Particularly if they’re drafting at the back half of the first round. Luhnow has some pretty obvious swing and misses, but so does every team.
That’s interesting, could definitely see myself blowing an hour at work doing this. I knew Altuve wasn’t though, his size killed any chance of that happening.
Altuve also moved very quickly. He only played 35 games in AA and skipped AAA. Had he spent all of 2011 in the upper minors hitting the way he was, he likely would have been in the back half of most preseason 2012 Top 100s despite his size. Of Houston’s 8 everyday position players, Altuve (skipped upper minors), Brantley (lack of HR), Gurriel (didn’t come to US until his 30s) and Chirinos (extremely late bloomer) didn’t make any Top 100 lists. In the rotation, McHugh (late bloomer) and Miley (fast mover) never showed up on those. A ton of bullpen guys are never Top 100 types, but Osuna and James were Top 100 prospect to at one time.
And in the regularly scheduled game, Nivaldo Rodriguez threw a (7-inning) complete game shutout. 7 IP, 2 H, BB, 9 K
It is hard to really evaluate Luhnow when it comes to the draft. He obviously is good, he hit with a high percentage of his top draft picks and they were not no brainer picks like Harper. What I would like to know, is how much of it really good talent evaluation and how much of it is having a REALLY strong coaching and development staff. The Astros are considered one of (if not the best) at developing players in their minor league system. Their coaching and information and one on one development is considered elite. I don't agree with the sentiment that Luhnow has been average in the draft though. He has drafted Correa, Bregman, McCullers, Whitley, Tucker and James so far. While he has had high draft picks, there were not clear cut #1 picks everyone would take. Both Bregman and Correa were viewed as reaches by some. McCullers was criticized as a reach. Hell, the player no one really criticized us for taking #1 ended up out of baseball. I would like to see better development from the international signings. I keep hearing about how impressive the arms are after we have them for awhile, but we really haven't gotten a lot of mileage out of them.
Yep, if there's one area that can be viewed as a weakness and is ripe for improvement it's identifying and signing top level foreign talent.
Our strategy has been to not bid on the very top guys in the classes. I don't expect the Astros to outbid teams like the Yankees or Cubs or Red Sox very often. However, we seem to really stay out of the top 5-10 guys in a class and concentrate on a lot of the "B" level guys, especially pitchers. I just see teams like the Cubs go out and spend to get Jimenez and Torres and the Blue Jays to go out and target Guerrero Jr. There really doesn't seem to be a reason we could not have or do something similar. I know that the international market is a crap shoot........... but if you go pull up the last 6-7 years of the top signings, and see how many of the very top ones have been either good players at the MLB level or as trade bait, the amount is fairly good.
Drafting 16 year olds is more of a crap shot than drafting 18 year olds. Who knows what their body will look like or what their skills will be, when they hit 21?
..but incredibly valuable as the MLBPA has basically given owners cost protection for international signings in exchange for a better snacks pre-game.
