It totally affects things. If you have top hitting catchers, CF's, 2b's or SS's, their prospect status elevated significantly. Guess there's not much of a difference between LF and 1B, but prospect rankers like to write "top ranked 1B prospect" to justify his position. Personally, I think he's been overrated as a prospect and possesses even more holes in his swing than Springer has shown. Additionally, the suspension and subsequent weight gain can't be good things.
There's a lot of subjective examples there. Again, show me a player who's career has been decimated by being called up too early. And even then, there's countless players who succeeded at a much younger age than Springer is now. Also, the Cardinals took chances on a very young Albert Pujols and a very young Shelby Miller... those players are good because that's who they are, not because they were "developed" the right way. Hell, even the Marlins took a chance on a 19 year old Miguel Cabrerra... who helped them win a world series.
Agreed... most MLB players don't have tremendous success when there's 2 strikes, and the ones that suffer the most are the ones that don't have much more to bring to the table (the Chris Carters, the Brett Wallace's....)
The Stros will be as good as Crane is willing to commit $$$$ in 5 yrs. Luhnow is the Stros version of a wizard.
I would, except that's an impossible counterfactual. Player called up too early whose career is decimated = "He was never that good!" It's impossible to tell, and all that can really be said is some organizations buy more into the "sink or swim" approach to prospects while others prefer to steadily groom them. Our organization happens to be the latter, and I don't see the sense in ripping them for it. I'd have to go digging for the Baseball Prospectus article somewhere too, but there's some research that shows pitchers usually "have it" or they don't, and once they "have it" you need to call them up because they only have so many good innings in their careers - you don't want to waste those. Thus, calling up Jose Fernandez this year from A ball made some sense. Hitters, on the other hand, grow and mature slowly over time and usually peak at age 28. There's no rush to use them quickly, unless you think a player can add 1-2 wins and you really care about a playoff race. And let's be honest: over the course of the rest of the season, Springer might add an extra win, maybe two if he's awesome. You really want to risk it--"it" being the unknown ruining of prospects that many organizations seem to fear?
Not impossible. All you need is a player who had super elite college or minor league numbers and failed in the majors. Then, you see if that player was noticebly rushed (ie - less than a year at any level). Trust me, if there were several of those cases, BP or some other source would have found them and made examples of them (or you'd hear those names being tossed around by those defending leaving Springer down). Meanwhile, its pretty easy to find examples of the opposite (players rushed up who ultimately succeed). I actually read BP on a regular basis... and the latest book they put out went through an in depth analysis. And while they stated that hitters took a little longer to reach their peak, they still found that elite HS hitters ended up having more MLB success (vs elite college hitters), and players who ultimately have success usually make their debut at a younger age. Again, not buying the "ruining" prospects theory... even for guys who were once considered inmature and on the verge of mental or social breakdowns due to being up at a young age (ahem Josh Hamilton)... those with talent eventually shine through.
I imagine if data exists on optimal prospect movement, the astros front office is aware of it. Moving springer up would be the easy thing to do: it would create good PR. The fact that they are not, despite some public pressure to do so, leads me to believe that they have legitimate reasons for their actions.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=pie---001fel http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=patter001don http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=carter001ver
Not bad examples... but two of those three were most definitely not "rushed". Pie and Carter both spent 5 years in the minors. Patterson was indeed rushed up... and he probably wasn't ready for the majors at age 20. That being said, he had a very good season when he was 23 which should have erased any of the "rush = ruin" phenomenon... and he then regressed into what he truly was (a not so good everyday player). Additionally, while he dominated A ball, he regressed significantly at AA... based on his AA performance, I don't think that should have warranted him the initial promotion (but I certainly wouldn't say it ruined him given his continued development/improvement in the big leagues). He was even worse at AAA before getting called up to the show for good. Again, that's more of an example of "hope" vs somebody who truly dominated the minors and was promoted past all levels because of it. As for the first two, they both were eventually top 30 prospects (as Springer is now), and were called up fairly appropriately... Springer himself could definitely fizzle out such as the above players, but it certainly won't be because he was rushed. There are always going to be players who put up better minor league numbers than MLB ones. I'm looking for the ones that were ruined by being promoted too fast. Patterson is a good example... but as I said above, there were certainly warning signs before he made his debut.
Having the utmost fate in the organization is the only thing one can do at this point. One cautionary example that Springer could be approaching is Ryan Howard. He had a 46 HR season in the MINORS at age 24. Finally made his debut at 25, won MVP at age 26. But, by the time the Phillies signed him to his big contract (how could they not... MVP winner, WS winner), he's already past his prime and overpaid. Now the team is struggling, and has very little flexibility with his bloated deal. An example of how potentially maximizing service time can backfire (unless you commit to trading or not resigning a guy before his huge contract is due... which again could be dicey when you're dealing with a potential franchise icon).
Patterson's warning sign is the same as Springer's. One good year doesn't change that he would have won 3 MVPs if he was developed correctly. Pie was definitely rushed. He still made majors at 23. Carter made his debut at 23 playing basically a year at each level. Springer is 23, but went to college.
Patterson had a bad AA regression... enough that he should have repeated the league. Far worse than anything Springer has ever shown. The Cubs certainly deserve blame for continuing to promote him as his production certainly didn't warrant it. That being said, what about rushing him ruined him? He was able to make improvements at the MLB level. I'd understand if his best season was his first one at a young age and he continued to regress (showing no work ethic or ability to improve), but he did improve at the MLB level in year 3. The fact that he stopped improving is because he was who he was (or he got lazy), and no amount of minor league development cures work ethic. He also got hurt that season... you could then say that injuries derailed his road towards his 3 MVP's. College counts towards a players development (in my opnion). Neither Pie or Carter had the minor league numbers Springer had... but even then, they all played every level of the minors before making it to the majors (hence the 5+ years for each of them). To me, rushing a guy is promoting him via skipping levels... such as A ball to the majors (Pujols) or even AA to the majors (Pence). You can't really say a player was rushed when they're making their debuts at 23 and 24... most every MLB all-star this season made his debut at a younger age. I've already said that even if Springer made his debut today, it wouldn't have been considered as "rushed".
We can argue all day, but if there is no chance of ruining a guy by promoting...there should be no problem promoting a guy that is hitting great. Hitting as well as Patterson did at AAeven with regression, he should have been a much better MLB player. He should have been taught discipline in minors. As someone mentioned before...it is impossible to argue as you can always say someone was never good.
That said, I think Springer is ready or very close. It is too late really to worry about the strikeouts and will be something he need to work through. I believe players can be rushed. I think Patterson is a great example of that guy. Lyles is another. Pie and Carter are, too. Time isn't important to me even though I mentioned age earlier. You can't teach a player discipline by passing them on to next level because they can help the team at the next level. If they have a flaw, fix it. I don't care how many homers a guy hits, if his approach is wrong, you are saying it is right with a promotion. It breeds laziness that a player can get by on god given talents.
He only played 11 games in the majors right after AA. He started the following season at AAA, and was inexplicably promoted from there. Despite this, I think Patterson did ultimately improve enough, to be considered as an all-star... and again, I don't remember him not building upon that due to a lack of discipline. It is possible for players to get better within their MLB time... they don't all have to be MVP candidates the second they become big leaguers. And its those players who usually succeed regardless of whether or not they were rushed initially. The ones that fail, get discouraged, and get progressively worse (ahem, Brett Wallace) are usually the ones who have enough to succeed in the minors but ultimately aren't good enough for the majors. Patterson is the closest recent example, I guess... but for every fringe example such as this, there's 10 all-star/HOF players that succeeded via expedited promotion despite potential flaws or potential discipline issues.
Straight to the majors from HS as a pitcher? That's not rushed... that was just full-on stupidity based on a publicity stunt (figures it was the Rangers). Also pitchers are different because you can definitely blow out an arm before its mature. Even the phenoms struggle early (A-rod, Trout)... but their early failure doesn't automatically ruin them. And they still need to have at least a cup of coffee in the minors.
Yeah, it's largely impossible to prove really. How about Rick Ankiel? Debut at 19. Actually one of the most talented pitchers I've ever seen. His pitch movement was wicked. Mentally fried and injured by 21.
