2013 Astros Minor League Thread

The more you know! That is pretty cool, and I'll be sure to give them due credit with spelling haha

 

He wasn't an everyday player until mid-2000, after being drafted in 1997.

He was a late season callup in 1999 (34 games, where he was not an everyday player)... started the following year at AAA, and was called up in-part because the team was horrible.

In his first significant playing time in 2000 he posted over a .900 OPS. His first year as an opening day every-day player (2001) he was an MVP candidate.

Those facets tell me that this player should have been in the majors sooner. He dominated every stop in the minors, and when given the job outright in the majors, he was an elite player right away.

 

You put him in one place starting some time in 1998, and he could have been a 30+ HR hitter in the big leagues right away. Not saying it could have happened here, as this team had a World Series contender in 1998 and 1999 that wouldn't have made room for a young phenom (but possibly would have had better playoff results if it had).

All I'm basically saying is that nobody here can prove that Lance wouldn't have been a tremendous MLB player right away... we're seeing more and more young guys every year dominate the league right off the bat (or at least "hearing" more about them). Lance posted very close to his career .OPS numbers in his brief time in the minors. I didn't see much "developing" going on... he was a great hitter right out of college.

 

He wasn't a late season callup. He was called up in July 1999. He just didn't play a ton of games. He stunk in those 34 games in 1999.

He was ready for the majors in 2000. The only argument to be had is maybe they shouldn't have sent him back to the minors at the beginning of 2000. He lost out on approximately 30 major league games.

 

In 1999, he was a spot starter, only started 13 games, and barely got 100 plate appearances. If this is the only evidence you have that he shouldn't have been up sooner, its really not enough to convince me.

While he "stunk", chances are if he's an everyday player, he does EXACTLY what he did at every other level where he was an everyday player (including the big leagues in 2000).

You want to tell me that giving the job outright to a 23 year old Lance, with the likelhood of him having a better year than Bell or Hidalgo (or Daryle Ward, or MATT MIESKE!), would have been a bad thing? Given Lance's career playoff numbers, he likely outperforms those guys and gives them a better chance to win.

He was an MVP candidate in the first year he had a chance to be an opening day everyday player! You can't say that's not delayed.

The orgnanization back then rated Daryle Ward and Hidalgo over Lance... and foolishly exposed Abreu. If not for Carl Everett having a career year, people would have rightly criticized Hunsicker's decisions more.

 

I can't prove you wouldn't be a great player from day in the majors, it doesn't make it likely. The only facts we have are that Berkman struggled in first major league cameo, but didn't the next time around.

Most hitters do not reach the majors right of the bat. Ryan Zimmerman is an exception.

 

It is much better evidence than talking about non-existent at bats. It is much harder to hit in the majors than it is in the minors.

You do know Hidalgo led the 2000 team in WAR right? He was also able to help from day 1 because he was a plus defender, and had performed in the majors in 1997 & 1998. They had Hidalgo play 2 full seasons in AA. They didn't make Lance do that.

Bell was coming off the best year of his career, and a known quality player. Who knew he'd fall off a cliff?

Daryle Ward was actually in the same position as Lance. The organization didn't rate him over Lance.

Like I said, you are unrealistic.

 

Lance could have easily been an exception.

We have the facts that he posted a + .900 OPS at every stop in the minors. We have the fact that it didn't stop once he was given the job outright in the majors. We have the fact that he was an MVP candidate in his first season as an opening day starter.

The 13 start cup of coffee in 1999 is not enough to convince me. That ends up being the major outlier on his career stats (minor leagues included). Either it screams "sample size", or he found some ephiphany between 1999 and 2000 that turned him from chump to HOF caliber hitter. My bet is on sample size.

I hope nobody gets annoyed or thinks I'm beating a dead horse... like I said before, this argument is easy to make in hindsight as we know how Lance's career played out. Its also easy to excuse the Astros for not wanting to ruffle a playoff team on its way to 100+ wins.

However, I like to draw similarities to applying past examples into how we handle our young guys' promotions now.

This is also not a problem specific to the Astros... the Phillies wasted potential good years from Ryan Howard and Utley by having guys in front of them deemed too good to supplant.

Every organization makes mistakes in how they evaluate talent and who they push vs. not push. Its not surprising that the 90's brain-trust (Tal Smith, Hunsicker) were more excited about their mega-trade acquisition (Daryle Ward) and their Venezuelan phenoms (Hidalgo, Abreu) than the ho-hum local college boy first round pick (who had better minor league numbers than ALL of them). What would be more interesting is to look back and see who pushed more for picking Berkman... Drayton (signability, local boy) or Gerry?

 

Then why was Lance an even better major league hitter once he was given an everyday job?

13 starts and 100 plate appearances is not much better evidence than 3 years of minor/major league numbers as an everyday player that look virtually identical in their splits... its an outlier.

Do you think its appropriate for guys to be MVP candidates in their first full seasons? All that screams to me is that the guy was probably ready sooner.

 

You want to bet? Tal Smith certainly did.

In hindsight, why the hell did they ever hang on to him? Even if he turned out to be a solid everyday player... he was a DH or first baseman! At least Lance could play an effective OF right away.

They could have easily gotten a nice haul for him.

 

Hidalgo was developed from a raw 17 year old to the player they saw in 1998. They certainly took some pride in him... something that they couldn't have had as much of with Berkman, who was basically the tremendous hitter he was right off the bat (without any organizational "teaching").

 

If minor league numbers were a great indicator. Jose Altuve & JD Martinez would be all-stars.

If they are MVP caliber players? Yes. In theory, every step should be similar to the previous, unless that player is rushed, because that player is ready.

 

Berkman certainly needed teaching in the field. Berkman could always hit. So could JD Martinez. So could Brett Wallace.

 

So now minor league numbers don't matter? But 13 starts in the majors does? We're getting less and less viable parameters to measure these guys by according to your logic .

Altuve was another 17 year old developed player who they had plenty of data on before calling him up as a 21 year old. In this day and age of Harpers, Puigs, Trouts, and Cabbreras, young players who have "it" can certainly succeed by being rushed through without minor league "training"

JD Martinez and Brett Wallace are your best cases for guys who won't live up to their minor league stats... but is that because they were rushed? Or because they were never going to be good in the first place (the quintisential AAAA player).

I'm still on the side of getting the player up as soon as possible and seeing what they can do. The hindsight Berkman case is irking me more and more now (bet he hits a game winning HR in 1998 off Kevin Brown and Randy Johnson is blowing away the Yankees in the World Series :grin

 

I'd bet. There is a reason why Ward was the 4th OF. He had to wait several years before he became an every day player.

Through the 2000 season it made a lot of sense, as Bagwell wasn't signed long-term. Why not trade him after Bagwell agreed to a long-term deal? IDK, obviously that was a mistake. Unfortunately his value would decrease as his power shrunk.

 

Not enough to keep him down in the minors... especially when he was still primarily playing first base in the minors.

Hell, it wasn't enough to prevent Ward from reaching the majors sooner and he didn't hit as well as Lance did (along with him being an even worse defensive player). Addressing your Ward revisionist history... he was the 4th OF because he couldn't play OF (certainly not in the dome). Doesn't mean there weren't guys in the organization pushing for him to possibly supplant Bagwell sooner (which would have been an all-time travesty).

See above post for my comment on JD and Brett. Do you think they're not good MLB hitters because they were promoted too fast? Do you think rushing Lance would have caused him to end up just like them? Along that note, do you think promoting Springer sooner will also lead him to similar mediocre fate?

 

The whole organization was high on him. A friend of mine who played with Berkman at Rice and was a scout said he Ward was one of the best pure hitters he ever saw - but he couldn't put down the weed.

 

Too bad your friend couldn't see that about the player he played with.

Ward "looked" like he was the next big thing... but that's the exact thinking that doomed a lot of teams in the 90's about how they valued players.

 

They do matter, but they don't tell you a player is necessarily ready for MLB.

Some players can. Mike Trout actually struggled in his first taste of the big leagues.

Weird think about Harper, is he actually struggled in AA/AAA.

Are they the best I can come up with? No. They are just relevant since they are on our team right now and obvious choices of guys who looked great in the minors, and in Wallace's case was thought very highly of. I think they would have struggled either way, but I don't know that. Wallace actually spent too much time in AAA in my opinion. I'm against long-term stays in AAA for hitters.