...because major league front offices don't think like fans. Nor do they share our amazing gift of hindsight. Ric, do you think it's ridiculous, or "dropping the ball" for the Astros to want Scott - a guy who was abysmal when *twice* handed a starting job last season, who sulked for a bit in RR after not making the team this spring, and who followed a great April with a very mediocre May this season - to prove a little something before being handed a job again? Lane was good in June, resumed struggling in July, was replaced by Berkman/Lamb full-time in July. What's the complaint? Preston was great in June & the 1st week of so of July, then he struggled and was replaced by Scott. Complaint? Willy struggled, and was replaced by Burke (who was hot), Burke then struggled & went back to the bench. Complaint? Morgan struggled, *hid his injury from the team*, and once they had a competent replacement (Huff) was out of the lineup. Again, what's the complaint? Basically, the Astros have had two consistent everyday players this year - Berkman and Lamb. Not an enviable environment to make real-time (sans hindsight) managerial decisions.
And he did. And he sucked. Bad enough, in fact, that they brought back a guy who hit .150 for April - Luke Scott - to see if he could take his job. You wanna hang your hat on that? You're right on Lane, pitchers have figured him out - hard stuff in on the hands. He'd be a great 4th OF, RH stick off the bench next year.
he's now had 976 ML ABs, and he's essentially been productive for 239 of 'em. he's hit .240/37/109/.706 in the other 737, which is roughly a season and a half. and it's not like he came with hefty minor league credentials, either. he never had an OPS above .830 and hit 23 HRs in 182 games at triple A. scott, on the other hand, has an OPS of .950+ the past two years; hit 20 homers in only 87 games this year and had 31 last year. so why did this team need half a season to determine he was no good? if lane were younger or this was kansas city or the astros simply had no plan b, sure - you see if he can play through it. but it's not. and it's especially galling when they had a much more productive player behind him in austin who deserved a chance. bagwell was 23, not 28, and playing half his games in the astrodome. he's the same age as berkman; a year younger than hidalgo. if lane had anything to offer, they would have found a spot for him just as they did berkman and hidalgo. the team missed the boat big time on lane and may have - may have - cost themselves by not turning sooner to a potentially better player.
proving himself how? by going to austin and posting an .950+ OPS over the course of 250 games? the complaint is that your definition of good has apparently been whored out for the purposes of blindly defending your favorite team. he hit .250 and had his numbers augmented by a 3/5, 5 RBI night against the braves. beyond that, he had nearly as many K’s (11) as hits (12). where in the world would those numbers be considered “good”? never complained about wilson or taveras. first of all, he didn’t “hide” it – they knew he was hurt; he hid the severity of it; he also began slumping 2-3 weeks prior to getting hurt. my complaint there is that the team let him play for five weeks after the injury, watching him night-after-night redefine slump, and did absolutely nothing about. he then spent roughly three weeks on the DL, was amazed his shoulder bounced back over the course of just 5 days of rest, and is now back in the line-up. had either he or the team been proactive about it (and this is the third year in a row he’s done this), he may have only missed a total of 3-4 weeks, instead of playing poorly for five and then tacking on three more for recovery, essentially costing the team 8 weeks. think this isn’t a better baseball team with a healthy morgan ensberg? you’re acting like this all collapsed over a 72-hour period and they were caught off guard. since may, they’ve had a worse record than the royals. they’ve known for months that the team needed help, but they kept trotting jason lane and a lame morgan ensberg to the plate every night when they had a readily available plan B in their system for lane and, what should have been, a track with ensberg. my complaint is with their lack of urgency. fortunately, every other team in the NL sucks, so we're still going to win the wild card, but... man...
OK, question for you - at what point this season would you have benched Lane? After April, when he had an 0.800+ OPS? Or after May? He struggled in May last year and came back to have a great rest of the season. How about in June? Oh wait, he was already benched at the end of May. In part time play in June, he had an OPS over 0.800 again. Perhaps July? Hey look here, he WAS benched after a few games in July. So - when exactly would you have permanently given up on a player who, in his first full season, hit 26 HRs and had an OPS over 0.800? And nearly 0.900 the 2nd of that first season.
Berkman and Hidalgo were both ahead of him in the minors. So they came up - and performed really well. So on a team with Bagwell, Hidalgo, and Berkman that's competing for their division, where on Earth do you think they would have found a spot for him? They found spots for the other guys by dumping higher paid vets. That was no longer an option unless you think getting rid of Bagwell would have been a good idea. They now had 2 young corner outfielders already on the team.
that's the problem - i wouldn't have benched him; i would have replaced him. he had 230 ABs in the 1st half; 40 or so fewer than last year's first half. but he actually played in two more games this year (77 to 75). that means not only was he not productive, but then, by benching him, you created a void that you failed to fill. and in doing so, you gave away 40 or so ABs in the first half; that's roughly 9-10 games. how different is this team with a productive luke scott in those 9-10 games not to mention the dozen or so more games when lane was either on the bench or relegated to pinch-hitting/mop up duty? but ultimately, it's all for naught - they're gonna win the wildcard regardless. i just think they could have been more proactive and made it a little easier on everyone by trying to find offensive contributors wherever they could.
