I still can't believe it...Ensberg having a "magical" season.

What happened that made the scores come way down at Minute Maid. It seems like much of the park is permanent. No more 10-9 scores? What happened?

 

Your argument is laughable dude... Vinny Castilla was a big reason the Astros even made it to the playoffs that year. We got him for roughly 2 million dollars, and the Devil Rays forked over 5+ million to him. Yeah, let's throw an unproven minor leaguer into the everyday starting lineup... at a key position like 3rd base. The Astros made the playoffs that year, what the hell are you complaining about? Ensberg was second fiddle to Blum in 2002 in EVERY category, what the hell are you complaining about?

 

I don't think any changes have been made to the field. I think it was mental. If pitchers believed they were going to get shelacked, then they got shelacked. Now they know it's possible to pitch there.

 

The pitchers learned how to pitch there. If you keep the ball out of left field MM is a very pitcher friendly park.

 

If you read my post again, I clearly did not say that the Astros paid a lot of money for Castilla. What I said was that I didn't know how much they paid and how much Tampa paid. And I haven't said that I would have given Ensberg the starting spot over Castilla.

What I have said in this thread:
1.) The Astros have a history of stunting players development by their lack of advancement through the organization, Ensberg being the topic of this thread.
2.) Castilla's season in Houston is vastly overrated.
3.) Ensberg probably would have been putting up these numbers earlier had he been promoted earlier.

I just remembered why I don't post much in this forum any more. Jeez, you start throwing some numbers around,and people either twist your argument to what they think you said or automatically dismiss your logic because, heaven forbid, you use some actual facts to back up your opinion and not just gut instinct.

 

Although Hunsicker was the most successful GM the Astros ever had, this is the one chink in his armor. He was way too skeptical of young players. We see this from fans too. They are more content to go with guys they know than to take risks on younger players. And then when the younger players don't set the world on fire after 100-200 ABs, they want to go out and get a mediocre veteran to replace him.

 

No. Not in the least. Not even a tiny little bit.

Ensberg was a very flawed offensive player until about a month into this season. It was all mental, he's had the tools forever. Sometimes it just takes a couple of years before guys "get it". If he hadn't been hurt last year, there's a chance we would have seen this Ensberg a year sooner. Who knows? Other folks have covered the Castilla angle in '01, so I won't repeat their comments.

Your comments about "another example of poor player development" using Jimmerson, Burke, Pence, Scott & Lane are utter crap. Think about those players & then tell us why they are poor examples of what you're attempting to say.

Here's the ages of when some prominent Astros youngsters got their first taste of major P.T. (most made their debut a year earlier):
Berkman 24
Qualls 25
Lidge 26
Burke 25
Lane 27
Ward 24
Oswalt, Redding, Miller all 23
Everett 26
Ensberg 26

You're tilting at windmills again, Mssr. Quixote.

Biggio & Bagwell were 23, starting on a team with zero hope of competing, and were much, much better "prospects" than any of the position players above, outside Berkman.

All players are not created equal. Some are ready earlier, some take more time. The makeup of the roster & the expectations of the team play into this as well.

 

Did you sleep through his 2003 season?

 

These are nowhere close to being "facts".

 

Actual facts:

1) Ensberg was promoted a level each year he was in the Astros organization.

2) The Astros had a 3rd baseman who put up solid numbers on contending teams in 2001 and 2002 in the persons of Castilla and Blum, which prevented the immediacy of Ensberg starting and kept him in the minors where he got consistent at bats rather than relagating him to spot starting and pinch hitting. Arguably (not a fact) this led to him being a better hitter and overall player since he did see consistent playing time.

3) The Astros have been contenders for a playoff berth every year since 1994 (with the exception of 2000). They MUST be doing something right with respect to putting the proper players on the field.

4) Burke has been unfortunate in so much as he has been stuck behind Biggio and Kent at 2nd base.

5) You can add Hidalgo (22), Abreu (23), Wagner (24), Hampton (22), and Elarton (23) (among others) to Buck's list.

 

Not in the least. He had flaws. As I said, all mental (except for the portion of last year when he was using that ridiculous spread-out quasi-Bagwell stance, would love to know what he was thinking there, and if the elbow had anything to do with it). I know there's no numbers I can pull out to provide your desired "concrete evidence", but that doesn't mean you can disqualify the non-quantifiable.

You may not like to, or able to, form sound opinions based on observational or anecdotal evidence - analyze a swing or pitching mechanics, discuss the mental approach , sound out the multiple factors entering into a manager's decision, or any number of other things - but don't have the arrogance to assume that that means nobody can.

And in no way am I discounting the use of stats here, they're a wonderful tool, and there's people in every single MLB front office and dugout who are paid a bunch of money to understand and utilize those stats, integrated with copious amounts of observational evidence (video & scouting reports).

Statistics without context and context without statistics are equally flawed.

 

If you think he was flawed in 2003, then I wish he would bottle those flaws and give it to Ausmus, Everett, Taveras, and Lane.