For anybody that has access to MLB Network, Jason Castro is playing in the Baseball World Cup right now. I think you can find online streams. They lost to Venezuela in extras yesterday. Castro went 0-for-5 with 2 SOs. Justin Smoak went 4-for-6 with 2 HR and 5 RBI. Here's the main site: http://2009baseballworldcup.com/
I was pretty upset when the Stros passed on Smoak but understood the logic with the need pick in Castro and Puma still being a superstar caliber player while Smoak can only play first from what I heard so it made sense but man Smoak is turning into a beast while Puma's decline has started IMO.
When a farm system is in shambles, you take the best player available, IMO. I hope they thought Castro was better than Smoak otherwise I don't agree with the logic. As Morey preaches, build up your assets. The more good assets you have, the more flexibility you have to upgrade positions of need.
Meh, I'm sure you could find a 2 game stretch during the minor league stretch when Smoak looked bad and Castro looked like a world beater.
His decline hasn't started. It's no different than the slightly down season he had two years ago, which he rebounded from with a fabulous 2008. Berkman has been one great year-one very good year for years and years -- no reason to think this is any different.
You could also look at virtually ever single scouting report before and since that draft and see how highly Smoak is rated compared to Castro. I actually haven't seen a single source that has Castro ranked anywhere near Smoak.
I understood it and Il go as far as to say it made sense, in there point of view, however I didn't agree with it. I completely agree with your point here and the other about the scouting report as it seemed to me and still does, to be a signablity issue a usual.
I noticed his power numbers going down a few weeks back and noted it yet I should have waited till the end of the season to make a fair assessment but then the stat come up about not hitting a homer since the break and validated what I was saying. I love the guy and he has become my Stros hero since the Baggy/Biggio era ended, so don't take this as not appreciating the man, but he has had a horrible power year even with a fiarly high OPS up to this point. Not saying trade the dude but Smoak would have been the obivous successor at 1st playing regularly when Puma contract expired the next year.
Again, horrible is quite an overstatement. His .495 slugging percentage is only slight below his .510 in 2007, his .524 in 2005 and .515 in 2003. His power has been bad in the month since he's come back from the calf injury (and there's probably a correlation there), but for the season, he's right on line with 2007, 2005 and 2003. Horrible is really, really stretching it.
Ok so if at the beginning of the year I told you Puma would have these numbers by Sep 11 giving the fact he was out for 3 weeks... Avg HR RBI Runs .273 19 69 62 You would have been happy with that? A would have been very disappointed even with the high OPS. Beginning a slight decline is a natural occurence in sluggers like Puma much like Baggy he will still put up good numbers but no longer great numbers it's ok but the problem is there is NO ONE to take his spot in after 2010 so we will likely resign him and as a result overpay for him.
You follow enough Astros baseball to know Berkman missed a bunch of games. Therefore, it's not fair to look at volume without considering that he missed nearly 25 games. As far as the debate you are having with Cat, I'm with Cat. Berkman, and all baseball players for that matter, have fluctuations in their performance from year to year. Berkman's may follow a more distinct pattern but until his numbers go down for 2+ seasons in a row, let's not get carried away. He very well may put up huge numbers across the board next year. If he has another down year, then your argument may hold more weight at that point.
Those numbers are entirely inconsequential. First of all, you were talking about power, and average, RBI and runs have nothing to do with measuring power. Second, total numbers are a reflection of games played -- and Berkman has missed a decent chunk of time this year, far more than usual. Let's say Albert Pujols were to miss two months one season with a broken arm, and of course he would, accordingly, have fewer home runs and RBIs than usual. Would you say he's on the decline? I'm guessing you wouldn't, and you would say his total numbers are simply down because of an injury. It's the same case here. Unless you think Berkman is going to become injury prone, look at the numbers -- OBP, SLG, OPS, etc. -- that measure what he's done relative to the time he's actually played.
Brooks, your right about missing a bunch of games, probably around 30 when its all said and done, thats why I compared his numbers to 2005 as he will end up with about the same number of games as that year and numbers will be only slightly lower. My concern was that year he missed the first month and a half of the season and struggled as excepted trying to get his stride and really playing on one leg. This year however he struggled most of the first half and the second half till he got hurt so the injury unlike in '05 could not be responsible for his struggles. I doubt he will ever put up numbers like in 06 and remember he had a bad, for Puma standards, 07 and second half of 08. Lance Z on 1560 brought up a great point a couple days ago, he has only 7 2nd half HRs the last two seasons so I would like him to limit his training this offseason as maybe thats the issue. If I am wrong then ill be the first to smile and admit it but just dont see it.
I am not ruling out the possibility of a decline in power, just that it's too early to draw that conclustion because of all the variability. I've read/heard the stuff they're saying in the local media. As far as the beginning of this season, if I recall correctly, Berkman had some kind of bicep or shoulder injury or both coming into the season. I believe he stated he couldn't even lift the affected arm above his shoulder a couple of days before opening day. That injury or those injuries very well may have affected his bat speed, which seemed to be a problem early on. Either way, there is nothing wrong with considering the possiblity of a Berkman decline. I just wouldn't draw conclusions yet. Let's see how he performs next season first.
In 2006 Prince Albert missed about 20 games that year with an injury and look at his numbers compared to other years. I know Pujols is a legend and I shouldn't compare the two but since you brought it up here it is. Sorry but when I look at power RBIs are very much a power number and Puma isn't a basestealer so when he scores runs its because he has hit for a ton of extra bases and a power number in his case. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pujolal01.shtml Sorry to lazy to cut and paste...lol
I'm sure T-Mac's decline is due almost entirely to injury. I'm being serious. Injury is part of it, man. Berkman's getting hurt every year now, and this year, whether it's due to injury or not, his production has declined. A decline is a decline. If he's back next year, great! Odds are, if he's healthy, he'll be stronger next year than this year. But here we go qualifying with "if he's healthy" again. If you decline because you're old, decline because you suck, or decline because you're hurt, the net result is still the same: decline.
Really? This was only the second time in his career that he's missed extended time, the other being in 2005. Berkman is far closer to an Iron Man than a McGrady Man. There are some pretty extreme statements being made in this thread.
But the time he didn't play, the Astros still did. The investment they make in Lance's paycheck is for one of the premier producers in the game, and as such 19 dingers and 69 RBI's are *anything* but inconsequential. "Become" injury prone? Lance has had time on the DL, off the top of my head, in '05, '07, '08, and '09. Last year, even when in the lineup, he was gimping around hoping not to aggravate his hammy. So, he was "stretching" doubles into singles and not running out grounders. "If he weren't hurt" is so worthless. He was. His production is his production. Based on the amount of time he's spent on the DL over his career, if I were forced to wager whether he'd spend time there next year I'd wager he will. ...and that counts. Again, whether it's because of age, or injury, or whatever, if your numbers are down they're down. And Lance's numbers are down. Here's hoping he bounces back awesomely in 2010.
Yes, really. BUT... True. He plays through a lot of stuff -- but it's affecting his production, man. And while he hasn't missed "extended time" other years, he's missed time. Agreeed!! I did *not* intend to directly compare the two; only to state that if injuries are the reason for a decline it's still a decline. Sorry. And I don't intend to pile on Berkman. But it would seem that he's simply not the player he was in 2006, and certainly not 2001-2003. But I'm also not combing over the numbers, so perhaps my impressions are not accurate.
