Everyone seems to want the Cubs to trade their best hitter (Aramis Ramirez) and replace their best defensive player/home run hitter (Carlos Pena) next year as part of a massive rebuilding project. I believe in the massive overhaul part, but would try to re-sign Pena at between half and one-third the per-year cost it would take to sign Prince Fielder or Albert Pujols, and would also try to bring back Ramirez at a reduced rate.
Instead, I’d explore trading Starlin Castro.
Not because he isn’t good, but because he isn’t THAT good, but might bring a return as if he were.
Castro could turn out to be the Cubs’ best home-grown player since Mark Grace. But if he becomes another Grace, that would be a huge disappointment to most Cubs fans (as well as the Chicago baseball media). They make him out to be a future perennial All-Star. I’ve found only one other media person who agrees with me about the Castro hype. Sports Illustrated’s great Joe Posnanski, who won a national sportswriter of the year title when he wrote for the Kansas City Star, recently wrote:
I don’t quite get why so many people are jumping the gun and preparing Starlin Castro for the Hall of Fame. I mean, he certainly could develop into an amazing player. He’s only 21. And he smokes line drives, no question. But everybody knows that he CAN develop into an amazing player. My question is: Will he? I’m not sure. Right now: He doesn’t walk. He doesn’t hit home runs. He’s not especially fast. And there are questions about him as a defensive shortstop.
Yet, despite all those flaws, Posnanski wrote he heard announcers comparing Castro to Ernie Banks.
Posnanski also wrote about how Castro is such a stylish player and so young, that it’s easy to see why baseball people expect he will someday hit with a lot of power. I got in a blog debate earlier this year when I wrote Castro could be the answer to the Cubs’ leadoff problem and the Cubs fan said he’d make a better third-place hitter. Everybody but Posnanski and me just ASSUME Castro will develop more power.
But what if he doesn’t? It’s really early, but so far he’s looking like Rex Grossman — a player who started out OK and never got better. Ever.
Look at Castro’s stats. He’s the exact same player his sophomore season that he was as a rookie. He hit .300 as a rookie. It’s .303 this year. But his on-base percentage is even worse, .333 down from .347. He’s got the exact same number of runs scored (53) and one more RBI (42), albeit in slightly fewer at bats (409 instead of 463).
Those 409 at bats lead the league. That’s not a good thing. That means he never walks. He was a notorious free swinger as a rookie with only 29 walks. This year it has dropped to 18. OPS+ measures how good a hitter is against the league average. 100 is average. Starlin Castro is at 102 for his career.
Starlin Castro is an average hitter and an awful fielder. He leads all of baseball with 18 errors this year. He was second in all of baseball with 27 errors last year, in only 123 games.
Starlin Castro, in fact, has been only a slight upgrade from Ryan Theriot. But Starlin Castro in expectation — and possibly in myth — is the next Ernie Banks.
I say if he can be traded for a haul of talent as if he were Ernie Banks in training, then do it. Because an Ernie Banks-like future is far from a sure thing for Starlin Castro, and he is by far the biggest trade chip the Cubs have.
No player should be untouchable from one of the worst Cubs teams in history. Especially one that share the worst of all Cub traits — an inability to have any strike zone discipline. The Cubs are dead last in all of baseball in walks.
Starlin Castro isn’t part of the Cubs solution, at least not yet. Right now, he’s part of the problem.
One way or another, the Cubs future hopes are pinned largely on Castro, either as their next great player or as trade bait.
The surer bet is to use him as trade bait. It won’t happen. The Cubs will surely live or die (or muddle through) with Castro. They consider a shortstop with a shaky glove who will not walk an untouchable, mostly because he’s 21.
But young players don’t always improve. Just ask the White Sox about their once untouchable middle infielder. Gordon Beckham was better at age 22 — by far — than he has been at age 23 or 24.
The Cubs have a history of stupid moves (See: Brock, Maddux, et al).
The one person the Cubs SHOULD get rid of is Jim Hendry.
you’re a moron Trowbridge. You build around Castro. Stick to something you know like Wrestling.
Do you even watch baseball? Someone down at the RR Star look at his credentials. I Agree with Greg. You work Castro into a ball player. Matt, there is a reason only one other writer agrees with you. The point is, at best misconceived and not to well thought out. It’s caleed coaching. The Cubs have none.
Greg and what? Of course, Starlin Castro is the type of player you can build around. I’m not saying to get rid of him. Just explore trading him to see what you can get. The Cubs and their fans once thought the same about Felix Pie and Corey Patterson. … Even if he turns out to be very good, trading him could also be good. I don’t hear anyone in Boston complaining that the Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez, who is almost surely better than Castro will ever be. … My point is that if Castro never becomes a good fielding shortstop and always takes fewer than 50 walks in a season, he is far more valuable as trade bait than as a cornerstone building block. What? claims the Cubs have no coaching. Well, it’s really hard to teach free swingers to have plate discipline. I’m a Twins fan, and the Twins traded Johan Santana with Carlos Gomez being the main player they got back. Gomez is the best defensive outfielder I’ve seens since Gary Pettis and is possibly the fastest player in baseball, but he’s got no idea of how to hit and since the Twins never sent him to the minors, he never learned. He’s just as bad a hitter in Milwaukee as he was in Minnesota. … What are the odds that Castro will learn plate discipine when he’s being treated as a star in Chicago? I say the best hope to learn that was to be kept in the minors until he learned that and told that’s why he was staying down. That’s what the Blue Jays did this year with Brett Lawrie. Even when he was leading Class AAA in batting average and home runs, they told him he wouldn’t be promoted until he started to walk more.
The only reason I talk about trading Starlin Castro is that stuff is already out of the barn. The Cubs have rewarded him by promoting him and starting him. He knows he does not have to field better or improve his on-base percentage to get what he wants in Chicago, and that makes it a reasonable fear that he never will learn.
“And there are questions about him as a defensive shortstop.” – Posnanski
How many 21-year-old shortstops have no questions about their defense? And there is no comparison between Castro and Ryan Theriot. Theriot is a well below-average defender. Castro does make errors; he also makes umpteen plays Theriot could only dream of making. Errors don’t tell the whole story of a player’s defensive abilities.
I’d also question Posnanski’s comment about Castro’s speed. Currently, Castro has 8 triples and 11 steals. He’s plenty fast.
Castro’s young enough to be in Short-Season A-Ball, five levels below the majors. Think about that when you try to project his future.
One other thing…
While I want Castro to walk more, the fact that he might stay under 50 annually doesn’t make him a non-valuable player. If the Mets were 10 games better, Jose Reyes would win the MVP this year and he’s not going to reach 50 walks.
Sav, you are correct that errors don’t tell the whole tale of defense and that Castro is better defensively than his errors alone would suggest, but he’s still not good. And I’ve heard several critics say he might need to move to second base.
My main point is you can’t assume he’s going go get better just because he is 21. I’m a Twins fan, and I’ve seen plenty of young Twins who never got better. Carlos Gomez was 22 his rookie season with the Twins, when he played spectacular defense and hit well enough to be an asset even though he swung at everything. He has hit so poorly the three years since he is now regarded as a lifetime backup.
Delmon Young had 93 RBIs at age 21 and was a former No. 1 overall draft pick. But he swung at everything and has had only one decent year since. And has gotten even worse every year on defense.
When I was a kid, Butch Wynegar became the youngest All-Star in history at ages 20 and 21 for the Twins. He hit 10 home runs both years. He never hit 10 homers — or became an All-Star — ever again.
As for being plenty fast, Castro has 21 career steals and has been thrown out 10 times. In other words, he’s not fast enough. Nor powerful enough with six home runs in 223 career games.
If the Cubs really wanted to rebuild, they would have left Castro in the minors for another year or two. I agree that he’s got a lot of talent and could become a very good player, but players seldom learn plate discipline in the majors. You’ve got to learn that lesson in the minors or it’s too late. Ill cite the Twins again. They drafted Denard Span in the first round, but they gave up on him because he never had more than 40 walks in his first five minor league seasons. That winter, they traded for both Carlos Gomez and Jason Pridie in the Johan Santana and Matt Garza deals. When Span saw the Twins were trying to replace him, he led the team in walks that spring training. They still picked Gomez and sent him to Class AAA. He had a career on-base percentage of about .350 in the minors at the time. That year it was .434 and also had a career high in slugging. When Cuddyer got hurt, they brought him up and he surprised everyone by hitting .300. He has been a patient leadoff hitter ever since, but he didn’t want to be. He only did it because his team made it clear that was the only way they’d let him play in the majors.
The Cubs never MADE Starlin Castro learn that lesson, and I doubt he ever will.
Coaching teaches each player the basics. Bunting patience at the plate. If, as a coach, you allow free swinging at bad pitches, than your are the problem. The Cubs lack basics in every single category in baseball. Small ball wins championships. I despise the Cardinals, but you have to be amazed at how LaRussa can manufacture a run. The Cube screwed up by not getting Sandberg. Who better to know what your needs are at the bog league level? He already knew what we had coming up through the system. Our stupid choices were at the coaching level this year.
“And I’ve heard several critics say he might need to move to second base.”
Eh, that was mostly talk when Hak Ju Lee was still in the system and considered the better future defensive talent at short. I don’t hear that talk anymore though it could certainly come up again.
*
“My main point is you can’t assume he’s going go get better just because he is 21.”
Well there’s no guarantee, but it’s quite common for players that young to clean up their errors, particularly at that position.
*
“As for being plenty fast, Castro has 21 career steals and has been thrown out 10 times. In other words, he’s not fast enough.”
That only proves he hasn’t learned how to steal bases effectively yet, not that he isn’t fast enough to do so. He has seemingly gotten better in his second year, however. He was 10 for 10 at one point.
Look around the majors. Players don’t walk all that much anymore. And quite frankly, free swingers rarely change regardless of how long you keep them in the minors. Castro’s probably never going to walk a whole lot, but if he can get his rate up to 10% that should be more than acceptable.
What says? Check the stats. Sandberg was never good at taking walks himself, and that’s been the Cubs’ biggest problem for 30 years. I still remember an interview I did with then-GM Larry Himes in the early 1990s, and he talked about what a bad tradition that was for the Cubs and that he was going to change it. He didn’t. And that’s why I want to explore trading Starlin Castro; if your best player epitomizes your worst trait, it’s hard to turn your franchise around.
Sav, all the talk I’ve heard about Castro moving to second base has been this year, not before Hak-Ju Lee was traded. It’s because his errors haven’t gotten any better.
And look around the majors yourself. The Yankees and Red Sox lead the majors in walks every year and they are also the two teams that lead in runs scored and wins. Both years Tampa Bay upset Boston and New York to win the AL East, they were one of the top three teams in baseball in walks. Walks not only help you score, they put pressure on the opposing pitcher and get him out of the game earlier.
I certainly don’t want to give Castro away, but if I were the Cubs, I would try to trade him for Tampa’s Matt Moore, the No. 1 pitching prospect in the minors. He’s left-handed, very young and strikes out more batters than any other pitcher in the minors for three years running now.
Tampa desperately needs a shortstop, but has so many pitchers it has a six-man rotation. Even after trading Matt Garza, they talked about trading James Shields. They’ve got six quality starters now, including rookies Hellickson and Cobb, plus two top starters in the minors, the electric Moore, plus the Class AAA player the Cubs gave them in the Garza trade.
A few of my friends say Tampa would never trade Moore for Castro. Well, then I’d keep Castro, but I would certainly give it a try to go after Moore. With Moore and Garza, the Cubs could build a Giants-like team dependent on pitching.
“all the talk I’ve heard about Castro moving to second base has been this year, not before Hak-Ju Lee was traded. It’s because his errors haven’t gotten any better.”
I don’t know where you’re hearing that, and Castro’s defense has gotten better. His errors are down 25% despite an increase in chances per game. His fielding percentage is up 11 points and his range factor up 29 points.
As far as walks go, nobody is saying they aren’t helpful, but the Yankees and Sox have a slew of players who walk. They also have the guy who was 3rd in MVP voting last year (Cano) who has 19 walks–4 intentional–in nearly 400 at-bats, and a guy just signed for $135M (Crawford) who has the same career walk rate as Castro. Why did Boston just give Crawford a fortune? He doesn’t walk.
Trust me, if the Cubs made Castro available, the Yankees and Red Sox would be first in line with offers.
Sav, just do a quick Internet search on Starlin Castro and second base and you will see stories this summer from three or four (if not more) publications speculating he might have to move.
As for his defense, I don’t pretend to understand a lot of the advanced metrics. I tend to get 95 percent of my stats from ESPN.com and baseball-reference.com. Anyway, the stats on baseball-reference.com show his range is slightly above league average and his errors are a tiny bit down, but he IS even worse this year than as a rookie. In Total Zone Fielding Runs Above Average, Starlin Castro was a negative 12 runs as a rookie. He is negative 16 runs in his second year in fewer games.
As an overall player, Castro had a WAR of 0.5 his first year and 0.6 this year. In other words, he is worth half a win a year over a replacement player. And that makes him untradeable?
As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t want to give him away. I’d like to try to trade him for Matt Moore, a left-handed pitcher for Tampa Bay who led the minor leagues in strikeouts last year with 208 and I think the year before with 176 and has a 2.18 ERA at Class AA and AAA this year with 138 strikeouts in 107 innings. The Rays have an abundance of pitchers and desperately need a shortstop.
As for Carl Crawford, I thought that was one of the most ridiculous contracts I’ve ever seen. He gets on base at only a league average rate and has never hit 20 home runs. He gets paid because he steals 50 bases a year, the most overrated stat in baseball. The one thing that made him a borderline All-Star — his spectacular defense in left field — is less important in Boston than anywhere else in baseball because of the tiny left field in Fenway Park.
As for Robinson Cano, even though he is a lifetime .300 hitter — and a Yankee — he made the All-Star team only once in his first five seasons, perhaps because he rarely walks. But when he hits .320 with 25 or more home runs and plays excellent defense — he was 40 runs above average on defense from 2006-2010 — yes, he is a great player.
I never said you had to walk to be a great player. Just that you are far greater if you do, and that it’s easier to be a great hitter if you are selective. Ted Williams said the entire secret to hitting is “get a good pitch to hit.” The reason players such as Delmon Young and B.J. Upton aren’t great hitters is because they swing at the wrong pitch too often.
Joe DiMaggio didn’t walk often. Neither did Kirby Puckett, which is one reason that as a Twins fan I always preferred Kent Hrbek to Kirby Puckett. On the other hand, my all-time favorite Twin, Tony Oliva, also rarely walked.
By the way, the Yankees once tried to trade Joe DiMaggio. And it would have been a great trade — they were trying to get Ted Williams, who not only was better than Joe D but played nine years longer.
Again, I’m not saying to get rid of Starlin Castro. Just to trade him for someone even better.
By the way, if you are basing everything on Castro improving greatly as he gets older, I’d like you to please name me one Cub in the last 20 years who improved greatly after his second season in the major leagues. Heck, name me one Chicago Bear who got a whole lot better in years 3, 4, 5, etc. than he was in either of his first two seasons.
“just do a quick Internet search on Starlin Castro and second base and you will see stories this summer from three or four (if not more) publications speculating he might have to move.”
I did a search and all I found were three fan-written pieces and comments from Todd Hollandsworth and Mike Quade saying any speculation is ridiculous.
Either way, I see no reason to want to trade a player of his age with his skill. You keep seeming to ignore the reality that Castro could easily be in A-Ball.
*
“As for Carl Crawford, I thought that was one of the most ridiculous contracts I’ve ever seen.”
But you were crediting Boston due to its patent for patience. Obviously, the org has no problem with non-patient hitters if they provide other things.
You can’t say Castro won’t improve because the Cubs have been bad and unfortunate with their younger players.
I will say that Corey Patterson improved after being rushed to the bigs. Unfortunately, he then regressed. And Aramis Ramirez certainly took off after becoming a Cub at the age of 25. Kerry Wood was improving before the shoulder injuries hit hard.
Kerry Wood had his best winning percentage (13-6), best strikeout rate (233 strikeouts in only 166 innings) and an ERA only .20 off his best as a starter (3.40) as a 21-year-old rookie. He NEVER got better. Aramis Ramirez hit .300 with 34 homer runs and 112 RBIs at age 23 in Pittsburgh. He did not get better than that.
I never say that Castro won’t get better. In fact, I say the opposite. He WILL get better. I just say it’s a bad bet to say he will dramatically improve and the Cubs could trade him for very good prospects.
As for Crawford, every team has a player or two who doesn’t fit the walks-a-lot mode. Alfonso Soriano started with the Yankees and was replaced by Robinson Cano. The more people who walk, they more the free swingers have to drive in. And the more pitchers can’t pitch around the free swingers.
Can you honestly say Castro would help the Cubs more than Matt Moore? And if so, please explain why you don’t want a left-handed pitcher who would strike out 200-plus batters.
“He NEVER got better.:
Wood’s best season was 2003 and his improved walk rate was more important than a drop in strikeouts. And of course you are ignoring that he had elbow surgery in ’99 and didn’t recover until 2001. Wood continued his improvement in early ’04 before suffering his first shoulder injury, after which he was never the same.
*
“Aramis Ramirez hit .300 with 34 homer runs and 112 RBIs at age 23 in Pittsburgh. He did not get better than that. ”
Ramirez’ OPS that year was 885. He beat that in 6 of his years with the Cubs. His fielding % was .945. He topped that number 6 times as well.
*
And neither Castro nor Moore are going to be traded, so you might as well forget it.
Aramis Ramirez had a 4.2 WAR at age 23 in Pittsburgh. He has had only three other seasons with even a WAR of 3. Those three seasons were all slightly better with the Cubs, a WAR of 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6. But he NEVER had another season as good defensively again. He also hit 50 points higher on the road (.325) that year than he did in Pittsburgh. He had a .950 OPS on the road that year. In his five years with the Cubs with an OPS over .900, his road OPS was within 30 points of his road OPS that year in Pittsburgh only once. Twice it was under .800. He had ONE year better than that year and the rest of his career, on average, was not as good.
Kerry Wood’s best season was his rookie season. He also led the NL in hits per nine innings that year with a career-low 6.3 I’m not ignoring anything. His slider was never the same after that arm injury. He didn’t even try to throw it the same. Ditto for the Twins Francisco Liriano. It was still a great pitch for both — I think Liriano gets more swings and misses on his slider than any pitch for any pitcher in baseball — but it’s still not as good as it was for either.
What walk rate improvement? You mean from 4.6 per nine innings to 4.3? That’s infinitestimal. Yes, he had his best WHIP of his career that year, but it was barely better than his rookie year, which was his second-best WHIP year as a starter. 1.212 vs. 1.194.
I never said the Cubs would trade Castro, or even that they should, just that I would look into it. Justin Smoak of Texas was a higher-rated prospect than Castro at the beginning of last year, and he got traded. (Good thing too; he looks awful in Seattle). The Yankees could easily trade Jesus Montero; in fact, they tried to trade him to Seattle last year.
“But he NEVER had another season as good defensively again.”
Sorry, but Ramirez improved significantly on defense between his days in Pittsburgh and Chicago. I know you’re using Total Zone rating but that is obviously bogus. It’s based on number of chances. Well, when you play behind a staff that leads the majors in strikeouts 8 straight years, you aren’t going to get any where near as many chances as you do in Pittsburgh. Know where the 2001 Pirates’ staff ranked in K’s? 29th out of 30.
Offensively, Ramirez’ OPS+ in 2001 was 122.
As a Cubs he’s had years of 138, 134, 126, 128, 126, 130 and is 127 this year.
You like walks. Ramirez’ walk rate in ’01 was 6.7%.
He had a 7 years stretch with the Cubs of 9%, 6.9%, 8.4%, 8.5%, 13.4%, 7.3% and 9.2%.
*
“Kerry Wood’s best season was his rookie season.”
No it wasn’t, Matt. His ERA, ERA+ and WHIP were all better in ’03 and he did it in45 more innings. He may have been more electric in ’98, but he was a more consistent pitcher in ’03.
*
“His slider was never the same after that arm injury. He didn’t even try to throw it the same.”
That was his slurve, and that was after his elbow surgery in ’99. I’m talking about what his shoulder injuries in 2004, 2005 and 2006 did to him.
Sorry, I should’ve specified that, yes, Wood dropped the slurve after his rookie year and elbow surgery. It took him a couple years but he did get back on track as a good pitcher after his rehab. The shoulder injuries years later ruined him.
Good points about A-Ram’s defense. As for Kerry Wood in 2003 vs. 1998, even if you are right, it’s basically a wash. His season may have been marginally better then, but you can’t say HE was better when he had only one year the rest of his career that came anywhere close to his rookie season. As for Ramirez and OPS+, which I agree is probably a better stat to use, well, his offensive numbers are bound to go up in Chicago for the same reason that you say his defensive numbers went down. Chicago pitchers give him fewer chances to field, but Wrigley Field, with the shortest power alleys in all of baseball, is a far better hitter’s park than Pittsburgh. Ramirez had a split OPS+ of 151 that year in Pittsburgh, far better than his best total OPS of 138 as a Cub.
The point is, most great players are great pretty much from the start. Ted Williams hit .406 at age 22. Joe DiMaggion hit a career-high 46 homers at age 22. Willie Mays won his only batting title at age 23 (.345) and also hit 41 homers. Hank Aaron led the NL in batting, doubles, hits and total bases at age 22. Ernie Banks hit 44 homers in his second season at age 24. Albert Pujols hit .329 with 37 homers and 130 RBIs as a 21-year-old rookie then basically repeated that season for another 10 years. Those are the only players I looked up. I could probably go on and on. The players who are merely “great for their age” don’t necessarily progress past good. B.J. Upton, Delmon Young and others are examples.
“but you can’t say HE was better when he had only one year the rest of his career that came anywhere close to his rookie season.”
I’m saying Wood was improving not just in ’03 but then the next year as well. In ’04, Wood’s first 6 starts produced the following:
2.53 ERA, 0.96 WHIP, 3.8 K’s/BB
His next outing he left after 2 innings in LA with a biceps injury, missed the next two months, and was never the same.
Gee, 6 whole starts, during which time he was 3-2. As a rookie, he had a streak of seven starts where he gave up a total of 7 earned runs in 50 innings for a 1.26 ERA. He had a 5-0 record with 78 strikeouts in that span, with 29 hits allowed and 21 walks. … Everybody has streaks that good. Even No. 5 starters like Nick Blackburn of the Twins. He went 10 consecutive starts this year where he threw 64 innings where he allowed 18 runs for a 2.51 ERA and posted a 5-1 record. … Derek Holland of Texas has a career ERA over 5.00, yet he has thrown three shutouts in his last five starts plus a fourth game where he allowed one run (unearned) in six innings.
I’m done with this argument, because you are being nonsensical. Kerry Wood was 13-6 with a 3.40 ERA and 233 strikeouts as a rookie. That’s the second-best win total and second-best strikeout total of his 13-year career. It’s also close to his best years for ERA and WHIP and easily his best year for winning percentage. … Only someone willfully blind to the facts would maintain that Kerry Wood improved later in his career.
“during which time he was 3-2″
You are really excited by win-loss record.
Just to show how little win totals can mean, Wood had 12 no-decisions or losses in 2002 in games in which he made a quality start. That year he tied with Tim Hudson for the ML lead for most games blown by the bullpen.
*
“Everybody has streaks that good. Even No. 5 starters like Nick Blackburn of the Twins. He went 10 consecutive starts this year where he threw 64 innings where he allowed 18 runs for a 2.51 ERA and posted a 5-1 record”
Blackburn also allowed a hit an inning over that stretch and fanned a pitiful 5.2 per 9. Those peripherals show good fortune, not dominance. Throw in Wood’s final 6 starts the year before and you get a 12 start-stretch of:
85-2/3 IP, 54 H, 30 BB, 108 K ; 1.68 ERA, 0.98 WHIP, 11.3 K’s/9
That’s dominance. And I didn’t even throw in his two great playoff performances against the best offense in the NL in Atlanta. Wood never had as prolonged a streak of excellence as this.
*
“because you are being nonsensical.”
You’re comparing Nick Blackburn to Kerry Wood as if there is any comparison, and I’m the one being nonsensical? Talk about a red herring.
First you discount Kerry Wood’s career-best strikeout rate as a rookie, then dismiss Blackburn because he doesn’t have enough strikeouts. … Then you say I “am really excited by won-loss records” when I’ve barely mentioned them, putting most of my emphasis on ERA, strikeouts and WHIP. … I also have never compared Nick Blackburn to Kerry Wood, mentioning him EXACTLY because he’s a nobody — clearly pointing out he’s a No. 5 starter — yet he had a streak almost twice as long as the streak you mentioned by Kerry Wood that supposedly showed he was going to reach new heights and had the same ERA during that span. … There is not a single stat that Kerry Wood ever had for a season the entire rest of his career that was more than marginally better than he did as a rookie, and many were significantly worse.
“First you discount Kerry Wood’s career-best strikeout rate as a rookie, then dismiss Blackburn because he doesn’t have enough strikeouts.”
I didn’t discount anything. As I already said, Wood was probably more electric as a rookie, but there isn’t much difference between his 12.6 K’s/9 as a rookie and his 11.3K’s/9 in 2003. There IS, however, an enormous difference between those numbers and Blackburn’s 5.2 K’s/9 during his “hot” spell this season.
*
“Then you say I “am really excited by won-loss records” when I’ve barely mentioned them”
You pointed to Wood’s rookie record and winning percentage and Blackburn’s W/L record during a stretch of this year, and all but dismissed Wood’s terrific start of ’04 because he was “3-2″ in those starts.
*
“yet he had a streak almost twice as long as the streak you mentioned by Kerry Wood that supposedly showed he was going to reach new heights and had the same ERA during that span.”
And, again, any pitcher can have a good stretch as you say. But Blackburn’s stretch showed absolutely no signs of dominance or hope of future stardom. Wood’s, on the other hand, was the type of stretch that only #1 type power pitchers can produce.
*
“There is not a single stat that Kerry Wood ever had for a season the entire rest of his career that was more than marginally better than he did as a rookie, and many were significantly worse.”
You keep failing to look at the specifics and progression. Wood missed ’99 and ’00 was a rehab year. He started to look a bit like his pre-injury self in 2001. In ’02, he was really good but hurt by poor run support and a bad bullpen. He was an all-star and quite often dominant in ’03, but particularly put it together down the stretch. He carried that form over into 2004 before the career-changing injuries.
Right, in 2003 and for awhile in 2004 he was as good as he was as a rookie. Not better. As good as. I never said he was good as a rookie and a bum afterwards (ala Tyler Colvin). This post wasn’t even about Kerry Wood. It was about Starlin Castro. Wood was mentioned to illustrate that its irresponsible to assume players will improve dramatically with age. Please list one other person who thinks Kerry Wood was significantly and measurably better five and six years into his major league career than he was as a rookie.
Wood never got a chance to be “measurably” better due to injuries. But his finish in ’03 and start of ’04 certainly could lead one to believe he was heading there. You just choose to believe otherwise. He was all of 26 when his shoulder problems began.
Incidentally, Wood was really good when he got to the majors. His only weakness was mediocre control and pitch count issues. It’s not like you were taking a complete project and waiting for him to improve. In that sense, he probably wasn’t the best example for this discussion.
And it’s not “irresponsible” to think young, talented players will get better. It’s quite normal.