Tuesday, September 3, 2013

A look at the full-season minor league affiliates

Sometimes it feels like a broken record: The Major-League team is God-awful. BUT DON'T FRET! THE SYSTEM IS REALLY GOOD. And while we try to contextualize that from time to time, it's appropriate to look at just how good they are. Farmstros has noted that 2013 is the first time since 2001 that the Astros have had six affiliates make the playoffs.

But if we take a narrower look at the system, we see that the 2013 Astros organization has now hit Legendary status as all four of their minor-league full season affiliates have recorded 80 wins. Let's put this in context with the Top 20 teams in full-season Minor-League Baseball (by winning percentage):

1. Cedar Rapids Kernels (Low-A Minnesota): 88-50 (.638)
2. Binghamton Mets (Double-A NY Mets): 86-55 (.610)
3. Durham Bulls (Triple-A Tampa Bay): 87-57 (.604)
4. Potomac Nationals (High-A Washington): 84-55 (.604)
5. Augusta Greenjackets (Low-A San Francisco): 82-55 (.599)
6. Daytona Cubs (High-A Chicago): 75-51 (.595)
7. Bowling Green Hot Rods (Low-A Tampa Bay): 82-56 (.594)
8. Corpus Christi Hooks (Double-A Houston): 83-57 (.593)
8. San Jose Giants (High-A San Francisco): 83-57 (.593)
10. Quad Cities River Bandits (Low-A Houston): 81-57 (.587)
11. Lancaster JetHawks (High-A Houston): 82-58 (.586)
11. West Virginia Power (Low-A Pittsburgh): 82-58 (.586)
13. Fort Myers Miracle (High-A Minnesota): 79-56 (.585)
14. Hagerstown Suns (Low-A Washington): 80-57 (.584) 
15. South Bend Silver Hawks (Low-A Arizona): 81-58 (.583)
16. Oklahoma City RedHawks (Triple-A Houston): 82-62 (.569)
17. Mobile Bay Bears (Double-A Arizona): 79-60 (.568)
18. Las Vegas 51s (Triple-A NY Mets): 81-63 (.563)
19. San Antonio Missions (Double-A San Diego): 78-61 (.561)
20. Pawtucket Red Sox (Triple-A Boston) 80-63 (.559) 

(Note: The Daytona Cubs had a number of games rained out, thus the reason they played fewer games than the rest of the list)

Organizations with no teams at 80+ wins:
Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Colorado, Detroit, Kansas City, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, Miami, Milwaukee, NY Yankees, Oakland, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle, St. Louis, Texas, Toronto

Organizations with one team at 80+ wins:
Arizona, Boston, Minnesota

Organizations with two teams at 80+ wins:
NY Mets, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Tampa Bay, Washington

Organizations with three teams at 80+ wins:

Organizations with all four teams at 80+ wins:

So you can get an idea of just how the full-season affiliates shake out from the above list, but to put them in order of winning percentage:

Houston: 328-234 (.584)
NY Mets: 315-239 (.569)
Minnesota: 310-249 (.555)
Tampa Bay: 307-247 (.554)
Washington: 307-255 (.546)
San Francisco: 303-259 (.539)
Arizona: 297-265 (.528)
Texas: 296-266 (.527)
San Diego: 288-274 (.512)
Oakland: 287-276 (.510)
Pittsburgh: 282-278 (.504)
Miami: 278-276 (.502)
Chicago Cubs: 272-271 (.501)
Atlanta: 278-283 (.496)
LA Angels: 276-281 (.496)
NY Yankees: 275-284 (.492)
Colorado: 273-284 (.490)
Boston: 275-287 (.489)
Chicago White Sox: 274-286 (.489)
Detroit: 270-287 (.485)
Seattle: 269-289 (.482)
Toronto: 266-288 (.480)
St. Louis: 265-289 (.478)
LA Dodgers: 267-295 (.475)
Baltimore: 263-298 (.469)
Kansas City: 260-302 (.463)
Philadelphia: 257-300 (.461)
Cleveland: 250-312 (.445)
Cincinnati: 248-313 (.442)
Milwaukee: 241-310 (.437)

So, have at it.


Anonymous said...

Wow. Nice summary.

But, depth rather than star power is my first thought.

The Batguy said...

I'll argue depth AND star power. The Astros have seven prospects in MLB.com's top 100 list. It was eight, until Cosart was called up to Houston. And of those, four are in the top 30.

If having more top ranked prospects than any other team except Boston isn't your definition of star power, please tell me, what is?

Anonymous said...

I dunno whether star power is a top-100 prospect. More like a top-10 prospect. The Astros have a bunch of solid regular prospects, but the impact players (aside from Springer) are a long way away. And Springer looks good, but the K's... oh the K's

Additionally, stars in minor league teams don't necessarily equate to good records. It helps to have stars, but it is more important to have consistent talent around the diamond, rather than 2-3 impact guys (although it really helps).

Hence, I think that the minor league records described above (and they ARE impressive) is more a sign of consistent talent through the system, with some potential stars a wee way off.

Another #1 draft pick will help.