Hey! look here It's Morgan Ensberg's hit chart. It's amazing for such a great and feared hitter like Ensberg, teams don't employ an infield shift on him. Maybe bc its the others teams don't respcect Ensberg's ability to beat you like a Bonds/Ortiz/Giambi. Hmmm, if you go here, gay p*rn, you would see his hit chart, it kinda didn't work for some reason. Also if you notice, when he doesn't pull the ball is when he makes his outs. Another edit: I suspected by Ensberg's stance that he has trouble hitting power pitchers(aka good pitching), and i was right. He hits 237 against hard throwers. The reason is bc it's harder to turn on a good fastball. Another edit: I'll admit, i don't watch much of Ensberg, but i get the feeling he's a streaky hitter. I also get the feeling that everyone went on home, and I'm just stuck here talking to myself. I think i hear crickets in the background.
Ensberg's no more of a pull hitter than most batters. He's actually had quite a few homers to right centerfield over the course of the last two seasons. As for his numbers on the road, who cares? It's not like MMP was a one year thing. We play 81 games there every season. His numbers for three of the past four years dwarf those of anyone on this team outside of Lance Berkman, and certainly make him an impact player. Are we supposed to pretend our park doesn't exist or something? There's a reason franchises often build their teams around the type of stadium they have. Also, you make it sound like you have to be Bonds/Ortiz/Giambi to be an impact player. That's simply false. He's not at the level of those three players, but his numbers when healthy are substantially above average. And if you ask most people who genuinely follow baseball (which you say you don't), you'll have a hard time convincing most of them that a player who has a .890 or better OPS in three of his last four seasons isn't an impact hitter. Furthermore, last season, Ensberg had a .900 OPS on the road. That definitely falls within the impact category.
Let's add ranks to put this into perspective (you know me and ranks ). Ensberg's OPS rankings (against the NL): 2006 - 19th 2005 - 8th 2004 - 64th 2003 - 17th Besides 2004, Ensberg has been pretty consistent otherwise. For as much as he's been sucking this year, it's amazing he's still in the top 20 for OPS.
Absolutely. It's amazing how different things can look when you include many relevant statistics and use a sample size of the entire season, instead of limiting yourself to a select few statistics (average, RBI) over a very limited time period (month or so) as many of the "ditch Ensberg" crowd seem to do.
(must.... resist.... urge to respond....) so what's the excuse for may when he was healthy and hitting .236 with an OPS of .779 (which, VS, would have ranked 52nd in the NL)? so... outside of that one season, you think he's been pretty consistent in his other two, huh......? (sorry; really. please return to berkamn talk.)
endsberg is supposed to be a run producer. ops is a nice stat, it tries to guage the overall effectiveness of a hitter, but you go to ops after you've evaluated rbi. that's his job, not to slug and get on base. I'm not totally dismissing the stat, but you're missing the big picture relying to heavily on it.
Every player has an off-month. That's why you focus on the composite average. David Ortiz is likely the MVP of the AL; he had an OPS of .803 for May (which would have ranked in the 40s or 50s, I believe, in the AL). He wasn't hurt. What's his excuse? Miguel Tejada, a former MVP and someone everyone is going nuts over, had an OPS of .782 in June - barely above Ensberg's May? What's his excuse? I'll give you a hint: it involves almost every player in the game having one or two months where they're below their average. That's baseball. 2.5, to be more precise. His numbers this season are on the same path as the two good seasons.
imo, you start with statistics that are within a player's control. Given the dependency on baserunners that the RBI statistic has, it doesn't fit the criteria. Morgan's up there to have the most productive at-bats he can. Sometimes it's an RBI, but if they're not throwing him acceptable pitches, it's a walk. The notion that certain players should be judged exclusively on the runs they create is silly. That's too dependent on other factors such as teammates reaching base, the opposition giving you pitches to hit, the strength of the hitters in front of and behind you... etc.
yes, players battle slumps. and ensberg’s entitled to off games, weeks and overall less-than-stellar months; that i will not argue. in fact, i didn’t have a problem with his may, per se – he still drove in 17 and hit, iirc, 8 home runs. those are both more than acceptable paces. (ortiz, btw, drove in 28 in may – a pace of 170 - and tejada hit .315 and drove in 17; bears mentioning). where i took issue is with the prevailing notion that ensberg’s slump has occurred in lock step with his injury (stated in this thread and mentioned specifically by timmy p in an article i posted in another thread); that just isn’t true based on his drop-off in may. he was showing signs of struggling prior to getting hurt; getting hurt only exasperated the situation. i’ll give you 2.25 and counter with he’s been unproductive for 1.25. and no, he’s not on the same path as his two good seasons; not any more.
Having an OPS of in the .775 range isn't necessarily struggling... that's an expected dropoff here and there in a season. That's also a level acceptable to this team. It wasn't until June that he reached the unacceptable level, and that's what Tim is referencing when he mentions the injury. But see... you can't have it both ways. If you're going to only count 2006 as 0.25 of a good season, you can't count 2004 as 1 full bad season. His second half in 2004 was very consistent and productive, once he got past the embarassing 70 or so games without a homer. I prefer to analyze them by full seasons, and if you do so, his full 2006 season (to this point) has similar production to his 2005 and 2003 seasons.
