What do you guys think about this? Williams won't confirm it, but he does seem to be starting Blum over Ensberg. My question is, why? So far, Blum has hit well... over a grand total of 20 at-bats. Ensberg has hit poorly... over 28. And Ensberg hasn't played altogether poorly. His .353 OBP is good (30 points better than Castilla's), and since we know he has strength, the power should come around. I think it's unconscionable to give a rookie a starting job, then strip it from him after 28 sorry at-bats. That's not giving someone time to prove himself at all. And it's only going to ruin the poor guy's confidence. After 100, it's time to start talking, perhaps (though I think it should be even longer than that). Geoff Blum had a .664 OPS last year, and has declined every year since he entered the majors. He's older than Ensberg, and has proven nothing in 3 years of major league experience, other the fact that he's sub-par. Ensberg is old for a prospect, but his major league equivalencies, which are, in general, quite accurate, predict that he'd have an OPS over .800 over the course of a season. Why not take the chance? At worst, you don't lose much even if Ensberg does stink up the joint for a couple hundred plate appearances. At best, you have a decent starting 3b for the future. Blum ain't it. Ensberg might be. When you've got someone who certainly sucks, and someone who might... I'd go with the latter.
Didn't you earlier cite Williams' tendency to wear out his pitchers? I guess he takes the opposite position with his hitters. Agreed the rookie should be given more of a chance to work through the slump.
Personally, I wouldn't play anybody who can't hit at least .250 unless they had the complete respect of the whole team. Like Ausmus does.
Okay, but where do you draw the line? How many guys were 2 for 9 after an opening series. Do you bench them all? They have to have some time to let the numbers start to even out.
Unfortunately, we needed wins pretty bad. Play the best players... Ensberg will get his shot. It's just going to be a little sporadic. Didn't you earlier cite Williams' tendency to wear out his pitchers? Where did you hear this? Everything I've heard is that he has an extremely quick hook and doesn't give his pitchers a chance to work out of jams.
WHich we can now confirm with what we see. But, even though our bullpen isn't our greatest asset right now, I'd rather see our starting pitchers ready come spetember and hopefully, OCtober.
actually...i don't know what my opinion is on this yet. in theory i agree with you haven. i'm really disappointed with Ensberg...not just at the plate but in the field as well. i guess he was just so highly touted last year that i expected more from him earlier. oh, well...i hope he comes around. seems like a likeable guy.
I don't like it, but I would be more worried if it were any other rookie. From everything I have heard from Ensberg, he is a very intelligent and articulate player. I think he understands the reasoning behind what Jimy is doing, even if he doesn't agree with it. So I don't believe it will effect his confidence. The decision is a poor one in the long run, but I am pretty certain that Blum will hit a Truby-esque cold streak within a month, and Ensberg will be the number one guy again.
Right now, this team can't worry about developing a rookie. If Williams believes that this team has a better chance to win a game with Blum in the lineup (and it appears so far <B>this season</b> that we have a better chance with Blum), then that's what he should do. I didn't watch the game on Sunday, but listened to the majority of it, and didn't Blum have at least one, if not more, defensive plays that saved a run?
Blum's been hitting better & we've needed the offense. Ensberg will be fine. You can compare the offensive stats of the 'Stros 3rd basemen w/ the 2 we let go here: (heck of a url, ain't it?) Check out those K:BB ratios! http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/s...398hou5&checkBoxTotal=0&compare.x=&statSet1=1 I don't see how you can be that disappointed in his defense so far. I realize there were a few bunt hits early in the year; that has more to do w/ how the coaches position him than anything else. He's certainly not much of a drop-off from Castilla defense-wise.
Williams is a peculiar manager. He doesn't follow many patterns. Most of the time, he does tend to have a quick hook. But he'll also throw someone too much when they're playing very well. That's just silly. It "appears so far?" After 28 at-bats? I suppose that Blum would be a better hitter than Bagwell, eh? Or Hidalgo for that matter. Or Biggio. Over a ridiculously small # of at-bats, Blum has performed very well. Over a very large # of at-bats the past 3 seasons, Blum has been a sorry, sorry hitter. Every hitter has good streaks, and every one has bad. But it's a bad idea to bench players like that. Especially young ones. Major League Equivalencies are in general accurate. Hence, Ensberg projects to be a good player. Blum, we already know, is not. MLE's aren't perfect. Sometimes, players never hit quite as well as projected. But 20 at-bats doesn't prove a damned thing. And until Ensberg does have a chance to prove himself, one needs to assume that those MLE's will work out. This isn't about developing a youngster. MLE's don't project potential, but what that player is capable of right now. Oh, and if someone's defense really saved more than 1 run per game (or even that much), he'd be the greatest defensive player in the history of baseball in no time.
Every hitter has good streaks, and every one has bad. But it's a bad idea to bench players like that. Especially young ones. And Blum is currently in a good streak, so he's playing. Meanwhile, Ensberg is in a bad streak, so he's not playing. Right now, Blum is doing everything better than Ensberg -- he's hitting better and for more power, he's playing defense better, etc. Use him while he's hot. When he inevitably goes cold, Ensberg will get his chance again. If Ensberg can't handle sitting for a few games, he's not major league material anyway. Keep in mind, Blum has started 2 consecutive games. They'll both keep playing, neither of them full-time, and hopefully one will establish themselves.
Major hit in on the head. Blum's playing better right now, and the way the season has started, you throw out the players who are playing better right now, career and projected statistics be damned.
Um, it's way too early in the season to get yourself worked up over this. Just as an FYI: Jimmy Williams does NOT like a set lineup. Never has. He's going to tinker, because that's in his nature. Ensberg hasn't lost the job any more than Blum has won it - my guess is that they'll both get at bats for awhile unless and until one of them distinguishes themselves over a significant number of at-bats. haven, why did you tout Ensberg's #s early in the season as an "auspicious sign" while criticizing any sort of meaningful analysis of Ensberg's/Blum's numbers now as premature? And then, in the same breath, you compare Ensberg's OBP favorably to Castilla while leaving out the fact that Castilla's current OPS (a more important number) is 200 points higher than Ensberg's... I agree that it's too early to compare anyone's season numbers. It seems though that some people have a pro-Ensberg, anti-Blum mentality, which bothers me. I'm rooting for both to do well, since their production will only help the team.
Regardless of what happens in the long-run, I think the pickup of Blum was a good one. He sorta fills that Bill Spiers type of utility mode. Can he play shortstop? Because if so, I wouldn't mind seeing him in there for Everett occasionally as well - Ensberg, Everett and Spiers should be able to adequately platoon the left side of the infield.
That's ridiculous. Every time a player has a streak, you're supposed to start them regardless of a more talented player in front of them? Think of what this standard implies. Hypothetically, if Bagwell gets cold, and Orlando Merced hits better over 30 at-bats, should we bench Bagwell? Of course not. Hence, we know that your standard fails. Play the more talented player, who has the capability to do better right now. This is terrible logic. For one, it hits the same snag that Major's does. The implications are absurd. But you take it a step further and hit a vicious regress. How does one define "right now?" yesterday? the last 20 at-bats? The last 50? The last 100? How do we know when a "streak" has stopped? If Blum hits ..500 over 30 at bats, then .250 over the next 8, has it stopped? What if he goes 0/5 the next day? But then 3/5 the next? Streaks are notorious for defining themselves retrospectively. A player is hot so long as he hits well. And he hits well so long as he's hot. Circular analysis. The fact is, we don't know how long someone will be hot. But we can judge, based on career performance, how someone will likely do over a long span of time. Right now, we can see that playing Ensberg for 500 at-bats will probably help the team more than playing Blum for 500. That's all we need to know. And hey, if the added benefit is that he improves as the season progresses due to development... great! one player has upside. The other has none. Your standards lead to absurdities and infinite regresses. Mine do not.
Did you really just compare Ensberg to Bagwell? To me, it's absurd to play someone who's got more "upside" over the player that is playing better, especially when we're talking about players of this caliber.
So, what you argued isn't really "true?" It only applies to Morgan Ensberg? Why is it "true" then? If you're not willilng to stand by the fact that one should play who's doing best now in all cases... then it's meaningless. Thanks for agreeing that your argument has no merits. Alas, that's not what I said. Upside is a "bonus." Ensberg, over the course of a season, will probably hit better than Blum, based on what we know now. That's why you play Ensberg over Blum. And also... you never respond to the failures of your argument. I basically asserted that your standard involves circular reasoning and impossible to judge standards... and you respond by throwing pejoratives against mine. Nice.
My standard would be when you're platooning an unproven rookie (despite his "upside") and an unproven 4th year veteran, then you go with who's playing the best, and right now, it's Blum. It doesn't matter that we're 13 games into the season or not. There's always a chance that a player with the potential to hit better than someone else won't do that. Right now, Williams is going with the player he believes gives them a better shot of winning.
