Precisely. No--meaning he actually hit the hittable pitches earlier in the count before the would-be ball four pitch, which was never thrown since Lance was on second base. Man, that was profound! I hope you don't actually believe that's what I was saying. About as much as he was last year, Ric. The difference isn't the approach of the pitchers. If you don't believe this, *watch* the guy at the plate. He was hitting the ball. He's not hitting the ball. Ensberg was hurt and lying about it. Again. I don't know who your other two are. If one of them is Biggio, then you know why.
And that's why they felt the need to add to the offense with Lee. Its just that Berkman is doing WORSE than some of the guys we had last year (Ensberg AND Lane).
I agree with you. However, I am asking about the contention that if a normal Berkman would have a major effect up-and-down the lineup this year, why did he not have that effect on the lineup last year when he was arguably the 2nd best player in the NL (behind Pujols)?
It would have been historically bad. Nonetheless, if he was that great last year and the offense stunk, how much of a positive difference could he make this year on the lineup across-the-board if he was hitting? We have a player playing at an MVP level (Lee) and our offense is still bad (though thankfully improved the last couple of days).
if you have the capablities, do a search of "ric" and "ensberg" and you'll find plenty of examples that would dispute this notion i'm operating only in hindsight. when you suddenly put it together at 28, 29 years of age, that's a red flag, imo, and i said as much, even after ensberg's 2005, MVP-like season. he was one of my biggest question marks prior to last year. similiarly, i had the same reservations about scott. again, 28-year olds don't suddenly just overnight, "get it." again, these are concerns i addressed last year. in fact, i'm fairly certain i started a thread on scott in august or september, asking whether or not he was legit. so don't throw hindsight **** at me; i've raised issues with each of them, and NEVER would have invested in either until they proved they weren't flukes.
Uhh... right now you have Lee and Pence. Last year you had just Berkman and Ensberg/Scott (both taking turns being dominant). This year, you have the opportunity to have Berkman, Lee, Pence... and possibly one of Ensberg/Scott. For that to happen, Berkman has to show up.
So according to you, no player in the history of MLB has a productive career after becoming an everyday guy around 28-29? Especially not ones who consistently dominate the minors, and even have touches of success in the majors? Yes, I didn't expect Scott to do what he did last year either... but do you honestly think he'll finish the year batting under .240? And I'm no longer touching Ensberg... his even year/off year discrepancy defied any trend you may have ever researched in MLB history (he "got it" at 27, lost it at 28, got it back at 29, lost it again at 30). His "i'm injured", "i'm healthy... but really injured" schtick grew tiresome. If he was going to have a good year this year, so be it... but there is no predicting what he's going to do (which is why the Astros have options in Loretta and Lamb). Btw... why is Lamb doing bad this year?
ok, fair enough. so why are teams throwing more ball fours? if he's visibly not comfortable and he's no longer turning on, and ripping, pitches earlier in the count, why is he not beign challenged more? would you throw the guy ball four knowing he's been in a year-long slump? but msn, they're still throwing him ball four. he has 44 walks, most among astros. 2nd most? 19. in fact, only 3 players in all of baseball have drawn more walks. yes, some of that may very well be related to his struggles; but is that why you think barry bonds is leading the league with 58? because he's struggling to hit pitches he used to pound and is settling for walks? he's on pace to draw anywhere from 25-30 more walks than he did last year, and that's with him slugging .340. i contend he'd have even MORE walks if berkman was "berkman." nice. but i could sworn you took offense to the notion of line-up protection being bogus. so while your answers were cute and funny and all that... they skirted the issue. this was the genesis of our discussion: me:things like line-up protection and the like are bogus and false. that's why this notion that berkman being berkman would have a positive effect up and down the line-up is so unfounded. you:I completely disagree! And so do most baseball people. But what do they know? so..... berkman being "berkman" isn't the issue; it's ensberg? again, if ensberg had been 2005, mvp ensberg... we would have had, well, what we currently have with pence and lee, which has vaulted the team to 10 games under .500.
nick, let's not deal in absolutes. i never said "never" - here's exactly what i DID say: when you suddenly put it together at 28, 29 years of age, that's a red flag. players usually peak at or near the age of 27. they may then sustain that peak for several years, but consensus is that few (minus those indulging in PEs, of course) experience an upswing as they draw closer to 30. that is not by any means absolute; but it's enough to at least be concerned that the players may have had a fluke season. i was concerned about ensberg last march; i was concerned about scott in the middle of his hot streak. they both earned the right to prove me wrong, obviously, but i wouldn't have gone in without plan Bs for either... just in case.
He *is* being challenged. He's fouling them off rather than driving them in the gap. He also has 45 K's. You see, they're still throwing strike three, too. He's on pace to K more than his entire career. More walks and more K's mean less balls in play. Whether it's ball four or strike three (although ball four at least saves an out and puts a guy on base), the result is a power hitter who ain't hittin' for power. It's most certainly related. No, because in *watching* the plate appearances, rather than solely pulling out walk numbers and OBP numbers, one quickly realizes the comparison is invalid. Neither is setting the world on fire for a career year, but one certainly looks better than the other and is swinging with much more authority. I'm not going to explain this to you again. He's also on pace to strike out 25-30 more times than last year. Will those numbers increase, too? Berkman won't finish with 144 walks *or* 140 K's. Wasn't offended; just disagreed. No, they didn't. You misunderstand lineup protection--as in it must produce a measurable, statistical increase every time or it doesn't exist. Baseball is too human for this. Berkman might see better pitches earlier in the count, but it's still up to him to actually hit them with authority. Additionally, some pitchers with great composure (Oswalt, for example) will pitch him the same way no matter who's behind him. Moreover, the situation on the basepaths, the number of outs, and whether it's late in the game can affect a pitcher's approach to a group of hitters coming up. And, of course, because you don't understand it or can't quantify it, you say it doesn't exist. Leadership apparently doesn't exist, either. Nope. You arbitrarily drew three guys from the lineup and asked how they had the worst OPS years of their careers if Berkman is such a help to the lineup. I attempted to answer that. Herein lies a big difference in the way we think, Ric. I will accept something as common sense because it bears itself out year after year. You'll challenge some notion, bring up one specific scenario, and attempt to disprove it based upon that one scenario. What about 100+ years of Major League Baseball being played? Everyone knows that a big hitter in your lineup helps the rest of the lineup. The 2006 Astros were certainly an exception to the rule. Nothing in life is black-and-white. Every situation has its own factors which make it unique. Ensberg was injured. He was injured, Ric. Biggio is old, Ric. Who else is on your short list? Adam Everett? Brad Ausmus? It was a bad team. A bad team that would have been even worse without Lance Berkman.
