Every hitter that qualified with a BA over .300 last year were pretty good hitters. Ivan Rodriguez probably being the worst. .290 hitters are generally pretty good, too. I am not one for bars like .300. If a guy bats .290 and another .300, they are pretty much identical as far as BA is concerned. A percent diffence in almost any baseball stat is negligible. Almost always, a .250 batter is worst than a .300 batter. I prefer lots of stats instead of magical one number fits all.
I do, too, and that includes the almighty OPS the rotogeeks rave about. All statistics have value, and they all show an incomplete picture. The "hold", which I've been informed in this thread isn't even an official stat, may be the most incomplete of all.
i apologize in advance, but you're doing a major disservice to ensberg's OB% last year. it was not "modestly above-average;" it (.396, btw) was, in fact, tied for 17th best in all of MLB; tied for 8th best in the NL and was ranked 3rd among all MLB third basemen.
No need to. You're right. Thanks for correcting this. I remembered his OBP was good, but didn't remember how good. Still, that makes him a great guy for leadoff or 2-hole and a disappointment (when RBI and SLG are considered) for the 5-spot. I hope he turns it around this year.
i bet oswalt very nearly didn't sign his extension because of it. probably. his slugging % is awful again this year. he simply might not be the run producer we thought after his 2005 season. but i think he's well-cast in the 2-hole.
Oswalt publicly called him out last season for not swinging the damn bat. Best description of MoBerg '06 I've heard: "He's like an old guy sitting on the beach - he just watches them go by & says 'I'd hit that.'" And, uh, Ric, you haven't looked at Mo's splits batting 2/5 this season, have you?
i hadn't, no, but pfffft. 51 ABs. for his career, he has an .882 OPS hitting 2nd (305 ABs); hitting 5th: .771 (283 ABs). he actually really thrives hitting 4th (.974; 502 ABs), but i imagine the majority of those #s came during the 2005 season.
because it's continuing what is now a year-old trend. ensberg's slugging %, month-by-month, since may 1, 2006: .450, .236, .400, .299, .477, .448.
Can't have it both ways, Ric. Too early to look at stats in any meaningful way, agreed. But what relevance does last year have, really? Does he look like the '06 Ensberg to you? He sure doesn't to me. And if he's not the '06 Ensberg, he's much, much, much better suited to hitting in the middle of the order. It all depends on his approach, which this year has looked a lot more like the Ensberg of 2 years ago. Hitting him 2nd just reinforces the idea that he doesn't need to swing the ****ing bat when he gets hittable pitches. And he hasn't done so well so far with that. Bears watching. Again, it's all about his approach.
buck, his slugging % is awful. you can certainly be dubious based on the calender, but, as pointed out, it's been awful since may 2006. at what point does it stop being a statistical anomaly? meanwhile, the 2/5 splits you posted are pfffft'ed not only because of the small sample size (he has 26 ABs hitting 2nd; 25 hitting 5th), but because when you widen the sample size (his career), it gives a far different perspective of his production as a #2 hitter. based on his success hitting 2nd and his continuing struggle driving the ball, he looks suited for the 2-hole; he certainly continues to look overmatched in run-producing situations.
Well, I was just joking around. If I bring this up too much, I'll be accused of bringing it up all the time.
What does how he fared in 2003 as a part-time player (270 of his 340 PA's hitting 2nd) really tell you about how he's doing *now*? Again, I'm not talking about results (which have been pretty good, regardless) but his approach. If you think he looks anywhere nearly as lost as he did last season in rbi situations, then we'll just disagree strongly & leave it at that.
On the subject of Ensberg's OBP. It's actually very valuable.... except in an Astros 5-spot lineup with such horrible hitters behind him. Stat geeks are very big on OBP, and it make sense even intuitively. You do not get an out, and you put an extra runner on base. That's got to be an excellent plate appearance even for Barry Bonds in his prime. The problem is, when no one behind you can drive you in, it feels to teammates and fans to be a "wasted at-bat". Even if it is a productive one. Stats like RBIs and BA don't tell the whole story, but at least they tell "part" of the story. Meaning they're at least semi-useful in terms of judging a player's quality. Save, on the other hand, is an entirely arbitrary stat that makes no sense. I mean, if a pitcher comes in with a 3 run lead, gives up 2 runs, he gets a save. The same pitcher comes in the 8th inning in a tie game, give up no runs, leaves in the ninth, and gets NOTHING.
I disagree with your assessment of Ensberg's ability to "drive the ball". If you look at his isolated power numbers, he's pretty good. He was 2nd in the team in homers last season. Last season he launched plenty of homers, he just didn't hit enough singles to create a decent batting average. This year his average is fine, but he's due for a few more longballs. That's a good example of why a number like "slugging percentage" doesn't tell the whole story. From last season to this one, his slugging #s are the same, but based on widely different component statistics. He's hitting for better average this season but with less power. I'd expect the homers to pick up, it's just April.
This is a bit distorted too, though. He had one of the best Aprils of anyone in baseball last year - 9 HRs and a 1.200+ OPS. He kept the power in May (8 HRs) but stopped hitting for average. Then the rest of the sesaon, he hit for neither power nor average. From June through September, he totalled 6 HRs (& 7 doubles) and 22 RBIs. His slugging #s in two of those months was under 0.300 - that's worse than Adam Everett. So his slugging numbers are highly distorted due to an absurdly good April.
