so we need to back off ensberg because he walks a lot at the sacrifice of average, power, RBI potential, and instead focus our frustration at preston wilson because he's sacrificing power and doing all these annoying things like hitting to the gaps, imporving his batting average and driving in all the guys morgan's leaving on base? got it; consider it done. history? ensberg's had a good season, an awful season and a great season, in that order and all after the age of 27. so history suggests he could go a lot of different ways. i think people need to pull their heads out the sand, and stop assuming that last year was the norn and not at least consider the possibility that it was a fluke. this team needs ensberg; i'm hoping he recaptures it. but good hitters don't regress as much as he has since may 22. the numbers are startling. the astros apparently agree.
How about his numbers in Washington? How about his home/road splits while with CO, which did not have a significant gulf between them? What about his numbers in FLA? Rather than dismissing him because he spent some time in Colorado, look at his *career*, per the original suggested. Take all that Coors crap with a grain of salt.
i agree....but at who's expense does he play every day? Maybe if Lamb goes into the tank (which is entirely possible I guess)...but right now, you cannot take Lamb out of the lineup except against lefties occasionally. Huff and Berkman are playing everyday....period. The worst thing for a guy trying to break out of a slump is to have to situationally start IMO. Its impossible tro get into a rhythm. I think if they do sit him down like someone suggested they may, they will basically tell him that he is now a platoon. If thats not good for him, then they may ask him if he wants to go somewhere where he can play everyday and explore a trade. The great thing about this deal getting done today is that we have over 2 weeks to make another move if a good deal comes along.
I'm not saying to back off altogether. I'm just saying to consider the body of work as a whole instead of just a couple of months before you write off his entire career and decide to trade him for a reliever, as many in this thread have hinted at wanting to do. Mediocre talent evaluators make the mistake of taking out all their frustrations on the biggest underachievers - which in our case is Ensberg. But the great talent evaluators - which I hope our front office is - can see beyond one player and see the other issues. And, to me, Preston is an issue... not the legit #4 or #5 hitter that some people want to make him out to be based on his average alone. Along those same lines, if Ensberg hits at the clip that history dictates he likely will, he will probably be a better offensive option than Wilson and we should prepare ourselves for that probability (imo of course). Good hitters don't regress as much as Ensberg has? Aubrey Huff did - look at his numbers before June 1. It's an extreme slump, but some players are like that when the sample size is as small as a month and a half. It's baseball. And no, we don't know if the Astros agree. Huff can play a lot of positions, and it makes a lot of sense to acquire him even if Ensberg were having the season he did last year. Also, I wouldn't consider 2004 awful... it was mediocre, but he still had a decent average and didn't perform as poorly as he is right now. Between his power numbers in 03 and 05 and his average in all three seasons, his performance the last six weeks is clearly the outlier and is not likely to continue. It can, but it's not the statistical probability.
actually, i was secretly referencing VROP (or: Volatile Rearranging of Offensive Production), da vinci code style - what a little rober langdon you are for cracking it! VROP is a newer, even more bad-ass way to dismiss important but underwhelming stats of your favorite players in an effort to try and spin their disappointing seasons into MVP campaigns. ensberg trails only brad ausmus and jason lane in team VROP.
He doesn't walk at the "sacrifice" of average, power, etc. His walk numbers are a reflection of his selectivity at the plate, which is a good thing. He is slumping in terms of what he's able to do at the plate in other areas, but it's not a sacrifice for walks. Walking is being productive, I don't see why people are clamoring for him to reduce his skill in being selective. OMG RBIs!!!!! BTW Buck - What is your fascination with making fun of VORP. Is it the sheer logic involved that frustrates you?
A lot of Ensberg's recent walks have been a result of guys pitching around him because Everett and Ausmus follow him. Not all...but a lot of recent ones.
burzmali -- his OBP would tell you he's doing great. but he's not driving in runs. i don't care if he's walking if he's not driving in runs. he's a cleanup hitter. his job is to make runs cross the plate. he's far too selective. he's getting walked and watching very hit-able pitches go by as well. i'm great with my leadoff hitter drawing walks. i'm not great with my cleanup hitter doing that...particularly in this lineup where you start to fall off so sharply in terms of offensive production after the 5 hitter. vorp is just funny to say.
i get that, but he wasn't brought here to be a #4 hitter; i don't really think he was brought here to be a #5 hitter, either, or, at the very least, they imagined him being sandwiched between a producitve ensberg and lane. i've never understood their fascination with lane; with ensberg, again, i question the track record. like lane, he floundered in the minors far too many years for my tastes, emerged somewhat out of nowhere and then regressed terribly in year two. last year, he put it altogether... at age 30. the team should have at least considered the possibility that he was perforrming out of his tree and made some concessions. you're right; excellent point, though he did do time on the DL to start the year, giving us something to at least point to as a reason. if ensberg's hurt, then he needs to get healthy and stop hurting the team, or rather, stop not helping it. but if it is an injury, that would mark the third year in a row he's been hurt, tried to play through it and saw his production suffer. that's bothersome. but ensberg doesn't look hurt; he looks lost. it's not like he's having trouble planting, or catching up to fastballs... he looks like his confidence has left him altogether, which is why its worrisome.
This is just a strange argument to me. Being selective, is a skill. It's part of being a productive, "good", hitter. So because of this players placement in the lineup, you want to decrease his production, or rather change his approach to be less productive? It doesn't make any sense. I don't get the fascination with RBI numbers. It depends so much on other factors out of the hitters control, and it's a counting statistic. This whole "stop taking pitches" argument is just whacked out, and pointless. Somebody find that quote from Purp about placing an organizational emphasis on being more selective at the plate. VORP may be funny to say, but it's an insanely useful statistic.
no, no - it's VROP - Volatile Rearranging of Offensive Production - it's very new, very high-end; might be out of your league. i'm calculating theories right now - btw, what's pi numerically? i always forget.
it compares players against a fictional player that doesn't exist....the "AVERAGE" player. it does not factor in defense, but it's a comparative stat. you couldn't begin to assess AE's value to a team with VORP.
