The A's manager is mostly a figurehead. Beane controls pretty much everything. Gosh that must really burn, huh. Oh but he was a former major leaguer. Maybe that lessens the sting? (It makes sense btw. Why would I want somebody less intelligent making those kinds of decisions? )
I guess I don't mind Berkman batting 4th as long as it's not Ensberg right now ahead of him. With Ensberg refusing to swing and just drawing walks, there's no way he should be batting 3rd, though I actually wouldn't mind him so much in the two hole where conventially you don't expect as much. If you can't lift a ball to get a sac fly though, there's no way you should bat 3rd. I guess the most amusing thing that I've seen in a while though is Soriano batting first all season for the Nationals. Come on, put him 3rd and try to get somebody on before he leads off the inning with a home run.
Cat linked me to some interesting SOSH posts. As some of you may know, SOSH is the premier baseball fan site on the internet. Some very smart folks up there in Boston. "Purpura also mentioned how this would carry with it decreased playing time for Morgan Ensberg, who characterized (in a roundabout way) as being a disappointment. Of course, along with a 390/ 500 19 HR line, he's also hitting 236, which people are reacting to. He's clearly a better hitter/ player than Huff, so maybe it was simply lip service and it will amount to nothing, but sitting Ensberg in favor of Huff seems like a nice step backward for the Astros." "The fact that Ensberg is going to give up any at-bats on a team struggling for offense is hysterical. Ensberg's .390 OBP is 15th in the NL and his .890 OPS is in the top 20. By Equivalent Average, Ensberg is the 20th-best hitter in the NL this year. Maybe benching their second-best hitter is just the jolt their offense needs. :blink:" "But he's only hitting .236!!!111 edit: upon review, that .154 isoD is ridiculous - Adam Dunn-good." "Huff is apparently going to take ABs away from the Astros' 2nd-best hitter, Morgan Ensberg, because their GM thinks Ensberg's line of .236/.390/.500 qualifies "struggling." That's right. A guy with a .390 OBP and an .890 OPS is going to the bench in favor of Aubrey Huff, even though Huff can play several other positions besides 3B." "To be fair, Ensberg has been struggling after a terrific April. That said, it is hard to believe that they don't have a bit more faith in a guy who posted a .945 OPS last year, just as good a season as Berkman in '05. Then again, this is a team that employs Willy Tavares in the lead-off or #2 spot regularly because he runs fast. At least Garner seems to have finally realized that Chris Burke is a pretty good player."
What fantacrap. I mean, seriously. Have those guys *watched* Ensberg the last month? He *looks* horrible. Throwing the OBP number out there without watching and knowing what's really going on is as stupid as throwing the BA number out there as the be-all-end-all. Ensberg is in this lineup to hit guys in. He's not even hitting the ball. He looks *horrible* at the plate. The best idea I've read in this thread is hitting Ensberg 2nd. If he's not going to drive in runs but he's got this magnificent OBP (thanks almost exclusively to walks), then put him higher in the order where he'll both see more pitches to hit and where Berkman, Huff, Wilson, and Lamb are waiting to drive him in.
there's no denying that Ensberg has been a great hitter. it's the fact that his numbers the last 2 months have been utterly atrocious. if his averages consisted of a more consistent season, that would be acceptable. unfortunately, they are skewed by his ungodly first month and a half. what everyone is fustrated about is what's he been doing lately. and lately, it's been jack ****.
this is exactly how i feel about it. i'm not saying there's not value in the numbers...i'm saying i think the value is overstated....i think you can watch a game and tell when a guy is performing and when he isn't. i'm guessing these guys haven't watched ensberg play more than once or twice in the past 2 months. i'm saying a guy in the 4 hole needs to drive in runs...and is asked to do so with more expectation than a guy hitting in the 8 hole.
Even if you don't look at the sub-Mendoza numbers for the past month--just watching the guy at the plate should tell someone something. You can't look at BA alone and judge a player--but watching Ensberg look as bad as I would out there; watching all these belt-high heaters zip by him with his bat still on his shoulder--that should tell us all something, "Equivalent Average" notwithstanding.
yea, i don't have enough fingers or toes to count the number of times i've screamed, "Why the hell didn't you swing at that pitch?!"
The 'what have you done for me lately' attitude is moronic. He's a great hitter. The numbers support that. He's been slumping. But he's still being very productive, and it's reasonable to expect him to bounce back.
You can watch a game and tell when a guy is performing and when he isn't... in that game. Think you can tell the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter by watching?
i'm not saying he's worthless, but i don't want him in the lineup everyday at this moment. if it's anyone that deserves downtime, it's Ensberg.
Yeah, it's real moronic to care about the guy who's supposed to be protection for your best player and driving in runs "hitting" like my 8-year old niece. We all get that the guy can get on base by walking and that he has hit for power well in the past. The fact of the matter is, he is not doing that now, hasn't done it for a month-plus and that's why he's in the lineup. The Astros apparently agree since they said the move yesterday will effect Ensberg's playing time. The guy has to do something to return to form, which is hitting for power and driving in runs. Not watching meat. I seriously cannot believe that you have watched a game since May. At least not ones where Ensberg has been playing.
That was dumb trade. Kearns and Lopez are still young are solid. All the Reds got was Royce Clayton, Gary Majewski, Bill Bray.
what i find remarkably comical about their analysis is that it completely ignores the most obvious stat - won/loss record. april was, far and away, ensberg's best month (.329/9/19/1.23 OPS)... it was also the team's best month (16-8). probably just a coincidence that at the time we spotted what they're calling a "perceived" drop-off in production... hey, what do you know, the team tanked as well (27-38 since may). but i'm sure the record would have been much worse if ensberg hadn't been drawing all those walks.... this is why stats fizzle at the foot of simple observation and good 'ol common sense. this team needs morgan ensberg to be productive in a traditional sense - driving in runs. when he isn't doing that, the team falters. period. end of discussion.
I ordered MLB.tv for the first part of the season while I was out of town, watched nearly every game. Been watching nearly every game since I've been back home. I reject the notion that "watching the games" is the sole best way to determine production. I realize that he's slumping. He's also the Astros 2nd best hitter, and I believe he should be given more time to return to expected form. The stats support that he isn't hurting the team.
