no, they don't. check the W/L when he's producing and when he's "producing" (your definition). you'll notice a remarkable difference.
Please show me where anyone has said watching the games is the sole best way to determine production. In some cases it is, in others it's not. This case it certainly is. [/quote]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. [/quote] He hasn't been the Astros 2nd best hitter for a month-plus.
Wow - I go away for a couple of days and we get Huff for scrubs....AWESOME !! And, Lane is sent down....granted, I would like to see Luke Scott get some time, but maybe next year. We are in "Win now" mode. DD
I'm not necessarily agreeing with anyone here. But W/L record is the composite of a lot of factors. For one, check Ausmus' BA and OBP during the good month of April and the bad months of May and June. You'll find this team's differential in W/L was striking when we only had one automatic out (Everett) in the lineup instead of two (Everett/Ausmus). Why can't we attribute the decline in W/L to Ausmus instead of Ensberg? It's the same logic; you're just selectively applying it to one particular player. If this was golf or tennis or any other individual sport, I'd care about that remarkable difference. But in this, a team sport where the result of all players influences the W/L, I'm not going to ever seriously consider team wins and losses to determine the performance of an individual.
oh, you mean when he's grounding out, popping up, or more often than not striking out looking during RBI situations isn't hurting the team? this has been the case the last month plus.
What? Nobody is saying that the drop off is "perceived". It's more than obvious that Ensberg is slumping. One of the quotes talks about what you are saying directly. Good to know that the Win-Loss record has a causal relationship with Morgan Ensberg's batting average. Is that what you're saying? The point is that Morgan is our 2nd best hitter, and he shouldn't split time with Huff when Huff can play other positions. He should be allowed more time to work out of this slump, ESPECIALLY because his OBP is still high enough to where he's providing positive value by being in the lineup. What I find comical is that apparently RBIs are the holy grail of statistics, but OBP is the devil. How do you bat a run in, if nobody is on base? I'm so sick and tired of this retro bs that gets propogated. I'm pretty much done arguing against it. I say scrap the team, and just make sure we get alot of guys that hit .300 with .300 OBPs with some pop. And any hitter that doesn't swing on the first three pitches he sees gets instantly benched. We need to DRIVE IN SOME RUNS GUYS, GEESH LOL!!1111
And I reject the notion that stats are the sole best way. You need them both. Stats can explain some things for you, or point you towards some trends, but stats *must* be used to confirm what has been observed, and not the other way around. Baseball is far, far too human to be quantified by a bunch of numbers. You must have both.
Sure. Especially in evaluating minor league talent, pitcher's velocity and location, etc. Not so much with major league offensive production. Do you think you can tell the difference between a .270 htter and a .300 hitter by watching the games? Hint: you can't.
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. [/quote] He hasn't been the Astros 2nd best hitter for a month-plus.[/QUOTE] I'm sure he meant that Ensberg is the Astros 2nd best hitter in terms of talent.
Over 100 ABs that difference is only 3 hits and 100 ABs is generally what, about 30 games or so for a regular?
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. [/quote] He hasn't been the Astros 2nd best hitter for a month-plus.[/QUOTE] And Pettitte hasn't been a top of the rotation starter for the first two months. And Lidge hasn't been the bullpen ace for the first couple of months. And Biggio hasn't been the best option for a leadoff hitter for the first part of this season.
Wow. You just said you don't have to watch MLB games to evaluate offense. I mean, wow. I can't believe you weren't joking. Since you're offering me hints, here are a few that numbers can't tell you about "major league offensive production" --How does the guy respond when the ball crosses the plate? --What is he swinging at, and what is he watching? --Has he developed a loop or hitch in his swing, or is he dropping his hands, etc.? --What kind of contact (if any) is he making on the ball, and on what types of pitches? "Equivalent Average" and "OPS!" fail us there, bro. Hint: check out the definition of non sequitur. A lot of those .270 hitters drive in more runs than those .300 hitters. Some even have a higher OBP. I'm not looking for a .270 or .300 hitter when I watch a hitter, I'm looking to see if he's overmatched, I'm looking to see if he's "seeing" the ball well and making good contact. I'm looking at his selection. As far as Ensberg, for the past month it actually *has* been pretty easy to tell the sub-.200 version of Ensberg from the whatever-he-was last year.
At what point is it no longer a slump? It's now more than half the season. Ensberg has had RBI opportunities - plenty of them. He hits in front of Berkman and Berkman has 70 of them - unless they all magically appeared between batters, most of those people were on base when Ensberg was up as the previous hitter. Why do people keep talking about RBIs as being a bad measure because of all these external factors, when we're not looking at Ensberg in some vacuum, but in the context of the Astros team, where he has 8 RBIs from the heart of the order since June 1st.
a solid point; but surely, the inherent offensive value of ensberg vis-a-vis ausmus isn't lost on you, or been deluded by stats. this team won last year with ausmus not producing (in fact, he's never produced); it has yet to prove it can win with this line-up if ensberg is only producing at a level agreeable to stat geeks. and i understand this team's problems go beyond ensberg's struggles; he could start producing across the board and not make an impact if others fall off and/or fail to provide him opportunities - granted. but you're being contrarion if you want to argue ensberg isn't a key component to the team's drop-off in offensive production. so no one's responsible for driving in runs?
You are looking for signs of his ability to produce. Why not just go straight to the source, and look at the actual production. Oh, that would be too logical. Sorry. Subjective observation, or objective math. I choose math.
Watchu talkin bout wit dis crazy maths?!?!?! I don get it lol!111 I liek 2 see Enzbarg hite hom rans al the tyme rofl!!
