Absolutely. I'm all for shaking up the order. I don't want Ensberg batting 4th right now either. I just don't want a productive bat taken completely out of the order, especially when it's the 2nd best bat on the team.
I understand this school of thought. I haven't arrived at an opinion yet, but unless I don't recall Hirsh's age yet I think it's too soon to rush up to the bigs.
The Orioles want very good, major league ready prospects for Tejada. The Reds don't have those kind of assets. Getting Tejada isn't as simple as packaging three mediocre players like many fans want to believe. It's going to take several elite, upper minor league prospects and to my knowledge the Reds aren't all that stocked. This was just a dumb trade. Nothing more.
wait...what??? i thought it didn't matter where he batted in the lineup??? i thought his production was just dandy right where he was??
Again, why would I want an "RBI producer" (lol) to be less selective? Selectivity is part of being "good". I want my "RBI producer" to be a "good" hitter.
Season has been going on for a little bit over three months. Ensberg has been slumping for more than a month and a half. Therefore, he has been slumping for over half the season. For someone who loves math so much, that should've been pretty simple.
if selectivity means not swinging at bad pitches, i heartily agree. if selectivity means also watching good pitches go by, i completely disagree. particularly at points of the game where driving in a run is crucial.
I hope you can find where I said that, so I can admit to you that I was incorrect. I don't want him benched for Huff. Period.
selectivity is great when you work the count in order to get the pitcher in a position to where has to throw a fastball over the plate that you can sit on and crush. it does not work when you let that fastball zip by, without even taking the bat off of your shoulder.
Actually he said that "It's now more than half [of] the season." THE season lasts for six months. Even if that's not what he meant, I'm sure you can see the ambiguity in what he said.
that's how i interpret this...which was in response to my comment about not thinking it a good idea to judge every hitter in the lineup by the same criteria, without different expectations from different positions in the lineup: "Hitters should be judged on the same criteria, that criteria being offensive production. Offensive production results from the hitters skill at various aspects of the game. Hitting for power, not striking out, being selective, stealing bases, etc. Saying that a player should decrease his skill in being selective, and that it will increase his production, is absurd." My point is...guys in the 4 hole are asked to do different things than guys in the 2 hole.
No one has a problem with what Ensberg was doing the first half of the season. He scored 5 runs in June along with his 5 RBIs. Completely and totally worthless. For comparison, Everett scored 10 at the bottom of the order. Berkman scored 16. Burke scored 17, etcf.
i'm reading the argument back as: 1. it doesn't matter because his OBP is still good; and 2. it doesn't matter because those (runs scored and RBI's) are cumulative-type stats, which really don't mean much.
you should have that checked by a doctor immediately. i still say sit ensberg against right handers and let him bat 2nd against lefties until he regains his confidence. i've watched ensberg all years - he's bewildered. he's changing his stance, sometimes in between pitches, and he looks absolutely lost, like the bat weighs a ton. hitting second, imo, makes a world of sense right now, especially with huff and berkman behind him: biggio ensberg huff berkman wilson burke
A ideal hitter should be the most productive hitter. Production is achieved in different ways. Hitting home runs, extra base hits, earning walks, not striking out, these are all good things. Selectivity is a good thing, regardless of where in the order the hitter bats. Being good, is a good thing regardless of where in the order the hitter bats. Applying that to a lineup, players obviously have varying skill sets. That's what determines where they go in the lineup. If a player can't hit for power, they probably shouldn't be hitting in the middle of the order. But being selective in the middle of the order can be only positive. I'm trying to say that I think that wanting Ensberg to be less selective is absurd. But he's obviously slumping, so tinkering with his place in the order doesn't go against what I'm saying.
And what do you with Pettitte? Put him in the bullpen after all the arm troubles he's had? Release him? Unless position players, you can't just bench a bullpen player. Lidge has been great in save situations. In non-save situations, Qualls and Wheeler have proven just as incompetent at times as Lidge. What exactly does switching them around do? They still all pitch, and you just put Lidge in more situations where he sucks.
and again, i'll say...if you're saying selectivity means watching bad pitches go by, i'm great with that and i totally agree. but if you're saying selectivity means watching one of the 2-3 real hittable pitches in an at bat go by because you're overly patient/timid/whatever...then i completely disagree. i would say that's a real problem. ensberg does not look remotely comfortable at the plate right now. i don't have a formula to show you that. but as my business partner said the other day, when you go from an open stance to a closed stance in the same AB, something's wrong upstairs.
