Print Page - Huff speaks

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Reuben on July 13, 2006, 02:23:52 am

Quote:

There's still lots of daylight in there for argument, including a discussion of what Ensberg does when he's not walking.

Here's a couple of interesting comparisons:

2005 Home Runs/100 At-Bats = 6.844
2006 Home Runs/100 At-Bats = 6.884

2005 Strikeouts/100 At-Bats = 22.62
2006 Strikeouts/100 At-Bats = 25.36

2005 Groundballs/Flyballs = 0.78
2006 Groundballs/Flyballs = 0.78

The home runs and groundball/flyball ratio are freakishly similar. The strikeout difference isn't that big either.

But here's the big difference:

2005 Batting Average on Balls in Play (Not Home Run or Strikeout): .305
2006 Batting Average on Balls in Play (Not Home Run or Strikeout): .246

That's what's killing him. It's not that he's striking out a lot more, or that he's homering a lot less. He's also hitting the ball on the ground and the air at about the same rate.

But this year, when he puts the ball in play, he's making outs much more often.

I'd like to hear some suggested explanations for that.

It means he's probably been a little unlucky. The question is, has he been unlucky since mid-May, or should he really have been hitting .450 with an .850 SLG% back when he was red-hot?

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: BizidyDizidy on July 13, 2006, 02:34:23 am

Why unlucky? I've read about pitchers ball in play average seems random, but not the same for hitters. Maybe it's indicative of a bad approach where he's punching at the ball a lot of the time. Seems like little grounders and pop-ups would have a higer out percentage than smoked line drives.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 02:37:59 am

Quote:

Why unlucky? I've read about pitchers ball in play average seems random, but not the same for hitters. Maybe it's indicative of a bad approach where he's punching at the ball a lot of the time. Seems like little grounders and pop-ups would have a higer out percentage than smoked line drives.

I tend to agree with this. If your groundballs become weak slaps to the infield instead of shots in the hole, and your flyballs become weak pop-ups instead of deep flies into the gap, you'll get what Morgan Ensberg is experiencing right now.

The roller coaster this season is a bit dramatic:

.326 April 2005
.313 May 2005
.254 June 2005
.317 July 2005
.283 August 2005
.348 September 2005
.333 October 2005

.333 April 2006
.213 May 2006
.194 June 2006
.211 July 2006

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: cc on July 13, 2006, 02:45:18 am

Quote:

Quote:

I think there's too much credit given to Ensberg's being injured as the primary cause for his woes. He has an approach problem that he needs to work through, or not work through - that may be his problem, thinking too much about how to compensate for a soreness or a slump and throwing himself into all sorts of mental and physical contortions. Either way, he needs to be more aggressive at doing something other than looking at pitches. He heeds that internal take sign of his and attacks the almighty check swing with uncommon gusto. Even with a hale and hardy shoulder he watches too many strikes go by and weakens the middle of the lineup, and, by extension, the organization's and his teammates' confidence in him by repeatedly doing so. He's 31 in another month. He's no longer a kid the organization can build around for the next five years.

Is the problem that Ensberg puts himself through contortions or that he takes too many pitches? They're not necessary the same problem. It seems that a healthy Ensberg who is willing to take advice and stops fidgeting with his stance can be productive even if he's taking a lot of pitches.

Among major-leaguers, Ensberg is currently third in walks per plate appearance, 11th in pitches per plate appearance and 21st in walk/strikeout ratio. With 68 walks and 70 strikeouts, Ensberg has improved his walk/strikeout ratio to the best rate in any season of his career.

Last season, Ensberg walked 85 times and struck out 119 times in 624 plate appearances. This, season, he's on a pace to walk 122 times and strike out 125 times in that number of plate appearances. That's an additional 37 walks traded for an additional six strikeouts.

The last thing Ensberg needs is to start hacking more.

I don't think anyone's suggesting walks, and lots of 'em, are bad. It's about approach, mindset, intent. I don't think it's all that complicated. He doesn't need to start "hacking more" if by hacking you're implying undisciplined swings without regard for the strike zone. He needs to demonstrate consistently that his offensive make-up is one of a run producer first and foremost. The same way David Eckstein's goal as a leadoff hitter is to get on base any way he can for the batters hitting behind him, Ensberg's goal should be to drive in runs any way he can, and secondarily to draw walks if pitchers don't give him anything to accomplish that task or if he can't get an extra-base hit to start an inning. And on second thought, he does need to go up there hacking a little more than he does, because he needs to risk a few more chances at failing to drive pitches that aren't exactly in his perfect, tiny happy zone, in the hopes that he'll be able to keep the traffic on the bases moving a little more frequently ALL THE WAY around.

It's not a matter that can be quantified. You only have to watch him take *suitable* pitch after pitch, and it's pretty obvious he's not doing the job Garner is begging him to do.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 02:59:36 am

Quote:

I don't think anyone's suggesting walks, and lots of 'em, are bad. It's about approach, mindset, intent. I don't think it's all that complicated. He doesn't need to start "hacking more" if by hacking you're implying undisciplined swings without regard for the strike zone. He needs to demonstrate consistently that his offensive make-up is one of a run producer first and foremost. The same way David Eckstein's goal as a leadoff hitter is to get on base any way he can for the batters hitting behind him, Ensberg's goal should be to drive in runs any way he can, and secondarily to draw walks if pitchers don't give him anything to accomplish that task or if he can't get an extra-base hit to start an inning. And on second thought, he does need to go up there hacking a little more than he does, because he needs to risk a few more chances at failing to drive pitches that aren't exactly in his perfect, tiny happy zone, in the hopes that he'll be able to keep the traffic on the bases moving a little more frequently ALL THE WAY around.

It's not a matter that can be quantified. You only have to watch him take *suitable* pitch after pitch, and it's pretty obvious he's not doing the job Garner is begging him to do.

Suitable pitches are pitches in the strike zone. Unsuitable pitches are pitches outside the strike zone. That's the purpose of having a strike zone.

If Ensberg were taking significantly more suitable pitches than he did when he was hitting well, then he'd have a big increase in strikeouts. But that's not the case. His strikeouts are up only marginally.

Whatever his tiny happy zone may be, the umpire does not appear to be disagreeing with it, because the pitches Ensberg is taking are increasing his walks total considerably, meaning they're outside the strike zone, meaning they're unsuitable, meaning he shouldn't be swinging at them.

Swinging at pitches outside the strike zone would fundamentally increase his chances of making an out and reducing the team's chances of scoring. If you want to see him really lose all value as a big-league hitter then watch what happens when, in desperation, he starts swinging at pitches outside the strike zone.

The issue is at least partially quantifiable, and the data points to what Ensberg's doing with the pitches he's hitting, as opposed to the pitches he's taking, as being the problem. How is taking too many suitable pitches the cause of him batting 50 points lower on balls in play this season?

His eye is the only thing he's got going for him right now, and yet people are complaining about him using it.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Golden Sombrero on July 13, 2006, 03:11:20 am

Quote:

Quote:

I don't think anyone's suggesting walks, and lots of 'em, are bad. It's about approach, mindset, intent. I don't think it's all that complicated. He doesn't need to start "hacking more" if by hacking you're implying undisciplined swings without regard for the strike zone. He needs to demonstrate consistently that his offensive make-up is one of a run producer first and foremost. The same way David Eckstein's goal as a leadoff hitter is to get on base any way he can for the batters hitting behind him, Ensberg's goal should be to drive in runs any way he can, and secondarily to draw walks if pitchers don't give him anything to accomplish that task or if he can't get an extra-base hit to start an inning. And on second thought, he does need to go up there hacking a little more than he does, because he needs to risk a few more chances at failing to drive pitches that aren't exactly in his perfect, tiny happy zone, in the hopes that he'll be able to keep the traffic on the bases moving a little more frequently ALL THE WAY around.

It's not a matter that can be quantified. You only have to watch him take *suitable* pitch after pitch, and it's pretty obvious he's not doing the job Garner is begging him to do.

Suitable pitches are pitches in the strike zone. Unsuitable pitches are pitches outside the strike zone. That's the purpose of having a strike zone.

If Ensberg were taking significantly more suitable pitches than he did when he was hitting well, then he'd have a big increase in strikeouts. But that's not the case. His strikeouts are up only marginally.

Whatever his tiny happy zone may be, the umpire does not appear to be disagreeing with it, because the pitches Ensberg is taking are increasing his walks total considerably, meaning they're outside the strike zone, meaning they're unsuitable, meaning he shouldn't be swinging at them.

Swinging at pitches outside the strike zone would fundamentally increase his chances of making an out and reducing the team's chances of scoring. If you want to see him really lose all value as a big-league hitter then watch what happens when, in desperation, he starts swinging at pitches outside the strike zone.

The issue is at least partially quantifiable, and the data points to what Ensberg's doing with the pitches he's hitting, as opposed to the pitches he's taking, as being the problem. How is taking too many suitable pitches the cause of him batting 50 points lower on balls in play this season?

His eye is the only thing he's got going for him right now, and yet people are complaining about him using it.

If his OBP is his strength, then should he hit earlier in the lineup and not in an RBI-producing spot? Getting on base is good, naturally, but at some point someone has to drive those guys in. And Berkman can't do it all by himself.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: cc on July 13, 2006, 05:26:40 am

Quote:

Quote:

I don't think anyone's suggesting walks, and lots of 'em, are bad. It's about approach, mindset, intent. I don't think it's all that complicated. He doesn't need to start "hacking more" if by hacking you're implying undisciplined swings without regard for the strike zone. He needs to demonstrate consistently that his offensive make-up is one of a run producer first and foremost. The same way David Eckstein's goal as a leadoff hitter is to get on base any way he can for the batters hitting behind him, Ensberg's goal should be to drive in runs any way he can, and secondarily to draw walks if pitchers don't give him anything to accomplish that task or if he can't get an extra-base hit to start an inning. And on second thought, he does need to go up there hacking a little more than he does, because he needs to risk a few more chances at failing to drive pitches that aren't exactly in his perfect, tiny happy zone, in the hopes that he'll be able to keep the traffic on the bases moving a little more frequently ALL THE WAY around.

It's not a matter that can be quantified. You only have to watch him take *suitable* pitch after pitch, and it's pretty obvious he's not doing the job Garner is begging him to do.

Suitable pitches are pitches in the strike zone. Unsuitable pitches are pitches outside the strike zone. That's the purpose of having a strike zone.

If Ensberg were taking significantly more suitable pitches than he did when he was hitting well, then he'd have a big increase in strikeouts. But that's not the case. His strikeouts are up only marginally.

Whatever his tiny happy zone may be, the umpire does not appear to be disagreeing with it, because the pitches Ensberg is taking are increasing his walks total considerably, meaning they're outside the strike zone, meaning they're unsuitable, meaning he shouldn't be swinging at them.

Swinging at pitches outside the strike zone would fundamentally increase his chances of making an out and reducing the team's chances of scoring. If you want to see him really lose all value as a big-league hitter then watch what happens when, in desperation, he starts swinging at pitches outside the strike zone.

The issue is at least partially quantifiable, and the data points to what Ensberg's doing with the pitches he's hitting, as opposed to the pitches he's taking, as being the problem. How is taking too many suitable pitches the cause of him batting 50 points lower on balls in play this season?

His eye is the only thing he's got going for him right now, and yet people are complaining about him using it.

No, that's not what I mean by suitable. I mean they're strikes that he would rather not swing at. Arky, I can't make my point to you unless you're willing to acknowledge that an AB that results in a walk with RISP may/should have resulted in a sac fly, double, single, HR, RBI groundout with a less finicky approach. Those results are unknowable, but one only need observe his lack of aggressiveness (defined as willingness to take up to two strikes that could have been opportunities to drive the ball somewhere and score runs as a result, and instead work the count for a less immediately productive walk) game after game to see that he is not offering the team the *slugging* they need from him. He's offering walks, so that someone else further down the order and typically less potent is given the burden of driving in the runs. He's merely extending the inning and passing the heavy lifting to someone else. That is not what he's asked to do. We can argue about stats all day long, but he's failing to achieve the objectives his boss has given him. If you listen to Phil Garner, he says repeatedly that he needs Morgan Ensberg to drive in runs. He's hitting .194 since May 1 with 25 RBI in about 240 plate appearances. With numbers like that, no one on the club is going to care that he has 47 walks during that period. He could have 10 fewer walks and 12 more RBIs for all we know and maybe the team would have won a few more games. As for his wonderful OBP during that period, he's only been able to score 19 times through the help of others during that stretch.

And incidentally, I strongly disagree that swinging at pitches out of the strike zone is a bad idea. It really depends on the location out of the zone. Good RBI-minded hitters know they can drive an inside pitch they're looking for a loooooong way, or punch an outside pitch the opposite way and bring in runs. Pujols, Berkman, Ortiz, to name a few, do this quite routinely. In fact, I've seen each and every one of them hit these types of pitches out of sight, and you have too. Yes, these are pitches that would be called balls, and pitches that Ensberg would likely take. And yes, he might indeed draw a walk eventually. Me, I'd rather have the hits than walks with RISP. It's all about approach and understanding the *hitting zone*, not the strike zone. Overly selective hitters don't belong in the middle of the order. Frank Thomas, as great as he was, used to drive his team crazy because he would refuse to loosen his standards, say, with the tying or winning run on third and one out, opting to take a walk by passing up borderline but eminently hittable pitches. Then of course his BB would eventually lead to no further runs being scored. It's indefensible for a designated run producer in the lineup to take that approach, and it doesn't go over well in the organization.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: VirtualBob on July 13, 2006, 09:29:05 am

Quote:

Quote:

Why unlucky? I've read about pitchers ball in play average seems random, but not the same for hitters. Maybe it's indicative of a bad approach where he's punching at the ball a lot of the time. Seems like little grounders and pop-ups would have a higer out percentage than smoked line drives.

I tend to agree with this. If your groundballs become weak slaps to the infield instead of shots in the hole, and your flyballs become weak pop-ups instead of deep flies into the gap, you'll get what Morgan Ensberg is experiencing right now.

The roller coaster this season is a bit dramatic:

.326 April 2005
.313 May 2005
.254 June 2005
.317 July 2005
.283 August 2005
.348 September 2005
.333 October 2005

.333 April 2006
.213 May 2006
.194 June 2006
.211 July 2006

Which (again) argues for the injury affect. 2005 when healthy, he had much less variablility. 2004 when not healthy (or was it 2003?) would be interesting to look at, but overall it was not a good year. This year there is a dramatic drop-off ... if he is suddenly 'punching at balls', could that be a result of an injury-related change in his swing mechanics? And the HR/AB numbers probably vary by month in a similar way. IMO, he has two problems ... one of which is easily correctable:

1. He is being affected by some sort of minor, nagging injury
2. He refuses to acknowledge #1 and get some rest/treatement

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Froback on July 13, 2006, 11:00:36 am

I think when talking about Ensberg we are dealing with alot of different things that are all adding up badly this year (big surprise I know).

First, If you were to rate Ensberg biggest strength as a hitter what would it be? To me, by far, his biggest strength is he works the counts and pitchers. This has always been evident in his batting approach both when he was doing well and when he was not. After that it would probably be his ability to walk (which might be considered by most to be the same as the working count aspect). Then power and driving in runs. He used to act like he thought speed was part of his game (and got caught way too often).

The second thing to consider is what are the Astros line-up needs. Well comming into the season the team needed more RBI types, thus they got Preston Wilson. Who, even with all the Ks, was always a high RBI type hitter, although given his career stats in RBI spots I am now questioning that some. But the team had basically one RBI guy and a couple of other guys who might/could be helpful there. Ensberg just came off a huge season in an RBI role so it seemed logical the team needed him there.

Hear is the rub. I think last year was Ensberg's Career year. I also think Ensberg's approach at the plate (while one I highly like) is not an RBI players approach. I point to the example of Cabrerra from Florida. He hit a pitch that was supposed to be for a intentional walk for a game winning RBI single. Ensberg would NEVER do this, IMO.

I think the addition of Huff will/should allow the Astros to move Ensberg to the #2 role (instead of Lamb). This spot in the order is where your best work the count type player should go.

I know Lamb is probably going to still play alot because of how hot he has been, but all of us have seen what happends when he plays everyday. Eventually he will balance out (see Ausmus) to what he really is.

And just to add another tangent to this thread (as if it needed more) this club seems to lack clutch hitters. And by that I mean guys who hit well in the following situations (Bases Loaded, 3rd and less than 2 outs, Scoring positon and 2 outs, Scoring position and late). We all know Berkman can do it, and lately I would add Burke to that. I have no idea about Huff, but I know Wilson has something like .200 BA for career with bases loaded, Ensberg is worse. I even think Biggio is pretty bad in this spot in his career.

Arky, you are the stat king, what is the break down of the 9 primary hitters in those categories for careers? (Biggio, Lamb, Berkman, Wilson, Ensberg, Burke, Everett, Ausmus, Huff)

So I guess I think the batting order should probably be:
Biggio (or Burke is Biggio is not playing)
Ensberg
Berkman (I think Burke batting here was to seperate Lamb and Berkman, lefties)
Wilson (would having a threat behind him help?)
Huff (trying to keep lefties apart)
Burke (might move him up if Huff follows Berkman)
Ausmus
Everett
Pitcher

Lamb has done well, but I fear his reality check.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: das on July 13, 2006, 11:03:41 am

Just from watching, Wilson has been uber-clutch for the last 2 months. And ok, even during his early season slump.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: pravata on July 13, 2006, 11:18:49 am

"hitting zone" is an excellent phrase and a good way to think for a player whose contributions should be primarily RBI.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: JimR on July 13, 2006, 11:24:51 am

Burke #2
Ensberg #6

if i were doing it

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Froback on July 13, 2006, 11:30:42 am

Quote:

Just from watching, Wilson has been uber-clutch for the last 2 months. And ok, even during his early season slump.

Uber-clutch, huh? (he has had more opps in all three of these cats than any other Astro this year)

Bases-loaded: .200/.188/.267
Even Taveras is better this year in RBI/AB but really small sample size
Scoring positon: .304/.343/.424
Berkman, Biggio, Munson, Bruntlett all better in RBI/AB
Scoring pos 2outs: .311/.304/.350 18 RBIs in 45ABs
Biggio, Berkman, Munson all better

And just to compare Ensberg to emphasis my point that he seems to not be your typical RBI guy.

Basesloaded: .000/.143/.000 (4 ABs, 7 PA)
Scoring Position: .219/.422/.384
Scoring Pos 2 outs: .206/.422/.412

So Ensberg is either being seriously pitched around or is prefering the walk to the hit in these situations (which isn't bad, just different mentality than RBI type, IMO).

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: JimR on July 13, 2006, 11:35:45 am

he is not being pitched around. he refuses to swing and is way too smart for his own good. he is the most frustrating player for me in my recent memory. i cannot imagine how it must be to be his manager.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Froback on July 13, 2006, 11:37:11 am

Quote:

Burke #2
Ensberg #6

if i were doing it

Comming into the season I would agree, but I think Burke is showing to be more of a clutch hitter than Ensberg, so putting Ensberg into the #2 hole should do three things, give him better pitches to hit, Give more opportunity to a lead off hitter to steal (more pitches to watch to learn move of pitcher), and more baserunners for Berkman to have on when he comes to bat.

But I come from the school of:
#1 hitter: Best OBP with speed guy
#2 hitter: Best Pitches seen/AB guy
#3 Hitter: Best overall hitter
#4 Hitter: Best power bat left
#5 Hitter: Best OBP hitter left with emphasis on BA
#6 Hitter: Best Power guy left
#7/#8: Use more aggressive guy in #7 hole

With willingness to modify to create best spacing of Batting-handedness.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Froback on July 13, 2006, 11:39:32 am

Quote:

he is not being pitched around. he refuses to swing and is way too smart for his own good. he is the most frustrating player for me in my recent memory. i cannot imagine how it must be to be his manager.

So put him in the best spot to use his approach to the maximum benefit (which to me is the #2 spot in the line-up).

If you can't change him, you have 3 options: trade him, put him where he stuborness helps the team most, suck it up... Well ok a 4th one exists, bench him.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: JimR on July 13, 2006, 11:39:54 am

no. all that is doing is giving in to Ensberg's delusions and clogging up the bases. he can drive in runs at #6 and should be told that if he does not, he will be moved.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on July 13, 2006, 12:00:06 pm

Quote:

no. all that is doing is giving in to Ensberg's delusions and clogging up the bases. he can drive in runs at #6 and should be told that if he does not, he will be moved.

I started to respond to the post explaining how Ensberg should be put in the 2-hole. I stopped when it evolved into a rant about babying Ensberg and his big eye-ball, watch it to the glove approach. Ensberg is not a 2 hole hitter. It would imply he's good at hitting behind the runner and advancing the runner. Nothing I've seen this year would support that.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: hostros7 on July 13, 2006, 12:02:54 pm

Bottom line, if Ensberg can't hit the ball with men on base then he is of virtually no use to the Astros offensively.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: EasTexAstro on July 13, 2006, 12:17:09 pm

Quote:

And just to compare Ensberg to emphasis my point that he seems to not be your typical RBI guy.

Basesloaded: .000/.143/.000 (4 ABs, 7 PA)
Scoring Position: .219/.422/.384
Scoring Pos 2 outs: .206/.422/.412

What about these?:

First and Second: .300/.481/.500
First and Third: .308/.438.615
First: .264/.391/.679
Men on, 2 out: .270/.432/.619

What his patience does to him is makes him start hacking, IMO. When he gets 2 strikes on him, he forces things:

Count 0-2: .143/.143/.214
Count 1-2: .154/.154/.282
Count 2-2: .191/.191/.468
Count 3-2: .098/.413/.333

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Froback on July 13, 2006, 12:42:10 pm

Quote:

Ensberg is not a 2 hole hitter. It would imply he's good at hitting behind the runner and advancing the runner. Nothing I've seen this year would support that.

Good point. Something I also have overlooked. I am just trying to find a reason for keeping him around. But I still wouldn't mind a package of say Ensberg and Wilson for Carlos Lee, but that is just me.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: MusicMan on July 13, 2006, 12:50:52 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Ensberg is not a 2 hole hitter. It would imply he's good at hitting behind the runner and advancing the runner. Nothing I've seen this year would support that.

Good point. Something I also have overlooked. I am just trying to find a reason for keeping him around. But I still wouldn't mind a package of say Ensberg and Wilson for Carlos Lee, but that is just me.

Why in hell would the Brewers do that???

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on July 13, 2006, 12:52:11 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Ensberg is not a 2 hole hitter. It would imply he's good at hitting behind the runner and advancing the runner. Nothing I've seen this year would support that.

Good point. Something I also have overlooked. I am just trying to find a reason for keeping him around. But I still wouldn't mind a package of say Ensberg and Wilson for Carlos Lee, but that is just me.

This just in, MoBerg may actually still be hurting!

"Obviously, it's going to cut into (Ensberg's) playing time," Purpura said of the trade. "And the thing with Morgan is, I know he hasn't admitted to having (right) shoulder problems, but he did hurt his shoulder. I don't know if that's still affecting him, but I think we'll have a good, frank conversation tomorrow. Unfortunately, we're in a position where we have to start moving forward.

"We can't give at-bats to players because they've been in that spot before. We're at a point that the potential that players have has to now translate into production and performance. We have to get production and performance out of our hitters."

Ensberg, who reluctantly admits his right shoulder is hurt, welcomes Huff.

chron article

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: No? in Austin on July 13, 2006, 01:02:08 pm

Quote:

This just in, MoBerg may actually still be hurting

My sarcasm meter just went tilt!

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 01:27:38 pm

Quote:

No, that's not what I mean by suitable. I mean they're strikes that he would rather not swing at. Arky, I can't make my point to you unless you're willing to acknowledge that an AB that results in a walk with RISP may/should have resulted in a sac fly, double, single, HR, RBI groundout with a less finicky approach. Those results are unknowable, but one only need observe his lack of aggressiveness (defined as willingness to take up to two strikes that could have been opportunities to drive the ball somewhere and score runs as a result, and instead work the count for a less immediately productive walk) game after game to see that he is not offering the team the *slugging* they need from him. He's offering walks, so that someone else further down the order and typically less potent is given the burden of driving in the runs. He's merely extending the inning and passing the heavy lifting to someone else. That is not what he's asked to do. We can argue about stats all day long, but he's failing to achieve the objectives his boss has given him. If you listen to Phil Garner, he says repeatedly that he needs Morgan Ensberg to drive in runs. He's hitting .194 since May 1 with 25 RBI in about 240 plate appearances. With numbers like that, no one on the club is going to care that he has 47 walks during that period. He could have 10 fewer walks and 12 more RBIs for all we know and maybe the team would have won a few more games. As for his wonderful OBP during that period, he's only been able to score 19 times through the help of others during that stretch.

And incidentally, I strongly disagree that swinging at pitches out of the strike zone is a bad idea. It really depends on the location out of the zone. Good RBI-minded hitters know they can drive an inside pitch they're looking for a loooooong way, or punch an outside pitch the opposite way and bring in runs. Pujols, Berkman, Ortiz, to name a few, do this quite routinely. In fact, I've seen each and every one of them hit these types of pitches out of sight, and you have too. Yes, these are pitches that would be called balls, and pitches that Ensberg would likely take. And yes, he might indeed draw a walk eventually. Me, I'd rather have the hits than walks with RISP. It's all about approach and understanding the *hitting zone*, not the strike zone. Overly selective hitters don't belong in the middle of the order. Frank Thomas, as great as he was, used to drive his team crazy because he would refuse to loosen his standards, say, with the tying or winning run on third and one out, opting to take a walk by passing up borderline but eminently hittable pitches. Then of course his BB would eventually lead to no further runs being scored. It's indefensible for a designated run producer in the lineup to take that approach, and it doesn't go over well in the organization.

If he's taking strikes then that's a problem that should be manifested by him striking out more, and he needs to correct that. But, as stated, his strikeout rate isn't up significantly. More strikeouts is certainly not the discernable major culprit in the collapse in his batting average.

And you're ignoring what is the biggest difference between this year and last year, besides the walks: Ensberg's batting average is 50 points lower this year than last year when he puts the ball in play.

When he puts the ball in play, he's 46-for-187 (.246). Last year, that number was 113-for-371 (.305).

His walk rate this year is 68 in 349 plate appearances (.195). Last year it was 85 in 624 plate appearances (.136).

Say Ensberg, instead of drawing those "extra" walks, decided to start swinging at pitches outside the strike zone. Say he swung away enough that he had the same walk rate this year as last year. That would mean 48 rather than 68 walks, or 20 more balls in play (.136 * 349 = 48).

How many of those 20 extra balls in play would result in a positive outcome? Given how poorly he's fared when he puts the ball in play this season (.246), the aggressive approach theoretically would yield about five more hits (.246 * 20 = 5).

If those are all with runners on base, that's at least five more RBI. Of course, he might also drive in some runs with his outs in the other 15 plate appearances when he puts the ball in play. But he's also going to kill some rallies as well.

So even if you assume Ensberg reduced his walk rate to last year's rate, that he always put the ball in play (never striking out) instead, that there were always runners on base when he put the ball in player, I think you'd have trouble demonstrating that he would have driven in as many as 10 extra runs.

The walks aren't the problem. What he's doing with the pitches he hits are the problem. Which might have a lot to do with the fidgeting with his stance. And which I suggest would only be made worse by him swinging at pitches outside the strike zone.

FYI, per 100 plate appearances, here's how Ensberg's 2005 and 2006 seasons compare:

Stat  2005  2006  Diff
----------------------
1B      13     9    -4
2B       5     4    -1
3B       0     0     0
HR       6     5    -1
H       24    19    -5
BB      14    19    +5
HBP      1     1     0
SO      19    20    +1 
SH       0     0     0
SF       1     1     0

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Navin R Johnson on July 13, 2006, 01:29:49 pm

Ensturds Favorite Thing To Do

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 01:37:43 pm

Quote:

Good RBI-minded hitters know they can drive an inside pitch they're looking for a loooooong way, or punch an outside pitch the opposite way and bring in runs. Pujols, Berkman, Ortiz, to name a few, do this quite routinely. In fact, I've seen each and every one of them hit these types of pitches out of sight, and you have too.

Barry Bonds and Jeff Bagwell and Mark McGwire and Ted Williams and Babe Ruth were willing to take the walk, even with runners on base, when the pitch was outside the strike zone. Ensberg isn't near those guys as a hitter, but why does the same principle that they applied not apply in Ensberg's case?

Quote:

Yes, these are pitches that would be called balls, and pitches that Ensberg would likely take. And yes, he might indeed draw a walk eventually. Me, I'd rather have the hits than walks with RISP. It's all about approach and understanding the *hitting zone*, not the strike zone.

You're implying a false choice. It's not a choice between just (a) drawing a walk or (b) getting a hit. It's a choice between (a) drawing a walk or (b) swinging away, which could result in a hit, a sacrifice fly, an RBI grounder but also could also result in a strikeout, a double play, a pop up, etc. Given that Ensberg is batting .246 this season when he puts the ball in play, it's counterfactual to distill this down to a choice between drawing a walk or getting a hit.

Quote:

Overly selective hitters don't belong in the middle of the order. Frank Thomas, as great as he was, used to drive his team crazy because he would refuse to loosen his standards, say, with the tying or winning run on third and one out, opting to take a walk by passing up borderline but eminently hittable pitches. Then of course his BB would eventually lead to no further runs being scored. It's indefensible for a designated run producer in the lineup to take that approach, and it doesn't go over well in the organization.

The list of all-time walks leaders has Rickey Henderson and Joe Morgan, but it's also got Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. Walks aren't solely a characteristic of top-of-the-order hitters.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on July 13, 2006, 01:54:47 pm

Quote:

Quote:

No, that's not what I mean by suitable. I mean they're strikes that he would rather not swing at. Arky, I can't make my point to you unless you're willing to acknowledge that an AB that results in a walk with RISP may/should have resulted in a sac fly, double, single, HR, RBI groundout with a less finicky approach. Those results are unknowable, but one only need observe his lack of aggressiveness (defined as willingness to take up to two strikes that could have been opportunities to drive the ball somewhere and score runs as a result, and instead work the count for a less immediately productive walk) game after game to see that he is not offering the team the *slugging* they need from him. He's offering walks, so that someone else further down the order and typically less potent is given the burden of driving in the runs. He's merely extending the inning and passing the heavy lifting to someone else. That is not what he's asked to do. We can argue about stats all day long, but he's failing to achieve the objectives his boss has given him. If you listen to Phil Garner, he says repeatedly that he needs Morgan Ensberg to drive in runs. He's hitting .194 since May 1 with 25 RBI in about 240 plate appearances. With numbers like that, no one on the club is going to care that he has 47 walks during that period. He could have 10 fewer walks and 12 more RBIs for all we know and maybe the team would have won a few more games. As for his wonderful OBP during that period, he's only been able to score 19 times through the help of others during that stretch.

And incidentally, I strongly disagree that swinging at pitches out of the strike zone is a bad idea. It really depends on the location out of the zone. Good RBI-minded hitters know they can drive an inside pitch they're looking for a loooooong way, or punch an outside pitch the opposite way and bring in runs. Pujols, Berkman, Ortiz, to name a few, do this quite routinely. In fact, I've seen each and every one of them hit these types of pitches out of sight, and you have too. Yes, these are pitches that would be called balls, and pitches that Ensberg would likely take. And yes, he might indeed draw a walk eventually. Me, I'd rather have the hits than walks with RISP. It's all about approach and understanding the *hitting zone*, not the strike zone. Overly selective hitters don't belong in the middle of the order. Frank Thomas, as great as he was, used to drive his team crazy because he would refuse to loosen his standards, say, with the tying or winning run on third and one out, opting to take a walk by passing up borderline but eminently hittable pitches. Then of course his BB would eventually lead to no further runs being scored. It's indefensible for a designated run producer in the lineup to take that approach, and it doesn't go over well in the organization.

If he's taking strikes then that's a problem that should be manifested by him striking out more, and he needs to correct that. But, as stated, his strikeout rate isn't up significantly. More strikeouts is certainly not the discernable major culprit in the collapse in his batting average.

And you're ignoring what is the biggest difference between this year and last year, besides the walks: Ensberg's batting average is 50 points lower this year than last year when he puts the ball in play.

When he puts the ball in play, he's 46-for-187 (.246). Last year, that number was 113-for-371 (.305).

His walk rate this year is 68 in 349 plate appearances (.195). Last year it was 85 in 624 plate appearances (.136).

Say Ensberg, instead of drawing those "extra" walks, decided to start swinging at pitches outside the strike zone. Say he swung away enough that he had the same walk rate this year as last year. That would mean 48 rather than 68 walks, or 20 more balls in play (.136 * 349 = 48).

How many of those 20 extra balls in play would result in a positive outcome? Given how poorly he's fared when he puts the ball in play this season (.246), the aggressive approach theoretically would yield about five more hits (.246 * 20 = 5).

If those are all with runners on base, that's at least five more RBI. Of course, he might also drive in some runs with his outs in the other 15 plate appearances when he puts the ball in play. But he's also going to kill some rallies as well.

So even if you assume Ensberg reduced his walk rate to last year's rate, that he always put the ball in play (never striking out) instead, that there were always runners on base when he put the ball in player, I think you'd have trouble demonstrating that he would have driven in as many as 10 extra runs.

The walks aren't the problem. What he's doing with the pitches he hits are the problem. Which might have a lot to do with the fidgeting with his stance. And which I suggest would only be made worse by him swinging at pitches outside the strike zone.

FYI, per 100 plate appearances, here's how Ensberg's 2005 and 2006 seasons compare:

Stat 2005 2006 Diff
----------------------
1B 13 9 -4
2B 5 4 -1
3B 0 0 0
HR 6 5 -1
H 24 19 -5
BB 14 19 +5
HBP 1 1 0
SO 19 20 +1
SH 0 0 0
SF 1 1 0

In an effort to not get lost in your stats, impressive as they are, I think you made the point that it's not his "approach" that's the problem but what's happening when he puts the ball in play. A big part of that is how well hit the ball is. From what I've seen, and this wouldn't show up in statistics that I can think because slugging doesn't include "outs", he's not hitting the ball anywhere nearly as hard as he did in the past.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Andyzipp on July 13, 2006, 01:57:47 pm

Quote:

Barry Bonds and Jeff Bagwell and Mark McGwire and Ted Williams and Babe Ruth were willing to take the walk, even with runners on base, when the pitch was outside the strike zone. Ensberg isn't near those guys as a hitter, but why does the same principle that they applied not apply in Ensberg's case?

For me it's because the guys you mentioned were very consistent in their approach at the plate. Bagwell especially, you knew what you were getting. Pre-injury, he was going to hit the ball hard if it was in a couple of particular spots, and he was going to take the ball if it wasn't in those spots. He also knew when game situations demanded he expand his zone.

Ensberg looks to be taking when he should be aggressive and aggressive when he should be taking. He seems completely oblivious to game situations.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: JimR on July 13, 2006, 02:23:24 pm

just curious--do you think that "Ensturd" is funny? if so, why? are you in junior high?

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Navin R Johnson on July 13, 2006, 02:34:05 pm

just curious-- do the letters FO mean anything to ya?

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: MRaup on July 13, 2006, 02:40:21 pm

Quote:

just curious--do you think that "Ensturd" is funny? if so, why? are you in junior high?

Turdin R. Johnson is just having fun, why you hatin?

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 02:49:52 pm

Quote:

In an effort to not get lost in your stats, impressive as they are, I think you made the point that it's not his "approach" that's the problem but what's happening when he puts the ball in play. A big part of that is how well hit the ball is. From what I've seen, and this wouldn't show up in statistics that I can think because slugging doesn't include "outs", he's not hitting the ball anywhere nearly as hard as he did in the past.

I agree with that. The fact that Ensberg is doing so poorly when he puts the ball in play could very well be a result of what Zipp aptly calls "stanceapalooza."

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: davek on July 13, 2006, 02:51:18 pm

Jim, didn't you know...

Being an anonymous denigrator of a public figure is a clear sign of moral superiority...

Not to mention a clear indication of the beloved "bandwagon" mentality...

After all, he wasn't "Ensturd" in April...

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: strosrays on July 13, 2006, 03:13:36 pm

Quote:

I agree with that. The fact that Ensberg is doing so poorly when he puts the ball in play could very well be a result of what Zipp aptly calls "stanceapalooza."

Rod Carew used to be noted for four different stances in 4 ABs. And to a lesser extent, Tony Gwynn, too. And I don't get to see him much, but it appears to me that Ichiro!? is moving around alot in the box, sometimes even during the pitch.

Didn't seem to hurt any of those guys any. Of course, they were entirely different sorts of hitters than Ensberg; but I sometimes wonder if Ensberg isn't one of those guys who is required to be one thing but really wants to be something else. Sort of like the prince in The Holy Grail who isn't interested in politics and warfare, and tells his dad he just wants to dance. As someone said, in the sort of clutch situation where you want your middle-of-the-order power guy up there to drive the ball, Ensberg often looks like he'd rather be David Eckstein.

Ultimately, though, the problem is his eyes. Not his fault, really, but they're too fucking big. In a pressure situation they naturally dilate even further, letting in too much light and screwing up his vision. Plus, it makes him look like a deer in the headlights, so fans think he "choked."

He just needs to squint more, is all.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: JimR on July 13, 2006, 03:16:39 pm

Navin is another of the "i'm only here to bitch" club. i thinks he's 13-15 years old.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Andyzipp on July 13, 2006, 03:18:33 pm

Quote:

i thinks he's 13-15 years old.

Do ya, Popeye?

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: VirtualBob on July 13, 2006, 03:22:21 pm

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: VirtualBob on July 13, 2006, 03:26:08 pm

Quote:

Quote:

just curious--do you think that "Ensturd" is funny? if so, why? are you in junior high?

Turdin R. Johnson is just having fun, why you hatin?

That's Navin R. Johnsturd.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Jacksonian on July 13, 2006, 03:26:25 pm

Quote:

Rod Carew used to be noted for four different stances in 4 ABs. And to a lesser extent, Tony Gwynn, too. And I don't get to see him much, but it appears to me that Ichiro!? is moving around alot in the box, sometimes even during the pitch.

Hal "Happy Feet" Morris was the worse I saw.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: VirtualBob on July 13, 2006, 03:28:39 pm

Quote:

Quote:

In an effort to not get lost in your stats, impressive as they are, I think you made the point that it's not his "approach" that's the problem but what's happening when he puts the ball in play. A big part of that is how well hit the ball is. From what I've seen, and this wouldn't show up in statistics that I can think because slugging doesn't include "outs", he's not hitting the ball anywhere nearly as hard as he did in the past.

I agree with that. The fact that Ensberg is doing so poorly when he puts the ball in play could very well be a result of what Zipp aptly calls "stanceapalooza."

Or the oft-referred to hypothetical injury, which IMO is much more plausible as a root cause.

Additionally, I would think that if he were to swing at more pitches out of his zone, that would further lower is BA on balls in play ... making the statistical analysis a projected upper limit on his performance in that scenario.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Bill McLuggage on July 13, 2006, 03:31:46 pm

Quote:

2005 Home Runs/100 At-Bats = 6.844
2006 Home Runs/100 At-Bats = 6.884

Wouldn't Morgan's 9 HR in 8 games (or whatever it was) earlier this year cloud these numbers from the 'whatcha done for me lately' argument?

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Andyzipp on July 13, 2006, 03:33:05 pm

It's not the movement in the box...There have been and will continue to be hitter who can move about all pell mell and still hit.

It's the fact that his hitting stance and I would guess his approach changes pitch to pitch. Which still wouldn't be a problem if he seemed even a little bit aware of the situations around him. It looks like he'll see a breaking pitch outside, close his stance on the *NEXT* pitch so he can get a better look at that breaking pitch...y'know in case it comes back. If that pitcher has the idea to throw middle in, he's completely unable to do anything with it because he STILL wants to get a better look at that breaking ball 2 pitches ago.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 03:42:39 pm

Quote:

And just to add another tangent to this thread (as if it needed more) this club seems to lack clutch hitters. And by that I mean guys who hit well in the following situations (Bases Loaded, 3rd and less than 2 outs, Scoring positon and 2 outs, Scoring position and late). We all know Berkman can do it, and lately I would add Burke to that. I have no idea about Huff, but I know Wilson has something like .200 BA for career with bases loaded, Ensberg is worse. I even think Biggio is pretty bad in this spot in his career.

Arky, you are the stat king, what is the break down of the 9 primary hitters in those categories for careers? (Biggio, Lamb, Berkman, Wilson, Ensberg, Burke, Everett, Ausmus, Huff).

I fundamentally disagree with your premise. When there are runners on, or in scoring position, or in scoring position with two outs, Biggio is "clutch," but when the bases loaded, he's not "clutch?" This makes no sense. In any event, here are the numbers:

Biggio         Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .275  .357  .436
Runners On    .303  .390  .437
RISP          .293  .397  .422
RISP/2 Outs   .282  .414  .409
Bases Loaded  .220  .285  .352
------------------------------
Lamb           Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .279  .324  .422
Runners On    .284  .349  .434
RISP          .273  .353  .429
RISP/2 Outs   .249  .331  .403
Bases Loaded  .340  .359  .440
------------------------------
Berkman        Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .296  .398  .560
Runners On    .311  .432  .563
RISP          .299  .437  .534
RISP/2 Outs   .291  .442  .520
Bases Loaded  .322  .386  .522
------------------------------
Wilson         Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .269  .332  .488
Runners On    .263  .331  .458
RISP          .255  .336  .451
RISP/2 Outs   .240  .338  .417
Bases Loaded  .204  .281  .357
------------------------------
Ensberg        Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .270  .361  .505
Runners On    .276  .380  .481
RISP          .283  .405  .468
RISP/2 Outs   .266  .405  .486
Bases Loaded  .298  .343  .544
------------------------------
Burke          Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .247  .325  .373
Runners On    .275  .333  .431
RISP          .256  .331  .410
RISP/2 Outs   .190  .239  .317
Bases Loaded  .125  .111  .125
------------------------------
Everett        Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .242  .292  .343
Runners On    .262  .316  .378
RISP          .255  .314  .380
RISP/2 Outs   .204  .300  .370
Bases Loaded  .328  .394  .500
------------------------------
Auamus         Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .255  .317  .356
Runners On    .254  .340  .342
RISP          .242  .343  .337
RISP/2 Outs   .231  .375  .310
Bases Loaded  .206  .265  .298
------------------------------
Huff           Avg   OBP   Slg
------------------------------
Bases Empty   .285  .330  .485
Runners On    .291  .358  .466
RISP          .271  .359  .457
RISP/2 Outs   .250  .359  .451
Bases Loaded  .214  .240  .405

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Navin R Johnson on July 13, 2006, 03:50:26 pm

What are you 80-85 jimr? All you do is bitch about people bitching. Typical grumpy old man.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 03:55:18 pm

By the way, Ensberg is batting .233/.372/.493 with none on and .238/.410/.508 with runners on this season.

Ensberg has drawn 32 walks in 183 plate appearances (.175) with none on and 36 walks in 166 plate appearances (.217) with runners on.

When you take away the six intentional walks, all with runners on, that lowers it to 30 walks in 160 plate appearances (.1875) with runners on.

In other words, intentional walks aside, the difference in the number of walks he's drawing with none on and runners on is very small.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Andyzipp on July 13, 2006, 04:00:35 pm

Quote:

By the way, Ensberg is batting .233/.372/.493 with none on and .238/.410/.508 with runners on this season.

Ensberg has drawn 32 walks in 183 plate appearances (.175) with none on and 36 walks in 166 plate appearances (.217) with runners on.

When you take away the six intentional walks, all with runners on, that lowers it to 30 walks in 160 plate appearances (.1875) with runners on.

In other words, intentional walks aside, the difference in the number of walks he's drawing with none on and runners on is very small.

Which, because I don't understand relational statistics, supports my assertion that his actions are completely independent from the situations they occur in.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Froback on July 13, 2006, 04:04:29 pm

Wow, thanks for the breakdown.

I guess my thought on Biggio must have been due to bases loaded situations, which seems odd why he would struggle then but not in the other spots. So I was off on him. Also seems Ensberg is alot better than I thought, which would also lend evidence that he is just in a funk (albeit a prolonged one).

Huff's numbers look horrible, and Burke's I would write off to just small sample size given he really hasn't played much until recently where he seems to be doing fairly well.

All in all it definately makes you wonder why the offense isn't doing better than it has... The Astros seem to be collectively subject to all or nothing on offense at times... more so than what I have seen in other teams (in a limited fasion).

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Arky Vaughan on July 13, 2006, 04:06:00 pm

Quote:

Quote:

By the way, Ensberg is batting .233/.372/.493 with none on and .238/.410/.508 with runners on this season.

Ensberg has drawn 32 walks in 183 plate appearances (.175) with none on and 36 walks in 166 plate appearances (.217) with runners on.

When you take away the six intentional walks, all with runners on, that lowers it to 30 walks in 160 plate appearances (.1875) with runners on.

In other words, intentional walks aside, the difference in the number of walks he's drawing with none on and runners on is very small.

Which, because I don't understand relational statistics, supports my assertion that his actions are completely independent from the situations they occur in.

In other words, he's not changing his approach when runners are on base? I think that's what the numbers point to.

But I still say it's what he does when he puts the ball in play that's really killing him -- and that's largely a result of how he's swinging the bat.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: jasonact on July 13, 2006, 04:24:34 pm

Quote:

Huff's numbers look horrible

Be careful how you read Huff's stats for this season. He was injured earlier this season, and he took a little while to warm up after coming off the DL. Since June 1, he's been doing very well. I don't have the break down of runners on in that time, but there is this:

Quote:

Huff's been hot lately, too. He batted .359 (33-for-92) with three home runs and 13 RBIs in June. He's been even better this month with a .389 (14-for-36) mark and three homers in nine games.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Taras Bulba on July 13, 2006, 04:54:20 pm

Quote:

Quote:

By the way, Ensberg is batting .233/.372/.493 with none on and .238/.410/.508 with runners on this season.

Ensberg has drawn 32 walks in 183 plate appearances (.175) with none on and 36 walks in 166 plate appearances (.217) with runners on.

When you take away the six intentional walks, all with runners on, that lowers it to 30 walks in 160 plate appearances (.1875) with runners on.

In other words, intentional walks aside, the difference in the number of walks he's drawing with none on and runners on is very small.

Which, because I don't understand relational statistics, supports my assertion that his actions are completely independent from the situations they occur in.

Ensberg has always appeared to me as a guy who is very smart to the extent that he out-thinks himself, unfortunately combined with a shortage of old fashioned instinct. Carew, Gwynn, et al were very bright, but also seemed to have good baseball instincts.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Froback on July 13, 2006, 04:56:56 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Huff's numbers look horrible

Be careful how you read Huff's stats for this season. He was injured earlier this season, and he took a little while to warm up after coming off the DL. Since June 1, he's been doing very well. I don't have the break down of runners on in that time, but there is this:

Umm, I think Arky's numbers on him are career, at least that is what I was looking for.

Title: Re: Huff speaks
Post by: Bench on July 13, 2006, 05:30:30 pm

OrangeWhoopass.com Forums

General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: pravata on July 12, 2006, 05:57:36 pm