Re: Ensberg Redux

Ben Edelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I haven't forgotten how my once-lofty predictions for Morgan Ensberg fell
> flat in 2002.  However, I'd like to note that my predictions for 2002
> (.280/26/90) are almost dead-on for 2003 (.283/21/55 so far).
>

90  - 55???  dead on?? oh please




> So I was almost right; just off by one year :-)
>
> Of course, I also thought Beltre was going to be a stud.
>
> --Ben
>
> ***********
> old post dug up from google
> ***********
>             Search Result 2
>       From: Thomas A ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>       Subject: Re: Need help on Ensberg 3B
>             View: Complete Thread (5 articles)
>             Original Format
>       Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball.fantasy
>       Date: 2002-03-19 06:16:11 PST
>
>
> Ben is the President of the Morgan Ensberg Fan Club.  For an opposing
view,
> see the following from the Baseball Notebook:
>
> Q.  Why do you have so few at bats projected for Morgan Ensberg?
>
> A.  The Ensberg forecast is because I don't think he's ready to play in
the
> majors and I believe that will show quickly.  He's a good example of how
the
> plan can go out the window if a player struggles (which we also say will
> happen to Cesar Izturis of the Dodgers).  I'm projecting Ensberg as a
.230s
> hitter with good but inconsistent power.  Ensberg has just 4 major league
> games under his belt and though he's been exceptional in the minors the
past
> two years, I don't believe it will immediately translate and he's older
than
> most think at twenty-six.  If I'm wrong about his playing time, it will be
> because I'm wrong about his ability.  If he goes out and hits .300 in
April
> with the same sort of power I know he has, then obviously he's not going
to
> lose his job.  As it stands now, it would be contradictory for me on one
> hand to project him as a .230s hitter but, given that the Astros have
> several other candidates even without Chris Truby, also say Ensberg is
going
> to play 150 games.  I suspect that if you disagree with me on him, it's
> because we see a different type of player.  I say he's going to lose
> whatever job he wins if he hits as I expect.  If I'm wrong about him, it
> will be on the ability side.  The playing time simply goes in hand with
> that.
>
> "Ben Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Buy John Sickels' Minor League Scouting Notebook.  Well worth the $20.
> >
> > Here's Ensbergs #s:
> >
> > 2001 in AAA: .310 / .397 / .592; 23 HR, 61 RBI in 87 games only (injury)
> > 2000 in AA: .300 / .416 / .545; 28 HR, 90 RBI in 137 games
> > Career: .274 / .389 / .491; 71 HR, 251 RBI in 406 games.
> >
> > His power is for real, as is his AVG and walk rate.  However, he will
turn
> 27 in
> > August, and so isn't considered a top prospect by most.
> >
> > He could easily hit .280 / 26 / 90 this year, although of course he
could
> flop
> > entirely as well.
>
>