Off-day chat 6/6: has your impression of this team changed after the Phillies series?

[Samurai Bucky]

No.

I think Murphy has been a bit of a magician to get the pitching staff to work out.  He also does a good job of keeping guys engaged which is why I don't have as big of an issue with the platooning.  During the Phillies series, the offense had their opportunities, but couldn't cash in.  I think of Turang's last at bat on Tuesday with a runner at third and less than two outs.  He was trying to elevate the ball, but couldn't.  Credit to the Phillies staff.

Hopefully they bounce back with authority against Los Tigres this weekend.

[wiguy94]

8 minutes ago, homer said:

This board has been clamoring for  "consistent offense" as long as I've been on here. It used to be the brewers hit too many home runs and didn't hit for contact. Now they are hitting for contact and hitting a good amount of home runs but apparently the offense is not consistent. So how does one build a lineup that is consistent? Also, what is "consistent"? They are middle of the road in terms of K% (12th) they walk a good bit (5th)  they are 9th in home runs, 3rd in OBP, 6th in SLG...what else do they have to learn how to do? Their team offensive numbers are nearly identical to Philly. Does Philly have a consistent offense?

Philly just put up 7 runs in a series where Ashby, Wilson, and Rea were our "starters". I wonder if their fans are talking about how inconsistent their offense is and saying it isn't good enough.

[Kripes - Brewers]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

This board has been clamoring for  "consistent offense" as long as I've been on here. It used to be the brewers hit too many home runs and didn't hit for contact. Now they are hitting for contact band hitting a good amount of home runs but apparently the offense is not consistent. So how does one build a lineup that is consistent? Also, what is "consistent"? They are middle of the road in terms of K% (12th) they walk a good bit (5th)  they are 9th in home runs, 3rd in OBP, 6th in SLG...what else do they have to learn how to do? 

Great question, for which there probably isn't one single answer. Based on their relatively improved contact ability (compared to most years), I'd offer situational hitting. When you have a guy in scoring position with no outs, aim to drive the ball somewhere and get on base without chasing bad pitches; one out, bunt or try to hit a fly where they ain't in order to move them over (if you're not a typical power guy); two out, choke up, make solid contact toward a gap. That's just simply easier said than done, but these are supposed to be the best players in the world and you have to change your approach from just swinging for the fences every at bat. They're less a home run team, and more of a contact team, but you gotta try to play small ball with the contact to keep guys circulating the base paths - certainly in close games. One of you stat guys can find the RISP numbers for this team and see where they rank.

[homer]

1 minute ago, Kripes - Brewers said:

Great question, for which there probably isn't one single answer. Based on their relatively improved contact ability (compared to most years), I'd offer situational hitting. When you have a guy in scoring position with no outs, aim to drive the ball somewhere and get on base without chasing bad pitches; one out, bunt or try to hit a fly where they ain't in order to move them over (if you're not a typical power guy); two out, choke up, make solid contact toward a gap. That's just simply easier said than done, but these are supposed to be the best players in the world and you have to change your approach from just swinging for the fences every at bat. They're less a home run team, and more of a contact team, but you gotta try to play small ball with the contact to keep guys circulating the base paths - certainly in close games. One of you stat guys can find the RISP numbers for this team and see where they rank.

They are pretty darn good with RISP:

[tmwiese55]

Nothing changed for me.  I think I've mentioned a few times I wouldn't be trading anything significant at the deadline due to the gap between us and Phi/ATL/LAD.   I thought they're a tier below those teams and this kind of reinforced it. 

To the consistent O talk. Yes things have improved this year but I'd say the biggest thing of the last few years that frustrates us or could be improved is having all 9 guys be at least league avg/ok guys rather than having 2-3 guys each day you feel are easy outs.   This was helped last year by guys like Canha and Santana cleaning up two spots to be competent.   Right now you have at least RF and any days there's subs in then at least 2 spots. Perkins has at least bounced back from that slump but you still have a bit of uneasiness with him too.   So its better than in past years (and likely why the numbers are better this year) that had 3B and issues at 2b, OF, and 1B/DH.    But improve by adding at least one competent OF goes a long way

[nate82]

What is more alarming the Brewers only scoring 2 runs against the Phillies best pitchers or the Phillies only scoring 7 runs against the Brewers worst starting pitchers? 

I think it is the Phillies being the biggest worry here.  They only scored 4 runs against some really poor starting pitching.  The other 3 runs were scored off the Brewers bullpen.  The Phillies offense scored 0 runs off of Rea and only scored 2 runs off of Ashby and Wilson each.  The Phillies offense looked just as bad if not worse than the Brewers offense in this 3-game series against worse pitching. 

[BruisedCrew]

2 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

Philly just put up 7 runs in a series where Ashby, Wilson, and Rea were our "starters". I wonder if their fans are talking about how inconsistent their offense is and saying it isn't good enough.

Probably not considering that (1) they won all 3 games meaning that they scored what they needed to win those games, and (2) they have only been shut out twice and scored only 1 run twice this season. 

The Phillies provide a good contrast to the Brewers in terms of their run distribution. The Brewers have scored 7 or more runs 19 times compared to 17 for the Phillies. 7 runs should be enough to win most of the time. In fact, the Brewers are 18-1 and the Phillies are 17-0 when scoring 7 or more. 

Those games where a team piles on runs can be fun for the fans they do tend to pad the stats. Every team has some of those, but the Brewers have had more than all or most. They have scored 10 or more runs 8 times and the Phillies have had 5.

What makes the Phillies offense more effective in winning games (and one might say more "consistent") is that they have significantly fewer games with 3 or fewer runs (which more often than not result in losses) and a lot more  in the 4-6 range where the probability of winning flips above 50%.

The Phillies have 29 games where they have scored 4-6 runs (22-7) while the Brewers have had only 18 (11-7).

The reason I call the Brewers offense more "feast or famine" than normal is that their run distribution chart looks more like a dumbbell (heavily weighted on the ends) than a bell curve with the heavier weight in the middle like the Phillies and most other top offenses.

 

 

[Jim French Stepstool]

No change.

I'll admit there are a number of guys you can point to for the lack of offense this week. Their names are Sanchez, Nola, Wheeler, Hoffman & Alvarado. Philly has a terrific team. A season has ebbs & flows, I'm sure they'll have stretches where they don't look all that great. This week, they were great. They also threw us out on about half a dozen bang-bang plays at 1st (you could see Murphys' frustration after awhile, constantly checking for a review & every play being called correctly), saved a run when Frelick couldn't get out of the way of a wild pitch, saved a run when Bohm made, frankly, a dumb decision going against his mgrs. strategy & being bailed out when Stubbs, while looking for the throw, just happens to put his foot in the perfect spot...........I mean, breaks go both ways over 162. This week, they happened to go with the team that was extremely talented, and playing extremely well. I pretty much gave up on Wednesday after Sanchez hit a rocket toward the gap, & Merrifield caught it flat-footed, without having to move, as if he was playing long toss with someone.

I wouldn't spend prospect capitol on anything other than starting pitching. If a bench-type bat can be added to the deal, fine.

I would at least be open to dealing relief pitching if it helps get a deal done. People like Williams, Clarke & Bukauskas returning would make this more palatable.

If needed at some point, it MIGHT kick up the offense a bit if Turang & Ortiz hit 1 & 2. Yelich 3rd. Get Contreras more RBI opps.

If Ashby can go northward from what he did yesterday it would be huge. And apologies for not remembering who it was, but someone brought up the idea of stretching Koenig out as a legit starter. That's intriguing. Still hopeful on Junis & Hall.

To have something special happen, I think the keys are Ortiz maintaining & building, and a light to go on for Chourio.

 

[BruisedCrew]

20 minutes ago, nate82 said:

What is more alarming the Brewers only scoring 2 runs against the Phillies best pitchers or the Phillies only scoring 7 runs against the Brewers worst starting pitchers? 

I think it is the Phillies being the biggest worry here.  They only scored 4 runs against some really poor starting pitching.  The other 3 runs were scored off the Brewers bullpen.  The Phillies offense scored 0 runs off of Rea and only scored 2 runs off of Ashby and Wilson each.  The Phillies offense looked just as bad if not worse than the Brewers offense in this 3-game series against worse pitching. 

I don't think the Phillies have to be alarmed about anything. Their offense produced the runs they needed to win.

The Brewers don't necessarily have to be alarmed by scoring just 2 runs against the Phillies. But they might be concerned about having so many games in which they have scored 3 or fewer runs. That number is more like an average offense than one of the top offenses in the league.

[sveumrules]

40 minutes ago, BruisedCrew said:

The reason I call the Brewers offense more "feast or famine" than normal is that their run distribution chart looks more like a dumbbell (heavily weighted on the ends) than a bell curve with the heavier weight in the middle like the Phillies and most other top offenses.

There are currently seven teams scoring 4.80 R/G or greater, here is how their run scoring has varied using the splits available on BRef...

Baltimore (5.10 R/G)
0-2: 13 (21.7%)
3-5: 22 (36.7%)
6+: 25 (41.7%)

Cleveland (5.10 R/G)
0-2: 12 (20.0%)
3-5: 22 (36.7%)
6+: 26 (43.3%)

Philadelphia (5.08 R/G)
0-2: 13 (20.6%)
3-5: 29 (46.0%)
6+: 21 (33.3%)

New York Yanks (4.97 R/G)
0-2: 16 (25.4%)
3-5: 23 (36.5%)
6+: 24 (38.1%)

Milwaukee (4.94 R/G)
0-2: 14 (22.6%)
3-5: 23 (37.1%)
6+: 35 (40.3%)

Kansas City (4.87 R/G)
0-2: 16 (25.8%)
3-5: 24 (37.1%)
6+: 22 (35.5%)

LA Dodgers (4.81 R/G)
0-2: 14 (22.2%)
3-5: 26 (41.3%)
6+: 23 (36.5%)

Even among top offenses, the Phillies 46.0% of games scoring 3-5 runs is far and away ahead of second place (Dodgers at 41.3%). The other five top run scoring offenses are grouped together between 36.5% and 38.7% for 3-5 run games, so the Phillies are an outlier unto themselves (4.7% gap) then the Dodgers (2.6% gap) then everyone else.

The Padres have been the most average-est offense by run scoring matching league average at 4.32 R/G, and their distribution actually exhibits the feast or famine dumbbell shape you are referring to...

San Diego (4.32 R/G)
0-2: 25 (38.4%)
3-5: 16 (24.6%)
6+: 24 (36.9%)

[Team Canada]

It seems to me if this series changed your impression, maybe you thought Milwaukee was the top team in the NL?

I don't really care about the sweep, what's important is that these were three very close games that a hit or single pitch going a different way could have altered the game.

I will say this series did impact my impression of Ashby - he's apparently way closer to being back than I thought, given he was pretty much of a mess in AAA.

[homer]

1 hour ago, BruisedCrew said:

Probably not considering that (1) they won all 3 games meaning that they scored what they needed to win those games, and (2) they have only been shut out twice and scored only 1 run twice this season. 

The Phillies provide a good contrast to the Brewers in terms of their run distribution. The Brewers have scored 7 or more runs 19 times compared to 17 for the Phillies. 7 runs should be enough to win most of the time. In fact, the Brewers are 18-1 and the Phillies are 17-0 when scoring 7 or more. 

Those games where a team piles on runs can be fun for the fans they do tend to pad the stats. Every team has some of those, but the Brewers have had more than all or most. They have scored 10 or more runs 8 times and the Phillies have had 5.

What makes the Phillies offense more effective in winning games (and one might say more "consistent") is that they have significantly fewer games with 3 or fewer runs (which more often than not result in losses) and a lot more  in the 4-6 range where the probability of winning flips above 50%.

The Phillies have 29 games where they have scored 4-6 runs (22-7) while the Brewers have had only 18 (11-7).

The reason I call the Brewers offense more "feast or famine" than normal is that their run distribution chart looks more like a dumbbell (heavily weighted on the ends) than a bell curve with the heavier weight in the middle like the Phillies and most other top offenses.

 

 

OK sure but that's all descriptive. How do the Brewers (or any offense) become more consistent? You say they are "feast or famine" what do they have to do to become "moderately full"?

[BruisedCrew]

18 minutes ago, homer said:

OK sure but that's all descriptive. How do the Brewers (or any offense) become more consistent? You say they are "feast or famine" what do they have to do to become "moderately full"?

I don’t think “consistency” is really the goal. A perfectly consistent offense averaging 5 runs a game would score exactly 5 runs each and every game. Nobody is going to do that, and it isn’t necessarily what you want.

What you want is to reduce the number of low scoring games that usually produce losses unless you get perfect or near perfect pitching. Since they won’t let you take excess runs from blowouts and apply them to other games that has to be done some other way.

I guess what the Brewers need to reduce the low scoring games is have more high quality major league hitters who can find ways to get on base and produce runs even against elite pitchers. That’s a lot easier said than done.

[Thurston Fluff]

3 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

Probably not considering that (1) they won all 3 games meaning that they scored what they needed to win those games, and (2) they have only been shut out twice and scored only 1 run twice this season. 

The Phillies provide a good contrast to the Brewers in terms of their run distribution. The Brewers have scored 7 or more runs 19 times compared to 17 for the Phillies. 7 runs should be enough to win most of the time. In fact, the Brewers are 18-1 and the Phillies are 17-0 when scoring 7 or more. 

Those games where a team piles on runs can be fun for the fans they do tend to pad the stats. Every team has some of those, but the Brewers have had more than all or most. They have scored 10 or more runs 8 times and the Phillies have had 5.

What makes the Phillies offense more effective in winning games (and one might say more "consistent") is that they have significantly fewer games with 3 or fewer runs (which more often than not result in losses) and a lot more  in the 4-6 range where the probability of winning flips above 50%.

The Phillies have 29 games where they have scored 4-6 runs (22-7) while the Brewers have had only 18 (11-7).

The reason I call the Brewers offense more "feast or famine" than normal is that their run distribution chart looks more like a dumbbell (heavily weighted on the ends) than a bell curve with the heavier weight in the middle like the Phillies and most other top offenses.

 

 

keep in mind the only team they've played that currently has a record above .500 is the Brewers. One team has a .500 record. They've played 27 games against the Reds, Nationals, Pirates, Colorado, Angels, Marlins and White Sox. They've also had the most home games in baseball so far this season. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

We've played five teams above .500 and three at .500.

[BruisedCrew]

4 hours ago, sveumrules said:

There are currently seven teams scoring 4.80 R/G or greater, here is how their run scoring has varied using the splits available on BRef...

Baltimore (5.10 R/G)
0-2: 13 (21.7%)
3-5: 22 (36.7%)
6+: 25 (41.7%)

Cleveland (5.10 R/G)
0-2: 12 (20.0%)
3-5: 22 (36.7%)
6+: 26 (43.3%)

Philadelphia (5.08 R/G)
0-2: 13 (20.6%)
3-5: 29 (46.0%)
6+: 21 (33.3%)

New York Yanks (4.97 R/G)
0-2: 16 (25.4%)
3-5: 23 (36.5%)
6+: 24 (38.1%)

Milwaukee (4.94 R/G)
0-2: 14 (22.6%)
3-5: 23 (37.1%)
6+: 35 (40.3%)

Kansas City (4.87 R/G)
0-2: 16 (25.8%)
3-5: 24 (37.1%)
6+: 22 (35.5%)

LA Dodgers (4.81 R/G)
0-2: 14 (22.2%)
3-5: 26 (41.3%)
6+: 23 (36.5%)

Even among top offenses, the Phillies 46.0% of games scoring 3-5 runs is far and away ahead of second place (Dodgers at 41.3%). The other five top run scoring offenses are grouped together between 36.5% and 38.7% for 3-5 run games, so the Phillies are an outlier unto themselves (4.7% gap) then the Dodgers (2.6% gap) then everyone else.

The Padres have been the most average-est offense by run scoring matching league average at 4.32 R/G, and their distribution actually exhibits the feast or famine dumbbell shape you are referring to...

San Diego (4.32 R/G)
0-2: 25 (38.4%)
3-5: 16 (24.6%)
6+: 24 (36.9%)

First, there's an obvious type here because the Brewers have 25 games of 6+ runs, not 35. The percentages are correct.

You will recall that when we had an exchange about this on another thread a few weeks ago, I had independently defined the buckets differently. I used 0-3 runs as the low bucket, 4-6 as the middle, and 7+ as high.

This might be arbitrary, but I thought it made sense because:

!. In recent years it has usually taken 4 runs for a team's expected win % to approach 50%. So, I consider scoring 3 runs or less to be "low scoring" because to win the opponent has to be held to 2 runs or less. When the Brewers had strong pitching the announcers would often talk about how high the Brewers win percentage was when they scored at least 4 runs.

2. I used 7+ as high scoring because there had been graphics touting the Brewers as leading MLB in games with 7+ runs scored. When a team scores 7+ runs the win percentage is quite high.

3. That left 4-6 as the middle bucket, which seems appropriate since we are talking about teams averaging close to 5 runs a game. Scoring in the 4-6 range should produce a good winning percentage, and scoring within 1 run of a 5 run  average on a regular basis would be a sign of a good and consistent offense.

So, updating the numbers I posted a few weeks ago and applying them to the teams you listed produces this: (low/middle/high)

Baltimore:  20/22/18

Cleveland 20/21/19

Philadelphia 17/29/17

NYY  21/23/19

Milwaukee 25/18/19

Kansas City  24/21/17

LAD  20/28/15

What stands out now is that, of the teams listed, the Brewers are tied for the most high scoring games, but have the most low scoring games by a significant margin (except for KC which has just one less) and the fewest games in that middle bucket (and quite a few less than most of the other teams).

So, make of it what you want. But it is a fact that the Brewers have more low scoring and fewer medium scoring games than the other top scoring teams in MLB.

 

[nate82]

1 hour ago, BruisedCrew said:

You will recall that when we had an exchange about this on another thread a few weeks ago, I had independently defined the buckets differently. I used 0-3 runs as the low bucket, 4-6 as the middle, and 7+ as high.

If you are going to do that then you need to change the middle to 4-5 and high be 6+ otherwise your curve is not going to match your high and low. 

[Brewcrew82]

2 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

First, there's an obvious type here because the Brewers have 25 games of 6+ runs, not 35. The percentages are correct.

You will recall that when we had an exchange about this on another thread a few weeks ago, I had independently defined the buckets differently. I used 0-3 runs as the low bucket, 4-6 as the middle, and 7+ as high.

This might be arbitrary, but I thought it made sense because:

!. In recent years it has usually taken 4 runs for a team's expected win % to approach 50%. So, I consider scoring 3 runs or less to be "low scoring" because to win the opponent has to be held to 2 runs or less. When the Brewers had strong pitching the announcers would often talk about how high the Brewers win percentage was when they scored at least 4 runs.

2. I used 7+ as high scoring because there had been graphics touting the Brewers as leading MLB in games with 7+ runs scored. When a team scores 7+ runs the win percentage is quite high.

3. That left 4-6 as the middle bucket, which seems appropriate since we are talking about teams averaging close to 5 runs a game. Scoring in the 4-6 range should produce a good winning percentage, and scoring within 1 run of a 5 run  average on a regular basis would be a sign of a good and consistent offense.

So, updating the numbers I posted a few weeks ago and applying them to the teams you listed produces this: (low/middle/high)

Baltimore:  20/22/18

Cleveland 20/21/19

Philadelphia 17/29/17

NYY  21/23/19

Milwaukee 25/18/19

Kansas City  24/21/17

LAD  20/28/15

What stands out now is that, of the teams listed, the Brewers are tied for the most high scoring games, but have the most low scoring games by a significant margin (except for KC which has just one less) and the fewest games in that middle bucket (and quite a few less than most of the other teams).

So, make of it what you want. But it is a fact that the Brewers have more low scoring and fewer medium scoring games than the other top scoring teams in MLB.

 

This screams of manipulating facts to fit a preconceived narrative....."Arbitrary" as you admit. 

[wallus]

I wouldn't say the series changed how I looked at the team. I would really like a vet DH that will consistently OPS over .800. (JD Martinez seems like an obvious choice) I have faith in the team doing magic with pitching and defense but I want to lessen any holes in the lineup.

[Brian]

8 hours ago, treego14 said:

Yes, sadly it has shown we are no better than we have been under Counsell.

It's not the Brewers fault, though.

They fight uphill against MLB's financial structure that is wholly unfair.

On todays date last year we were 34-29.

This year we are 36-26 which would be a 2 1/2 game lead over last year.

[Brian]

Pittsburg beat the Cubs today 8-4.  Now a below .500 team 31-32 Go Craig Go!!!!

[BruisedCrew]

2 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

This screams of manipulating facts to fit a preconceived narrative....."Arbitrary" as you admit. 

I gave the reasons why I chose the buckets the way I did.

IMHO it’s no more arbitrary, and actually more logical than the ones used by BR.

I chose those buckets a month ago and before I knew how they would come out.

 

[BruisedCrew]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

If you are going to do that then you need to change the middle to 4-5 and high be 6+ otherwise your curve is not going to match your high and low. 

Why is that? 

Regardless of the curve aspect, the Brewers have more games scoring 3 runs or less than the other teams listed.

And scoring 3 runs produces generally produces more losses than wins. This year the Brewers are 4-7 when scoring 3 runs. 

[nate82]

1 minute ago, BruisedCrew said:

Why is that? 

Regardless of the curve aspect, the Brewers have more games scoring 3 runs or less than the other teams listed.

Your buckets don't make any logical sense that is why.  This is not to pick on you just that your hypothesis is faulty because of your buckets.  You are making them lean to where you want them to lean.  To make it more logical if you move the buckets it actually makes your hypothesis a bit stronger.  Though what you are suggesting basically puts you at the same conclusion as sveumrules. 

Regardless of the highs and lows the middle numbers are about on par with the others you are comparing them to.  Only two teams in your list out rank them and the others are within the margin of error. 

[BruisedCrew]

2 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Your buckets don't make any logical sense that is why.  This is not to pick on you just that your hypothesis is faulty because of your buckets.  You are making them lean to where you want them to lean.  To make it more logical if you move the buckets it actually makes your hypothesis a bit stronger.  Though what you are suggesting basically puts you at the same conclusion as sveumrules. 

Regardless of the highs and lows the middle numbers are about on par with the others you are comparing them to.  Only two teams in your list out rank them and the others are within the margin of error. 

I think putting all run totals for which the league winning percentage is under 50% in one bucket is very logical.

When I chose these a month ago for the reasons I gave, the Brewers were very low in the middle bucket. That was in the thread about the Brewers offense.

When I updated them now  they brought the middle bucket up.

 

[BruisedCrew]

 

42 minutes ago, Brian said:

Pittsburg beat the Cubs today 8-4.  Now a below .500 team 31-32 Go Craig Go!!!!

It was the Reds that beat the Cubs. They have now won 8 of 11 and are tied with the Cardinals just a game behind the Cubs and a half game ahead of the Pirates.