Blue Jays (Berrios) vs Brewers (Rea): 6/10/24, 7:10pm

[shanedog19]

I would love to see Chourio start every game for two weeks straight and see where he is at.

[Brian]

11 minutes ago, shanedog19 said:

I would love to see Chourio start every game for two weeks straight and see where he is at.

I agree he definitely is getting better. 

Robert Gasser injury update

Pat Murphy told reporters that while Gasser is seeking a third opinion on his flexor strain, he's preparing for Gasser to join Brandon Woodruff and Wade Miley on the injured list for the rest of the season.

The second opinion Gasser received said his UCL was not as strong as it should be and he could rehab his way through it. He's seeking a third opinion from Dr. Keith Meister, who performed the shoulder surgery on Brandon Woodruff last offseason.

[sveumrules]

Stats don’t include tonight, but going back to the Astros series (May 17th) team wRC+ is 97 (17th). Base running (+3.6, 1st) and defense (+2.7, 4th) lifts them to 10th at 3.3 WAR over that stretch. This is more akin to the standard 2017-23 kinda Brewers position player production.

Over the 43 games prior they were at a 119 wRC+. We knew regression was incoming at some point and here it is.

The good news is that even with that regression in the batters box, and a starting pitching staff that is 18th with 1.0 rWAR over that stretch, the Brewers are still 13-10 after tonight - with the bullpen’s +2.95 WPA (1st) a big reason (along with the mediocrity of the division) why they’ve not only stayed afloat but also gained 5.5 games on second place over their last 23 games of struggle.

[BlightyBrew]

Brilliant start for Colin tonight and going deep to save the bullpen for game 2 with a debut on the mound.

[BruisedCrew]

7 hours ago, shanedog19 said:

I would love to see Chourio start every game for two weeks straight and see where he is at.

Maybe not every single game, but at least 5 out of 6.

His potential upside over Frelick is huge, and he has looked much better at the plate in his last few games. 

[BruisedCrew]

13 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Stats don’t include tonight, but going back to the Astros series (May 17th) team wRC+ is 97 (17th). Base running (+3.6, 1st) and defense (+2.7, 4th) lifts them to 10th at 3.3 WAR over that stretch. This is more akin to the standard 2017-23 kinda Brewers position player production.

Over the 43 games prior they were at a 119 wRC+. We knew regression was incoming at some point and here it is.

The good news is that even with that regression in the batters box, and a starting pitching staff that is 18th with 1.0 rWAR over that stretch, the Brewers are still 13-10 after tonight - with the bullpen’s +2.95 WPA (1st) a big reason (along with the mediocrity of the division) why they’ve not only stayed afloat but also gained 5.5 games on second place over their last 23 games of struggle.

I’ve noticed that you often use wRC+ as a measure of how the Brewers offense has performed as a team.

I don’t study the intricacies of the latest wave of advanced statistics, but I wonder if that is the best measure. Back about 50 years ago when I first followed Bill James I read about runs created as a way to measure a player’s contributions to his team scoring runs.

But, if we’re evaluating a team why not just go directly to the relevant bottom line: the number of runs it actually scored. I understand that wRC+ adjusts the runs created formula to reflect things like ballpark factors, but couldn’t there just be a way to adjust actual runs scored the same way.

[sveumrules]

24 minutes ago, BruisedCrew said:

I’ve noticed that you often use wRC+ as a measure of how the Brewers offense has performed as a team.

I don’t study the intricacies of the latest wave of advanced statistics, but I wonder if that is the best measure. Back about 50 years ago when I first followed Bill James I read about runs created as a way to measure a player’s contributions to his team scoring runs.

But, if we’re evaluating a team why not just go directly to the relevant bottom line: the number of runs it actually scored. I understand that wRC+ adjusts the runs created formula to reflect things like ballpark factors, but couldn’t there just be a way to adjust actual runs scored the same way.

Because runs scored includes a number of contextual factors which don’t even out over 162 games, much less smaller samples like we’re dealing with slicing up an already small 66 games into even tinier, less reliable samples.

wRC+ strips that all out and just compares overall performance to league average.

[BruisedCrew]

Speaking of games since the Houston series, this stretch of games illustrates why I like to focus on run distribution, not just total runs scored, to evaluate the offense. 

As discussed in another thread, I consider games in which the team scores 3 runs or less as "low scoring games" because , based on league wide averages, a team that scores 3 runs or less is more likely to lose than win. Very high scoring games might boost the RPG average, wRC+, and individual stats, but they still only produce one win.

In the 20 games since they left Houston, the Brewers have scored 4 or more runs in 11 games and 3 runs or less in 9 games. they are 11-0 when scoring 4 runs or more and 1-8 when scoring 3 runs or less, with the one win coming in last night's 3-1 win over the Blue Jays.

The Brewers have scored 91 runs in these 20 games and allowed just 66, but the runs scored total is boosted by 3 games of scoring 10 or more, while the runs prevention unit has only allowed more than 6 runs in a game once the 10 against the Tigers on Sunday..

It is apparent that the runs prevention has been much more "consistent" than the offense. If they can keep that up despite the injuries and use of the Nashville shuttle, the team will be in great shape. If it falters, the offense is going to have to be better than scoring 3 or fewer runs in almost half of its games.

[BruisedCrew]

10 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Because runs scored includes a number of contextual factors which don’t even out over 162 games, much less smaller samples like we’re dealing with slicing up an already small 66 games into even tinier, less reliable samples.

wRC+ strips that all out and just compares overall performance to league average.

What are those contextual factors (other than ballpark), and how are they better stripped out in a small sample of games? If they can be stripped out for the factors that go into runs created, why couldn't they also be stripped out of total runs scored?

Maybe a stat like "Weighted Runs Scored" could be developed, but it isn't done because those advanced stats are designed more to evaluate players than teams.

[sveumrules]

46 minutes ago, BruisedCrew said:

What are those contextual factors (other than ballpark), and how are they better stripped out in a small sample of games? If they can be stripped out for the factors that go into runs created, why couldn't they also be stripped out of total runs scored?

Maybe a stat like "Weighted Runs Scored" could be developed, but it isn't done because those advanced stats are designed more to evaluate players than teams.

Sequencing is the primary factor.

A team has a walk, single, double and home run in an inning. How many runs did they score?

Runs scored credits them with somewhere between one and four for the inning depending on the order of events, wRC+ credits them with the weighted run value of a walk, single, double, and home run (and three outs) for the inning.

[BruisedCrew]

7 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Sequencing is the primary factor.

A team has a walk, single, double and home run in an inning. How many runs did they score?

Runs scored credits them with somewhere between one and four for the inning depending on the order of events, wRC+ credits them with the weighted run value of a walk, single, double, and home run (and three outs) for the inning.

It seems to me that assumes that at bats are completely independent events and estimates how many runs a team should be expected to score if each of those events occurs. But, I don't think at bats are completely independent of each other because pitchers might pitch differently based on the situation.

[sveumrules]

1 minute ago, BruisedCrew said:

It seems to me that assumes that at bats are completely independent events

wRC+ was developed specifically as a context independent measure.

The only context it considers is ballpark and the league run scoring environment.

[BruisedCrew]

3 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

wRC+ was developed specifically as a context independent measure.

The only context it considers is ballpark and the league run scoring environment.

Then it seems that it's better used as a tool to measure a player's contribution to scoring runs than a team's ability to score runs.

[StearnsFTW]

19 hours ago, kevinisaname said:

Quite cromulent, indeed.

Should embiggen the staff.

 

Also "embiggen" is not spell-checked while "cromulent" is.