Brewers pitching lab

[MoreTrife]

I, of course, have heard about the Brewers pitching lab for years now. I don't understand a few things. What is it exactly and if it's so good, why haven't other teams poached or copied?

[Jopal78]

12 minutes ago, MoreTrife said:

I'm going to throw a random question in a random topic: I, of course, have heard about the Brewers pitching lab for years now. I don't understand a few things. What is it exactly and if it's so good, why haven't other teams poached or copied?

It’s fan puffery to an extent. A pitching lab has high speed cameras, biomechanics equipment and software to evaluate spin, axis and movement to help work with a pitcher to develop, refine or discard pitches based on the data captured and recorded.

8-10 teams have one now, and it’s impossible to quantify if one is better than another. (Milwaukee’s lab is better than Seattle’s or Houston’s etc.)

[Fear The Chorizo]

20 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

It’s fan puffery to an extent. A pitching lab has high speed cameras, biomechanics equipment and software to evaluate spin, axis and movement to help work with a pitcher to develop, refine or discard pitches based on the data captured and recorded.

8-10 teams have one now, and it’s impossible to quantify if one is better than another. (Milwaukee’s lab is better than Seattle’s or Houston’s etc.)

It's alot more about the staff running the labs and how these labs are utilized to change pitcher's deliveries, add a pitch, etc...which still goes back to personnel departments identifying talent that can be enhanced using this type of technology to evaluate performance.

 

Anyone nowadays can get the equipment to have a "lab"...it's more about how you use it - and the Brewers are among the best in the business at doing so.

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

It's alot more about the staff running the labs and how these labs are utilized to change pitcher's deliveries, add a pitch, etc...which still goes back to personnel departments identifying talent that can be enhanced using this type of technology to evaluate performance.

 

Anyone nowadays can get the equipment to have a "lab"...it's more about how you use it - and the Brewers are among the best in the business at doing so.

If you say so. If there was a “proven method” that the Brewers utilized or had more skilled people in the lab than other team, are you telling us thier lab folks are just plugging away year after year and no attempts have been made to poach them by other teams for more money, professional advancement etc?

The more likely is the haves (who have the equipment and know how to use it) and the haves nots, and there isn’t a quantifiable way you can rank the haves. 

[mudbutt]

It's because it's not really a method but a culture. Yes you can replicate the lab that outputs a ton of data, but does what the lab interprets and recommend align with the coaching staff, the player and the front office so that it is properly executed? That is exceedingly rare to come across. It's a crapton of data and it's not like things are blatantly obvious what the change should be, where to start, how to go about implementing that change, is it a whole sequence of changes and so on. It's really hard to agree and coordinate these things, especially when you get people who rightfully tend to have strong opinions in sports.

[Jopal78]

4 minutes ago, mudbutt said:

It's because it's not really a method but a culture. Yes you can replicate the lab that outputs a ton of data, but does what the lab interprets and recommend align with the coaching staff, the player and the front office so that it is properly executed? That is exceedingly rare to come across. It's a crapton of data and it's not like things are blatantly obvious what the change should be, where to start, how to go about implementing that change, is it a whole sequence of changes and so on. It's really hard to agree and coordinate these things, especially when you get people who rightfully tend to have strong opinions in sports.

Right, and pro sports are copy cat leagues. If the Brewers had some sort of culture which was known to give them an edge, teams would identify someone who is a part of that culture, hire them away to build their own culture for a new team. It happens all the time, other teams catch up and you have to find the next angle for that edge. 

[liveforoctober]

15 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

If you say so. If there was a “proven method” that the Brewers utilized or had more skilled people in the lab than other team, are you telling us thier lab folks are just plugging away year after year and no attempts have been made to poach them by other teams for more money, professional advancement etc?

The more likely is the haves (who have the equipment and know how to use it) and the haves nots, and there isn’t a quantifiable way you can rank the haves. 

I'm not sure this makes much sense though. You are saying that only 8-10 teams (from your prior response) have a lab with advanced equipment that measures pitching metrics? ... and of those 8-10 teams the smallest market in baseball is one of them? 

"Brewers' pitching lab" is almost assuredly metaphorical. The same way "Mike McCarthy's QB School" in GB was metaphorical. Sometimes it's ok to give credit to people too! Chris Hook has been here for a long time - we just signed him to an extension last year. 

[mudbutt]

10 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Right, and pro sports are copy cat leagues. If the Brewers had some sort of culture which was known to give them an edge, teams would identify someone who is a part of that culture, hire them away to build their own culture for a new team. It happens all the time, other teams catch up and you have to find the next angle for that edge. 

They do get hired but one guy ain't gonna cause a culture change that has a terrible owner, yes men in the front office, coaches with their own agenda etc. Think of any company and how well departments align with each other and it's the same problem here. And as alluded to, the real key is most likely Hook who can take the analytics, have the right coaching staff, and get buy in from the players. Some orgs like to say they are data driven but the Brewers staff have preached they are data informed, and that kind of blended approach is exceedingly hard to get everyone onboard with unless you have strong leadership setting a proper culture.

[Turning2]

Excellent question. Have wondered about the mythic lab too. And why don't they have a hitting lab? 

[thebruce44]

I remember hearing about the Brewers purchasing batting eye training equipment before most other teams back in the 2010s. I don't know if they continue to stay ahead of the curve in terms of the latest equipment and training aids, but I would be willing to bet they have invested in proprietary software and analytics beyond what other teams have built. After that, they seem to be ahead in getting the data back to their pitchers and making it useful.

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, liveforoctober said:

I'm not sure this makes much sense though. You are saying that only 8-10 teams (from your prior response) have a lab with advanced equipment that measures pitching metrics? ... and of those 8-10 teams the smallest market in baseball is one of them? 

"Brewers' pitching lab" is almost assuredly metaphorical. The same way "Mike McCarthy's QB School" in GB was metaphorical. Sometimes it's ok to give credit to people too! Chris Hook has been here for a long time - we just signed him to an extension last year. 

No, it's very much an actual physical location. 

It's also not just "fan puffery." 

There was a article... posted on here, don't recall from where, but pitchers who the Brewers had acquired, who had MLB experiance, they saw their ERA improve more than any other teams pitchers. 

But, setting that aside(not even sure how I'd find that article at this point)... they're consistently top 5 in the league in pitching despite being a small market that can't spend on pitching... in fact, for the 3rd straight year now they've traded away an all-star pitcher. And I'd guess they're back in the top 5 in ERA again next year as they consistently are. That's quite a bit tougher to do when you can't afford to buy FA's like the Dodgers for example, or without using a lot of 1st rd picks like the Reds, Pirates(early 1st rd picks as well). 
 

So, regularly top 5 despite losing elite pitchers. Their top prospects are seldom pitching prospects, often unheralded guys like Patrick or...Myers two years ago, Peralta was a low level throw in when he came here. Megill was a guy who didn't have a whole lot of value. 

Quinn Priester, he was considered a bust. Even guys like Woodruff, Burnes, not exactly blue chip prospects when the Brewers drafted them.

 

The fact is, they do as good of a job of any team in Baseball at identifying pitchers who they think they can get more out of with limited resources and little fanfare and consistently put together a very good rotation and BP. 

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2023/03/21/what-goes-on-inside-the-brewers-mysterious-pitching-lab/70026803007/

[homer]

Brewers are doing something right. If it's not the lab then its something else. Why other teams aren't copying them is because it's hard to copy, apparently.

[Jopal78]

9 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

No, it's very much an actual physical location. 

It's also not just "fan puffery." 

There was a article... posted on here, don't recall from where, but pitchers who the Brewers had acquired, who had MLB experiance, they saw their ERA improve more than any other teams pitchers. 

But, setting that aside(not even sure how I'd find that article at this point)... they're consistently top 5 in the league in pitching despite being a small market that can't spend on pitching... in fact, for the 3rd straight year now they've traded away an all-star pitcher. And I'd guess they're back in the top 5 in ERA again next year as they consistently are. That's quite a bit tougher to do when you can't afford to buy FA's like the Dodgers for example, or without using a lot of 1st rd picks like the Reds, Pirates(early 1st rd picks as well). 
 

So, regularly top 5 despite losing elite pitchers. Their top prospects are seldom pitching prospects, often unheralded guys like Patrick or...Myers two years ago, Peralta was a low level throw in when he came here. Megill was a guy who didn't have a whole lot of value. 

Quinn Priester, he was considered a bust. Even guys like Woodruff, Burnes, not exactly blue chip prospects when the Brewers drafted them.

 

The fact is, they do as good of a job of any team in Baseball at identifying pitchers who they think they can get more out of with limited resources and little fanfare and consistently put together a very good rotation and BP. 

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2023/03/21/what-goes-on-inside-the-brewers-mysterious-pitching-lab/70026803007/

Fan puffery to the extent of calling one team’s “lab” better than the others or ‘the best’.  For example, Seattle has the same type of system and reputation for cranking out quality pitchers and improving pitchers who come to their organization, besides due to bias how can anyone objectively say Milwaukee’s “lab” is better?
 

Which isn’t to say compared to a team like the Angels (who reportedly are less invested in biomechanics and motion capture) the Brewers are cutting edge. 
 

And for a franchise that’s not going to have multiple 30 million dollar AAV contracts, the biomechanics/motion capture pitching “lab” is kind of table stakes if the franchise wants to be competitive.

[homer]

Article from spring training 2023:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2023/03/21/what-goes-on-inside-the-brewers-mysterious-pitching-lab/70026803007/

Oops, already linked above. One quote from the article:

Quote

Junk, who was traded to the Brewers this winter, had never experienced a feedback session like the one he first encountered with Milwaukee.

“That was the really cool thing to see, that it’s not just a conversation,” Junk said. “I'm more of a visual learner. We're looking at this PowerPoint, seeing the results, seeing a difference and stuff like that. That was really cool and really critical for me. 

“I like to watch video, so I was like, ‘Oh, hey, can I watch a video of my Edgertronic from the bullpen?’ And they're like, ‘Oh, yeah, just come up to the meeting room.’ I thought it was just going to be a small room, just like in previous years, just looking at the TrackMan or looking at the footage and going about my day. 

“But it was way different: full meeting, breaking it down, giving their opinion, listening to your opinion. Just more detail-oriented.”

 

[sveumrules]

4 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

For example, Seattle has the same type of system and reputation for cranking out quality pitchers and improving pitchers who come to their organization, besides due to bias how can anyone objectively say Milwaukee’s “lab” is better. 

One huge advantage the Mariners have going for them is their stadium.

Over the last three years at home the Mariners have a 3.19 ERA (1st) and 3.51 FIP (1st) compared to a 4.25 ERA (16th) and 4.24 FIP (16th) on the road.

The Brewers have much more even splits at a 3.52 ERA (3rd) and 3.97 FIP (12th) at home versus a 3.79 ERA (2nd) and 4.25 FIP (18th) on the road.

Which kind of brings us around to the major advantage the Brewers have over the Mariners, their defense travels with them at +145 DRS (3rd) | +112 FRV (1st) | -0.45 ERA/FIP (1st) for MIL compared to +14 DRS (15th) | -20 FRV (19th) | -0.16 FIP/ERA (7th) for SEA over those same three years with almost the entirety of the Mariners ERA/FIP gap resulting from their home stadium via the splits.

Is the Brewers pitching lab thee very best? The 7th best? The 12th best? I dunno. But I do know over the last three years the Brewers are at 1,922 runs allowed (1st) | 3.66 ERA (1st) | 87 ERA- (1st) | 69.6 rWAR (t-1st) with a 3.99 xERA (10th) | 4.00 SIERA (13th) | 98 FIP- (11th) | 46.9 fWAR (12th) under the hood so their Run Prevention Unit is pretty much the best in the business.

[biedergb]

Interesting discussion. So is it fair to say that the lab itself is not unique albeit more developed, but the organizational philosophy and teaching is more unified and/or ingrained.  Even the idea of prioritizing defense and it’s a combination of these factors that has generated results?  And that is a long process that requires patience, and organizational systems like this are not always easy to copy with a technology, a person, or a trait alone.
 

I mean the Yankees or Cubs could easily try to replicate it but it takes years to develop, and buy in, and many teams like that are more likely to go with a quicker fix like sign or trade for a good pitcher than wait a years to a decade to see the results.

[homer]

21 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Which kind of brings us around to the major advantage the Brewers have over the Mariners, their defense travels with them at +145 DRS (3rd) | +112 FRV (1st) | -0.45 ERA/FIP (1st) for MIL compared to +14 DRS (15th) | -20 FRV (19th) | -0.16 FIP/ERA (7th) for SEA over those same three years with almost the entirety of the Mariners ERA/FIP gap resulting from their home stadium via the splits.

Crediting the defense for the success of the pitching lab is certainly a reasonable argument.

[sveumrules]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

Crediting the defense for the success of the pitching lab is certainly a reasonable argument.

Yeah, I definitely think a good amount of the credit the pitching lab gets comes down to elite defense. Shaving almost half an earned run per game, home and road, over the course of three years adds up fast. They aren't even playing in the margins anymore, they're swimming in the deep end.

But at the same time it all works together. The Brewers identify pitchers they think they can get more out of in the lab, they have staff in place that communicates those changes into actionable results, then they presumably craft game plans around trying to induce favorable contact allowing the defense to do its thing.

[wiguy94]

13 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Yeah, I definitely think a good amount of the credit the pitching lab gets comes down to elite defense. Shaving almost half an earned run per game, home and road, over the course of three years adds up fast. They aren't even playing in the margins anymore, they're swimming in the deep end.

But at the same time it all works together. The Brewers identify pitchers they think they can get more out of in the lab, they have staff in place that communicates those changes into actionable results, then they presumably craft game plans around trying to induce favorable contact allowing the defense to do its thing.

Yeah I wouldn't even look at ERA when evaluating the lab. I'd look more at FIP, SIERA, and K-BB% as those are better indicators of purely the pitcher.

Here's an example of lab success.

Before Milwaukee - 5.74 FIP, 4.90 SIERA, 7.1 K-BB%

In Milwaukee - 3.42 FIP, 3.16 SIERA, 19.3 K-BB%

After Milwaukee - 3.39 FIP, 3.78 SIERA, 12.6 K-BB%

[Thurston Fluff]

28 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Yeah, I definitely think a good amount of the credit the pitching lab gets comes down to elite defense. Shaving almost half an earned run per game, home and road, over the course of three years adds up fast. They aren't even playing in the margins anymore, they're swimming in the deep end.

But at the same time it all works together. The Brewers identify pitchers they think they can get more out of in the lab, they have staff in place that communicates those changes into actionable results, then they presumably craft game plans around trying to induce favorable contact allowing the defense to do its thing.

That sentence is the key in my eyes. The Brewers don't just have a top shelf physical lab. They don't just have competent people running it. They don't just emphasize pitching. They aren't just looking at the league to determine what the next big thing is. They have a holistic approach that combines every aspect of the game to make the best out of what they have. It's not a coincidence they have a great defense at the same time they acquired several ground ball pitchers. It's not a coincidence they traded for ground ball pitchers and acquired solid defensive players to begin with. They saw a trend where both were out of style and could be found at a relative bargain. 

The lab works because they made sure every detail was in place to make the most of it. Not just how to make their pitches better but to learn how to pitch with what their defense brings to the table.

[Playing Catch]

1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

Yeah, I definitely think a good amount of the credit the pitching lab gets comes down to elite defense. Shaving almost half an earned run per game, home and road, over the course of three years adds up fast. They aren't even playing in the margins anymore, they're swimming in the deep end.

But at the same time it all works together. The Brewers identify pitchers they think they can get more out of in the lab, they have staff in place that communicates those changes into actionable results, then they presumably craft game plans around trying to induce favorable contact allowing the defense to do its thing.

Yeah. The Brewers are churning out some elite stuff to pair with that defense. Whether you're talking about elite FB quality, like Miz or Uribe, changeup quality (Henderson/Yoho), or movement (Ashby), or deception and location (Patrick's 3 FBs); we could keep going. I suspect that they've simply committed to having good teachers up and down the system along with the new wave of tech.

Now what's correct, I think, is that there are a lot of teams (I dunno, eight? ten?) that are developing nasty pitchers these days, so I get that's not what makes the Brewers unique. The sheer commitment to defense is probably unrivaled in the sport.

[MadScientist]

It sounds like they have people who can take film and break ir down to the pitching components, a lot of built up data and understanding, and some really good people who can not just tell the pitchers what to change, not just show them what they mean, but also listen to the pitchers during the feedback session.  

People, data and culture, so even poaching a guy or two, it would take years and commitment to get everything up and running.   Also, the Brewers have had documented success with their methods.   That gives the pitchers more incentive to make the recommended changes.

[Brewersfan1]

On 1/24/2026 at 3:37 PM, Jopal78 said:

If you say so. If there was a “proven method” that the Brewers utilized or had more skilled people in the lab than other team, are you telling us thier lab folks are just plugging away year after year and no attempts have been made to poach them by other teams for more money, professional advancement etc?

The more likely is the haves (who have the equipment and know how to use it) and the haves nots, and there isn’t a quantifiable way you can rank the haves. 

Well since there has been internal turn over in the past few years I’m sure teams have tried.

How pitchers perform isn’t quantifiable? Brewers pretty consistently grab some dude with a 6.00 era, tweak some things and send them out to have a career. There are other organizations who do it well too. Simply rank them. Just like any other rankings list there are differing opinions. Or is there one top 100 list that is 100% accurate? If so, send it over please! Could simply ask players who have been in organizations with and without questions about the differences too.