Brewers (Sproat) vs Cardinals (Pallante): 5/6/26, 12:15pm

[TURBO]

38 minutes ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

...but we shouldn't close the book on Rengifo just yet.

His entire career is unremarkable.  He is not, and has never been a difference maker.  He's a guy.

It felt like we signed him because we had to, or it was just easy, or there was nothing left for us...

Meh, it is what it is.

[liveforoctober]

1 hour ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

The KC deal has gone from a narrative of "Zerpa sucks" to "Zerpa was obviously hurt", but either way yeah, we're in the hole there. Big picture it's a philosophy of selling high re Durbin & Collins along with a final year of Peralta in exchange for a passel of young arms. The ones who are healthy & throwing, I can easily see why we wanted them.

It's easy to miss Durbin given the rough patches (offensively) on the left side of the INF. He was one of my favorites, but we shouldn't close the book on Rengifo just yet.

I do agree it is an unfortunate side effect of how we have to approach roster construction. Sell high, buy low. Develop, develop, develop. It only works if your front office hits more than it misses in the exchanges ... but there will be misses. Nature of it. Thankfully we are hitting more than we are missing. 

[BruisedCrew]

2 hours ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

That's not a bad idea. Or you can just leave the whole thing up to the official scorer. If the starter goes say 3.1 and leaves with a 6-1 lead, the BP guys aren't effective but never relinquish the lead & you win 9-7 the starter might be the most effective of the group despite getting pulled early.

I agree that the five inning requirement should be eliminated given how the game is played these days.

I think the simplest way to do it is to just remove the requirement and say that if the starting pitcher has not worked five innings, then apply the standards that are in the rule now, while allowing the starting pitcher to be the “most effective” pitcher. That would just add an additional candidate to a subjective standard that already exists.

The scoring rules already have a number of comments that are meant to assist the scorer in naming the winning pitcher. 

[Jim French Stepstool]

2 hours ago, TURBO said:

His entire career is unremarkable.  He is not, and has never been a difference maker.  He's a guy.

It felt like we signed him because we had to, or it was just easy, or there was nothing left for us...

Meh, it is what it is.

I don't think we need him to be remarkable, or that anyone in the organization expected that. He was signed because there's a lot of INF talent here at the AA & AAA level, and while that talent isn't deemed ready yet at the beginning of 2026 it's close enough that making a bigger move---trade-wise or FA wise---wouldn't make much sense.

He's a plug-in, a stop gap. I just don't agree with anyone who might look at a .520 OPS through 30 games & think that's all there is. His career has been better than that.

[titanrick]

1 hour ago, BruisedCrew said:

I agree that the five inning requirement should be eliminated given how the game is played these days.

I think the simplest way to do it is to just remove the requirement and say that if the starting pitcher has not worked five innings, then apply the standards that are in the rule now, while allowing the starting pitcher to be the “most effective” pitcher. That would just add an additional candidate to a subjective standard that already exists.

The scoring rules already have a number of comments that are meant to assist the scorer in naming the winning pitcher. 

That makes logical sense, but can we wait on the change until Ashby finishes his 34-win season?