Assessing the offense

[Turning2]

This isn't a reaction to the blowout. I feel the same when they win in a blowout too. MIL doesn't have enough consistent offense to win a championship. Ignore the W-L record and the other flattering offensive rankings. Those numbers create a mirage covering up the warts. Individually, there is something endearing about each player. Collectively the lineup can be pretty good. At the end of the day though, it's just too Jekyll and Hyde. They have 3 areas that need fixing and it isn't happening this season with trades. Hard choices need to be made. Some guys we like individually have to be replaced in the offseason. 

DH - This only gets fixed if Yeli can regain some of his past (how grateful would we be at this point if he managed .245 / 20 HRs) Either way, we're stuck with whatever he has left until he's off the books. 

3B - Hard not to like Ortiz and Hamilton, but one or the other has to go. 

OF - I like the group as individuals, but there has to be more pop from it collectively. It seems to come down to Mitchell, Frelick and Lara - at least one has to be upgraded and probably 2. Considering the commitment to Lara, that is probably Sal at minimum. 

 

[brewerfan82]

Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see how often we score at least x runs per game compared to other teams (and especially the Dodgers). Here's some results:

• Score at least 1 run (95.37% of the time, T-6th in MLB w/ STL, behind LAD w/ 98.15%)
• 2+ runs (91.67%, 1st, ahead of LAD w/ 87.04%)
• 3+ runs (71.30%, T-9th w/ LAD and TEX)
• 4+ runs (59.26%, T-8th w/ NYY, just behind LAD w/ 60.19%)
• 5+ runs (50%, T-4th w/ ATL, ahead of LAD w/ 43.52%)
• 6+ runs (39.81%, 4th, ahead of LAD w/ 36.11%)
• 7+ runs (28.70%, 5th, just behind LAD w/ 29.63%)
• 8+ runs (23.15%, 4th, just behind LAD w/ 25.93%)

Totally game for improving the offense, but they've been pretty consistently good at scoring runs compared to other teams and very comparable to the Dodgers on that front.

[Turning2]

Funny… just started listening to the Potawatomi Sportsbook show pod with Allen and Fifer. Tim is saying the exact same things about the inconsistency

 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/7-29-26-the-potawatomi-sportsbook-post-game-show-w/id1163449625?i=1000779017359

 

[Turning2]

1 hour ago, brewerfan82 said:

Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see how often we score at least x runs per game compared to other teams (and especially the Dodgers). Here's some results:

• Score at least 1 run (95.37% of the time, T-6th in MLB w/ STL, behind LAD w/ 98.15%)
• 2+ runs (91.67%, 1st, ahead of LAD w/ 87.04%)
• 3+ runs (71.30%, T-9th w/ LAD and TEX)
• 4+ runs (59.26%, T-8th w/ NYY, just behind LAD w/ 60.19%)
• 5+ runs (50%, T-4th w/ ATL, ahead of LAD w/ 43.52%)
• 6+ runs (39.81%, 4th, ahead of LAD w/ 36.11%)
• 7+ runs (28.70%, 5th, just behind LAD w/ 29.63%)
• 8+ runs (23.15%, 4th, just behind LAD w/ 25.93%)

Totally game for improving the offense, but they've been pretty consistently good at scoring runs compared to other teams and very comparable to the Dodgers on that front.

Yes, by the numbers, they look good on paper. That just shows that raw data doesn't reveal the whole picture. Baseball is not as straightforward as numbers on a spreadsheet. It was fairly easy to see early on that they weren't winning the game yesterday. 

[LouisEly]

8 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

Yes, by the numbers, they look good on paper. That just shows that raw data doesn't reveal the whole picture.

What's your definition of "consistency" and what teams do it better than the Brewers?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

11 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

It was fairly easy to see early on that they weren't winning this game. 

Your first sentence is, literally, "This isn't a reaction to the blowout." Good teams lose games.

[liveforoctober]

14 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

Baseball is not as straightforward as numbers on a spreadsheet. It was fairly easy to see early on that they weren't winning this game. 

Well, we were facing a guy we have never beaten in a ballpark we historically don't play well in calling up a guy from AAA making his first big league appearance in 3 years...

The spreadsheets kind of knocked this one out of the park if we are being honest.

[Turning2]

38 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

Your first sentence is, literally, "This isn't a reaction to the blowout." Good teams lose games.

Did you not read the second sentence. This is a topic I could have posted any day after any game.

[dlk9s]

47 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

What's your definition of "consistency" and what teams do it better than the Brewers?

In sports, when people say "consistent," they really just mean "always good."

"I'd just like the offense to be more consistent," is sports speak for, "I'd just like the offense to always be good."

[owbc]

It really shows how good the offense is when Yelich, with a 98 OPS+, is highlighted as a weak point. 

The current issue is that in addition to Yelich slumping, Chourio and Contreras have both not been hitting well for at least a month. 

 

[dlk9s]

Obviously, the big problem with the offense is the lack of power. I don't know if it's actually true statistically/historically/whatever, but as was the discussion last year, theoretically, it's hard to string together good ABs for a rally against playoff pitching, so you need some..."consistent"...power to get some instant runs.

[baseball101]

27 minutes ago, dlk9s said:

In sports, when people say "consistent," they really just mean "always good."

"I'd just like the offense to be more consistent," is sports speak for, "I'd just like the offense to always be good."

Very true. I posted a couple of times that I just don’t think fans watch other teams consistently enough to realize how good the Brewers actually are. They basically score the same amount of 1,2,3,4,5 plus runs in individual games as the Dodgers. Some fans love their eye test and it doesn’t matter what numbers are presented to them. The question was already asked to the OP what his definition of consistent is and what team he believes is his definition of that. Interested to see his definition and data.

[baseball101]

1 hour ago, Turning2 said:

Yes, by the numbers, they look good on paper. That just shows that raw data doesn't reveal the whole picture. Baseball is not as straightforward as numbers on a spreadsheet. It was fairly easy to see early on that they weren't winning the game yesterday. 

What part of the game made it easy for you to see they were not going to win? What was your original prediction of the Brewers season win loss record?