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? 

[Turning2]

1 hour ago, liveforoctober said:

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.

Isn't that basically saying "why bother playing? The outcome is already determined by the past numbers".  No, we should reasonably expect that eventually they overcome the hurdle of "a guy we have never beaten, in a park... etc". The Brewers faced 4 "Logan Webbs" in the NLCS and might possibly do so again this year. We're basically admitting and accepting that the Brewers' annual ceiling is getting bounced once they reach a certain level of playoff pitching. 

The starting of Cannone didn't bother me, they are managing innings due to injury bum luck to Priester and losing the ill-fated gamble on Woodruff's health with a QO. If all the impressive (on paper) offensive rankings were as meaningful as they look, then the offense should be able to carry the challenges to the depleted pitching staff. It often doesn't. And that will be their death knell once again at season's end.

 

[Turning2]

57 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."

Nope

[Turning2]

28 minutes ago, baseball101 said:

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.

Stats and data aren't the gospel truth, the end all be all. Consistent is demonstrating that on any given day you have the capability to score 5+ runs, and it might require a 3 run bomb on a somewhat regular basis. 

There probably isn't a perfect match for "what team achieves this" standard. It's highly subjective as it must be because again..... the numbers don't tell the whole story. 

Here's a question for you - If the Brewers had a pitching staff equal to the Dodgers in every metric, stat etc - do you believe that our offense could win the WS by their offensive capability alone. This assumes that pitching and defense is equal). If great pitching beats great hitting, but both teams have equal pitching - how confident are you that our bats would beat their bats?

[gregmag]

3 hours 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. 

It’s hard to engage with this discussion, because your premise seems to be that despite facts that we can all see, your subjective view, which by definition nobody else can see because we aren’t you, proves that the Brewers offense is much worse than the facts indicate. I respect that you see it the way you see it, but you can’t reasonably expect any other person to just take your subjective word for it and spend energy discussing the topic on your subjective terms.

[liveforoctober]

1 hour ago, Turning2 said:

Stats and data aren't the gospel truth, the end all be all. Consistent is demonstrating that on any given day you have the capability to score 5+ runs, and it might require a 3 run bomb on a somewhat regular basis. 

There probably isn't a perfect match for "what team achieves this" standard. It's highly subjective as it must be because again..... the numbers don't tell the whole story. 

Here's a question for you - If the Brewers had a pitching staff equal to the Dodgers in every metric, stat etc - do you believe that our offense could win the WS by their offensive capability alone. This assumes that pitching and defense is equal). If great pitching beats great hitting, but both teams have equal pitching - how confident are you that our bats would beat their bats?

So a consistent offense is an offense better than the Dodgers' offense is what we have landed on as your definition.

Your stance has recency bias all over it unfortunately. We beat Sanchez this year. We knocked Skubal out with a lead. Why weren't you upset at our consistency then?

[trwi7]

This is an offense that can put up good offensive stats in the regular season but lacks the power to win in the playoffs.  You're not going to get 4 or 5 hits an inning facing aces, a team's best relievers and good defenses and we don't have the power to consistently hit home runs and get runs with one swing of the bat.  It's been the same story for years.