TooLiveBrew

Didn't Braun just sign one of the most "hometown-friendly" contracts in all of baseball last year? Ryan has done a ton for this organization...I have no problem with him speaking out. He signed a deal that traded financial certainty for a couple seasons of his FA eligibility. Seems like that works for both Braun & the Brewers, and I really don't see the way in which it's team-friendly. The risk lies almost 100% with the club. Make a decision Doug or make room for someone who can. This assertion & assumption that Melvin isn't doing anything is really frustrating, whether it comes from the mouth of Ryan Braun or some of our team's fans.

I guess it's annoying to me that Braun thinks Doug Melvin isn't fully aware of the situation. Does Braun really think he's got a better understanding of the trade market than Melvin? Because otherwise his comments are just Captain Obvious stuff

While Yost certainly isn't or wasn't a "darn good manager", I do think there's a good chance he would have given Gamel more consistent playing time. However, Yost was also one to stick with Hall through thick & thin, so who knows. I also completely agree with you on the honeymoon period for Macha, TWR.

Whoa. Those are really cool... I can't believe I missed that they wore those.

I'm not one to bash on a player, but Hall just flat out isn't good enough to be playing on this team. I don't mind him being a bench option, but there's no way he should see regular time IMO. Starting Hall over Gamel would lead to a ton of Yost threads...Macha gets a pass from some strange reason. I think one reason he gets a pass is that people have been able to claim that Gamel is getting 'enough' playing time until very recently (even though that's not exactly the complaint most Gamel-proponents have been voicing). Overall I've been very happy with Macha managing the pitching, and very disappointed with how he's handled the lineups, especially Gamel & 3B. Right now it's just painfully obvious to me that our infield should be Gamel--Hardy--McGehee--Fielder, with Counsell & Hall getting their ABs filling in at 2B/SS/3B. Imho Gamel would also fill the glaring weakness of a sustainable leadoff hitter.

You just said that in #246...

I apologize, as I think this may have been addressed, but if Hall denies a minor league assignment, wouldn't he forfeit his MLB contract? I know Turnbow had to cross that bridge, but for some reason I recall Hall's situation being clarified as different from Turnbow's

I guess I don't see Gamel being anything special, so I'm not getting all excited about the situation. I think this is the main reason why this conversation doesn't seem compelling to you, then. Ultimately I think McGehee (and to a lesser extent Heether) have made Gamel's future at 3B very cloudy. If Gamel's going to stay in Brewer plans, he needs time in RF. I don't think this is the case at all. The one whose future has been 'clouded' to me at this point is Rickie Weeks. The Brewers still don't have a more talented or better option at 3B than Gamel. And quite frankly I think it'd be a tragic mistake to move that bat off 3B. Now, if Gamel didn't show the ability to be a plus defender at 3B, I would feel differently... or if the organization had anyone even remotely close to Mat's talent at 3B.

I find it pretty funny that you're clamoring for the streaky Escobar to replace the 'inconsistent' Hardy. There are no baseball players that aren't streaky. It always is funny to me when people complain about someone being streaky. All that tells me is that player isn't hitting well at the moment.

I know one concern others have expressed in this discussion in the past is DiFelice's elbow and durability if asked to log SP innings.

That's a cool website, hawing. Thanks for sharing. Their graphics (beyond this masthead) are really entertaining & interesting

That HR was a Branyan lover's dream shot. He just obliterated the ball to straightaway CF... hit it as high as it went far.

Anyone who relies on pitch count rather than observing the subtleties that happen to pitchers when they start to get tired do not have good baseball instincts and do not know their team very well. Who are these people, though? I sincerely doubt there is anyone in MLB operating in this manner.

I really do not think that anyone can prove any correlation between pitch counts and injuries, it is just conveinient to look at someone's pitch count when they get hurt and if it is high say it is the reason and if it is low or normal just ignore it. I guess if you haven't read the article that Baldkin linked, read it. I feel it's equally convenient to just dismiss the notion that 'overworking pitchers leads to more injuries' out of hand. And no one is suggesting working guys at 90 pitches/start. It's really a disservice to what is a good discussion to start throwing things like that in folks' faces Mark Prior averaged 113 pitches per start in 2003 and now he has arm problems And while he is admittedly an example to the injury extreme (contrasted with my note on Nolan Ryan), I think his use/abuse by Baker in certain situations really does make one pay closer attention to *how* a young pitcher is used, not just 'how much'

Brendan Katin would probably at worst provide similar production. Imo Gerut is a far better option than Monroe.

How much does the number of warm up pitches between innings count towards arm fatigue? Do they keep track of that? If a pitcher throws 6+ and his pitch count is 110 but he threw warm ups before every inning including the 7th isn't that part of the total affect on a pitchers arm? I'm not sure on the guts of this answer, phxMILWfan, but I recall in the past that the Brewers have & do count relievers' warmup pitches (as all MLB clubs do, I assume) towards their daily totals... so I'd have to guess that they keep tabs on starters' warmup tosses as well. I see no reason why you should remove a pitcher who is doing well simply because he reaches some arbitrary random number of pitches. That's because you refuse to see any pitch count number as anything but arbitrary. The logic that you should keep just riding pitchers until they are clearly ineffective just leads to so many injuries. You can't react to an injury situation, by definition you have to be proactive/preventative. I guess the question you should examine is if you think 'working each pitcher on a game-by-game basis & without a pitch count, hypothetically leading to a CG or extra inning here or there' is worth the risk of the kinds of serious injuries & lessened effectiveness that come about from working pitchers in that manner. From what you have been saying, I think you would say that, yes, it is worth the risk. So are you saying in August if he would have thrown 50 less pitches he would not have gone on the DL? This isn't the way it works. The argument is that repeatedly pushing a pitcher (esp. a young one) past 100 pitches per start is not a good plan for long-term health/durability. Of course there are exceptions to the rule; pointing to these exceptions really doesn't affect the validity of that general observation (meaning the 100 pitch 'rule'). And beyond just raw 'health', I believe you can see overuse reflected in a declined effectiveness of a pitcher (think Carlos Zambrano as one example)

Interesting... Hendry kinda has to do *something*, since he squandered away DeRosa & McGehee prior to this season for basically nothing. I can't really blame the guy for grasping at straws at this point.

I guess my point more is guys will either have arm problems or they wont, there is really nothing a manager can do about it. There's nothing a manager can do about it... to a point. Obviously Mark Prior would have something to say about what a manager can do to a pitcher's career.

Picking one of the best & most durable pitchers in the history of modern baseball really doesn't prove anything. Whether people like it or not, pitchers today get injured more frequently. Would it be nice if they didn't? Of course. You hurt yourself with either: bad mechanics that put too much stress in certain places, over working by throwing when you are already tired, and bad luck by just naturally being a little more weak somewhere in your arm than normal. I think pitch count is extremely overrated (like saves) and managers who rely on it too much just dont have good baseball intuition. The bold-ed section there is another way of saying 'high pitch counts' My point is that it is a case by case thing, and applying a blanket 100 pitches/start to everyone is not smart. Very true. However, 100 pitches in a game has been shown to be a pretty good baseline. It is just an arbitrary number, and a happy 'landmark' kind of number too. Whether the real cutoff pitch should be #96, or #108 like you said is a bit arbitrary, but I don't think 100 pitches is anything to just write off as too few or too simplistic. There is good evidence to suggest that number is a good one to base things around.

I don't think there is that much of a difference between 100 and 115 pitches. In any given start, I suppose that's true. But it's been pretty well-documented that repeated use over 100 pitches per game leads to pitcher injuries.

Thanks for clarifying, litesrn. I'll be really interested to see what, if any, news you learn.

Its time we sent Mat down to Nashville because Macha obviously doesnt realize how good he is. ... I am extremely disappointed in Melvin for letting Gamel rot on the bench. This basically sums up how I feel about this situation. Without question, it's been great to see McGehee's success so far this season. But as many have mentioned, this goes beyond McGehee. When Bill Hall is taking starts away from your top prospect (who is ready for MLB play), you have a huge problem. The first place to look is clearly Macha... but enough time has lapsed that I'm convinced this isn't a situation anymore in which we can say, 'Mahca will get him in there... give him some time'. Once that bridge has been crossed, the next logical place to look is at Melvin. How you can let a prospect like Gamel rot on the bench is just beyond me. There have been posters concerned with this issue for a while now, and even as recently as a week ago, many dismissed these concerns by pointing to Gamel getting a majority of playing time, & stating that he was getting his ABs through pinch-hitting. Well, now the issue has come to a head, and I have to wonder if the same people still feel like this should be dismissed. This team has now messed with the development of its top prospect essentially because the manager would prefer to play Casey McGehee & Bill Hall. Just so I type this out & know I'm not going insane... Mat Gamel is going to be sent down to Nashville because Ken Macha would rather play Casey McGehee & Bill Hall. That sucks to read.

Iirc litesrn (the poster of said rumor) is also a BF.net poster. Perhaps he can share more news as it becomes available to him.

Seems like a solid deal for the Bucs. Even without being at his upside, Milledge has to be at least as valuable as Morgan. And if Milledge reaches or hits said upside, the Nationals will probably look silly for making this trade.

1 vs NYM (1-0) 4 @ CHC (2-2) 3 vs STL (2-1) 3 vs LAD (1-2) 4 @ CIN (2-2) 3 @ PIT (2-1) 3 vs ATL (2-1) 4 vs WSH (3-1) 1 @ SD (0-1) 15-11 (8 Braun HR + 9 Fielder HR + 8 Hoffman Saves) = 25