TooLiveBrew

Given the lack of a clear-cut winner in the advanced defensive metric fray, he's simply making a pretty sensible move and tossing all the freely-available zone ratings based on the two different sets of stringer data available (STATS and BIS) in a pot, letting it simmer for 5 years, and throwing in a dash of Tango's Fan Scouting Reports for flavor. Mmmm... defense stew But, assuming for the sake of argument that Weeks has actually improved at 2B from his pretty disasterous early career numbers, this approach will still punish him for older data that isn't quite as relevant to his current performance level as it tends to be for the bulk of the player population. If Weeks is able to incrementally increase his rating in the Chone defensive projections in future seasons, then I think it'd be safe to say that he'd have improved his D to somewhere near or above league average. I totally agree with your point on the "tenet of faith" about 'Weeks sucks!' & our eyes not being completely trustworthy, but it's only fair to keep in mind how bad Rickie has been. Doing so objectively will help fans recognize how far he has improved (& may continue to improve), which I think is an important part of understanding his overall value. Right now overall, he's at about league-average at 2B. I am of the belief/delusion that his offense is going to improve next season to the point where he's an above-avg. option at 2B.

How exactly was Yo not going to directly to the bag? I've always hated how Fielder turns force outs into tag plays, and since the incident in Chicago I cringe every time he starts chugging towards the bag, it's recipe for disaster. Again, the fundamental play is to flip the ball to pitcher who's momentum is going directly towards the bag, and Yo was doing exactly what he's supposed to do. Yo was late off the mound, hence Fielder feeling he had to sprint to first. I never said Yo wasn't going directly to the bag -- he did, and that was the problem (given his late jump). Fielder did not create a bad situation by sprinting -- he reacted to Gallardo not getting off the hill. Yo got a late break, which appeared to make Fielder think he had to hustle to first on his own. I can't blame Fielder for that one. Except like FtJ said, to be fair, he was fat on that play http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Basically I'm arguing against the notion that it's reasonable to eat 25% or over pay for 75% of a season (depending on how you look at it) for a pitcher like Sheets who's very good when healthy, but you know is going to hit the DL or miss a couple of starts every couple of months. Even with that 75/25 caveat, I think Sheets would actually be closer to 'not being overpaid' than to 'being overpaid'. He's a darn good pitcher, and I think it's easy to let the negative feelings that come along with a guy 'not being there for his team' outshadow the immense value his talent provides. He's still being paid to take the ball every 5th day, so the point I'm trying to make is that I would rather the Brewers not resign Sheets knowing that there's X amount of dollars in dead money before the season even starts. No -- he's being paid a salary for the 2009 season. You/fans are the ones that feel he's being paid for 'every 5th day'. That's just a slogan that we repeat imo. You pay him based upon what kind of value you think he provides, not how many starts he makes. So Suppan makes 30+ starts -- great. What if he pitches like crap in 40% of those starts & isn't getting as deep into games? Then your bullpen, defense, offense, etc. are all being taxed as well. Give me 25 starts from Sheets any season over 30 from Suppan or some guy that 'takes the ball every 5th day.' As Ennder (iirc) pointed out, there just aren't that many pitchers that throw 200+ IP with any consistency anymore. Like it or not, it's just the way it is in baseball right now. I think the pitchers that you tend to hear 'He takes the ball every 5th day' said about the most are the ones where that's their best attribute (like Suppan). That they are league-average & oftentimes worse gets left by the wayside.

So this was done because McGehee has option years left & Dillon doesn't? I don't know why Crazy Joe didn't get more of a chance with the Brewers. All he did was beat up Triple-A pitching & turn in some solid at-bats at the MLB level. We gave Hall and Hart a ton of PA's v. RHP in 2008 (yes, I know that was Yost's doing), meanwhile Dillon -- the best approach at the plate of the three -- rots away. I understand you want to let Corey try to hit his way out of a slump since we know he's talented, but I felt all season that Dillon would have been a useful part of the 25-man roster... still thought he would have been in '09 as well. Do we have any useful info on McGehee's defensive abilities?

Well the whole point of this type of survey would be to craft it so it's thorough & doesn't leave out relevant factors for the sake of taking less time to read/do. If you like not thinking much about managerial strategy, that's fine -- stick with the old ways of analyzing managers. I think it's exciting that there are some really smart baseball analysts looking into this seriously.

Why is Dillon gone? This move doesn't seem to make much sense.

What are your OF dimensions?

Tangotiger: Bill James wrote a pretty good book on managers. I think we should be able to come up with good questions, based on his book and whatever else comes to our minds, on the kind of questions that we'd like to have answered. And then, either using the data to quantify it, or ask readers about it via polls. For example, does the manager prefer playing youngsters or veterans? How long does he stick with one, if he has a viable option in the other? (e.g., Torre: Pierre/Ethier,Kemp). So, feel free to post whatever your thoughts are here. I don't know that I will do anything with this, but at the very least, we can brainstorm something, and somebody out there can surely do something with it. Lichtman (mgl): Since I would hate for managers to be "docked" for bunting too often and credited for rarely bunting, the question I would ask regarding sac bunting, is something like: Is the manager unpredictable with regard to sac bunting? In other words, does he really keep the defense guessing in potential bunt situations (given the score, inning, and batter at the plate), or does the defense pretty much know what the batter is going to do in any one of those situations? Along the same lines, will he sometimes/never/often change from a bunt to swinging away, or vice-versa, in the same AB? Does he sometimes/often have an obviously poor bunter still sacrifice? Does he sometimes let his better hitting pitchers swing away in bunt situations, especially with 1 out, or are they virtually always bunting? All told, if the optimal strategy in a potential bunt situation is to almost never bunt with a slow runner and/or poor bunter at the plate, and to "mix it up" seemingly randomly with a fast runner/good bunter at the plate, both within the PA and from PA to PA, as well as to have your better hitting pitchers sometimes swing away especially with 1 out, how does your manager rate? Or you can just keep it somewhat objective, or at least subjective in as many categories as possible, as you do with the fielder scouting reports, and ask fans to rate those things individually, such as: 1) Is he good at "mixing it up" to keep the defense guessing? 2) Does he sometimes bunt poor bunters because he is just "determined" to sac bunt? 3) Does he take into consideration the speed of the batter? 4) Does he take into consideration the handedness of the batter with a runner on second? 5) Does he sometimes let his better-hitting pitchers swing away, again, to the surprise of the defense? 6) Does he like to sac bunt early (not that that is necessarily a bad thing) or only late in a close game? The problem with some or even all of these things is that we are asking the fans to subjectively rate something that should be objectively evaluated. For example, we can look ALL of these things up in the record. So I am not sure things like the sac bunt or IBB or really any other "strategies" lend themselves to "fan scouting" unless we are just too lazy to look them up ourselves.

I debated putting this in the Macha thread, but felt it could be its own topic. The Book blog got an email from a reader, suggesting a Fans' Scouting Report (like they do for defense) on managers: "Have you ever considered a fans scouting report for managers? I know that mgl consistently hammers the point that we have very little ability to statistically judge the value of a manager, but all avid fans have their own ideas on the subject, no? We make those subjective judgments all the time. A survey could include fan ratings on all sorts of individual managerial tendencies (How good is he at recognizing talent? How good is he at constructing an optimal lineup? How wisely does he employ the bunt, ace reliever, pinch hitter, platoon advantage? …). Hell, you could even ask how many wins a manager was worth relative to an "average" manager, or even an "optimal" manager during a given season. We may not trust the results, but it would at least be interesting (and, imo, better than the void we have now). I am of the opinion that the wisdom of crowds is useful in addressing not only the questions for which we have a decent baseline for comparison (How good is a player defensively? Who will be the next president?), but also those for which we have almost no "authoritative" information (What will happen to unemployment in the next year? How will the Earth's temperature change in the next 10 years?). Moreover, answers for the latter type will by definition be more unbiased, if not more correct." I, for one, think this is a really good idea. As the reader says, even if the results are off the first go-round, it's better than what we have now (which is basically nothing). When I saw the email that Tangotiger posted, my initial reaction was to get a bit excited. The Fans' Scouting Reports imo are quite good on defense, and I would imagine the same fans would be able to relatively accurately depict their teams' managers. This would be an incredibly valuable resource imo if the survey could be structured correctly, which is something both Tangotiger & mgl address in the first two response comments.

No way on Anderson. Very poor defender, and not good enough at the plate anymore to cancel out how bad he is in the field. His rating from the Chone defensive projections (I think most defensive metrics stink on the whole, but everyone I've talked with about the Chone numbers seems pleasantly surprised with how well they meet the 'eye test') is a -14 for the corner OF. Plus, it's OBP this team needs, and Anderson sports a .327 career rate there, only bettering 30 BBs 3 times in his career. This is not the guy our team needs imo. Guerrero may be a bit trickier -- he'll be 33 next year and you have to think he'll be looking for one more fat contract. Money doesn't seem to be a problem with the Angels, but you never know. Am I the only one that is shocked how poorly Vlad is aging? I thought for certain his frame would hold up a heckuva lot better than it has. It's almost sad to see him run now... so far removed from the graceful athlete he once was. Though I can't see the Angels letting him get away. He will probably assume the DH role for most of 2009 & beyond -- he can still rake.

The only way Yo avoids a collision with Fielder or going through/over the runner is a Barry Sanders step back move, which maybe 2 or 3 professional running backs have done in my life time, it's pretty rare to be able to stop on a dime while in a full sprint. Or he could just do what pitchers are taught in those scenarios, which is to run parallel with the 1B line. He didn't really beat Johnson to first, he got there around the same time (which is why I think Fielder turned on the 'afterburners' towards first... thought Yo wouldn't beat Johnson). That's my beef with Yo there. He put himself in that bad position, and then had almost nowhere else to go. He didn't get a good jump to first, and tried to overcompensate. It was just a bad play/situation, not saying Gallardo is a dope for getting himself into it. It just wasn't Reed Johnson's fault, or Prince Fielder's fault.

Here's another defensive projection that put Hardy well ahead of Weeks: Aren't those two the same set of projections, Russ? I could swear that the Book blog links you to Chone's site, which links to that data you linked. That's right around what my eyes see when watching those two That's what I thought too when I saw the Chone projections, Danzig. Those are the first ones I've seen that seem to handle the shifting the Brewers employed best. I wish i felt that there was a fairly significant level of improvement still out there for Rickie to yet reach in the field, but i just don't feel there is. I think I agree with you here Danzig. Rickie really is what he is at this point defensively. I would love to see him tried in CF if Cameron isn't our CF next season. I don't think '09 is our best shot at the postseason anyway, so why not see what options you might have within. [Rickie's] still a liability in the field and because of that, he really needs to be productive at the plate to not drag down the team overall. This is the rub with Weeks. I thought he'd have a breakout season in '08, and still feel it's coming. Get him out of the leadoff slot & just tell him to let 'er rip. His power potential ceiling is crazy-high, and his BB rate should still be fine. I'd love to see him hitting 3rd or 5th in 2009. I wouldn't even mind seeing Hardy atop the lineup if it meant Rickie could slide down into the middle where he belongs.

I'm at a loss also to see the appeal of Jackson. He allows a ton of baserunners and doesn't strike out hitters at a good rate, what am i missing? His fastball is so fast! Vroom vroom! I think it's that he throws hard, and is still relatively young. He's got upside! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif I really see no reason to trade Fielder until we have a competent back up in mind though. Agreed -- I think Gamel will either get called up mid-2009 or early 2010 (as a super-two candidate). If the Brewers aren't in the race by the trading deadline, and Gamel is deemed ready, Fielder could move then. But that's pretty much a 'best case' scenario regarding Gamel, and I'm not sure that I even want to see Fielder traded just yet. I think sometimes as fans we let the negatives cloud our perspectives a bit too much. Yes, it's maddeningly frustrating that Fielder struggles in the field, but the guy is a top-tier hitting talent even at 1B. There's simply not a good reason to trade him right now. Even with an arbitration salary around $7M, he's a good deal.

Oh, and get rid of Weeks too. For crying out loud, i've never seen a guy drop so many balls because they hit him in the heel of the glove.. Hey Rickie, you catch with the webbing.. QUACK QUACK QUACK! now get lost! You should go read the Hardy v. Weeks thread. This type of silly comment is basically what prompted its creation.

I don't know why the Brewers should worry about keeping Jason Kendall (of all players) happy. Yes, he's a great defensive catcher... but the guy is our weakest link offensively, and at age 34 won't even be around much longer. Why should the team be worried about what he thinks? Melvin went out & made a decent to good hire at manager. How the players feel about it should not come into play one bit. Remember Jenkins & Hall complaining about platoons? What's good for the player is not necessarily good for the team, and the manager's job is to do what's best for the team. If even the bench coach is hired merely to keep one specific player happy -- and especially if that player is a 34-y-o that would be a backup C on many teams -- I think you're making the wrong type of decision. I think Sveum is back because in general the players seem to like him, and that's about all you need from a bench coach.

I hate you Ned Yost. Brittle Ben will show up and the Stros will have wasted a ton of money on a player that will never play enough to help the team get over the hump You mean like how he helped the 2008 Brewers 'get over the hump'? The concept that a player is or isn't 'out there when you need him' is silly, largely because "when" is completely arbitrary & basically means, 'whenever the fans think'. Why is it acceptable for a starter to be paid more money than a position player of comparable relative talent to make 24 of 32/33 starts just because he's a pitcher? There's a double standard here that doesn't seem to be acknowledged. Because the pitchers are far, far harder to find. Supply & demand Yo didn't get hurt throwing, he got hurt by Fielder in my opinion, and I firmly believe that. I'm sorry, but this is just not right. Yo got hurt by putting himself in harm's way. Seriously, go watch that replay (not that you haven't http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif) -- the thing that pops into my head every time I see that entire play is, 'What the hell is Gallardo doing?'

Interesting, fondy. What am I trying to say? Basically I have seen Melvin and Attanasio throw more good money than needed at mediocre players in the past. It wouldn't suprise me anymore if they decided to make a big fair market offer to one of the best pitchers in baseball. My first reaction to the thought of a 4-year deal (or whatever) for CC is 'great!'... but the problem is that I think the Brewers are going to have to be a LOT more careful with how they use Sabathia. He was at or near the top of the PAP list this season, and Yost was just horrible to him in terms of physical wear & tear due to his workload. This is the big limitation on small(er)-market teams in baseball -- they can't afford the length it takes to sign guys because if they go down with serious injury, the budget is crippled by their huge salaries. The Brewers would have been crushed by Carl Pavano's contract, while the Yanks just yawned, moved on, and signed Pettite. I am torn on how to feel about the possibility of re-signing CC. Of course it's great in terms of talent, but the risk is very much a variable imo. Not sure how much to worry about it.

I still think CC will be in Dodger blue next season. The Dodgers have a huge chunk of payroll coming off the books, their core is a group of similarly-aged & still cheap young guys, and they have money to throw around anyway, being an LA team. Of course being the closest plausible destination to Sabathia's hometown doesn't hurt either...

No, it's not embarrasing, Geno. To me what's embarrassing is to hear fans discount this team earning its way into the postseason as something not 'worthy' enough to celebrate. For pete's sake, how can you not be proud of that? It's not our team's fault that the playoff field was expanded to 4 teams in each league, and as was pointed out, our W-L record was better than '4th-best'. I would proudly gaze upon a '2008 WC' banner/sign at Miller Park, realizing full well just how lucky we were as Milwaukee baseball fans to bear witness to such a special season. other stadiums have multiple banners commemorating division titles, league championships, and world championships. I call 'myth'. You're talking about teams that have been in existence far longer than the Brewers, and likely teams that have long had much greater financial resources than the Brewers. Yes, other stadiums have banners celebrating bigger accomplishments... so what? Do I as a Packers fan laugh at the Jaguars for celebrating their playoff achievments? No -- and it would be ridiculous of me to do so.

I saw this via the managerial discussion on TH's blog. Brewers will listen to offers for Fielder: "Oct. 26, 2008 | Philadelphia - Brewers general manager Doug Melvin never talks about players on his team that he is willing to trade but I've heard whispers around the club for some time that he'd be willing to listen to offers this winter for first baseman Prince Fielder. According to the New York Post, the Brewers have put out word to other clubs that they would listen to offers for Fielder for a "substantial package." The Post cites an "industry source" which probably means someone with the Yankees because the story goes on to explain why that club would not be interested in trading for Fielder. Here's link to that story: http://www.nypost.com/sev...eal_of_fielder_135325.htm This story makes sense for several reasons: 1. Fielder is going to get a huge pay raise this winter in his first year of arbitration, from a salary of $670,000 to perhaps $6 million to $8 million. His agent is Scott Boras, a tough negotiator, and Fielder already turned down a five-year, $60 million offer earlier this year from the Brewers. 2. Fielder's offensive numbers dipped in 2008 but it was his regression in the field that really worried club officials. He committed 17 errors, second-most among NL first baseman. 3. Fielder's weight was noticeably up this year from 2007, another source of concern among club officials. 4. The Brewers probably will have to find replacements for starting pitchers CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets, who are expected to leave through free agency. To get a top-notch starting pitcher these days, you have to give up a lot. This does not mean the Brewers are going to trade Fielder. He is one of their top hitters and their only real left-handed threat in a predominantly right-handed lineup. It just means they would listen to offers. You've got to listen to offers for just about anybody, especially for the reasons listed above. It'll be interesting to see if there are any substantial talks involving Fielder this winter or if it only gets to the "listening" stage." Personally, I'm of the belief that the Brewers will get some offers but wind up not moving Prince this offseason, and that the eventual Fielder trade will come another year or two down the line. Not sure when I'd want it to happen, but I just don't think that right now is the time to get the best possible return on Prince.

I've been wondering myself since early in the 2008 season just how understated the managerial position's impact is. I mean, if we rate out Player A as being 3 or 4 wins better than average, and gush on said player, how can we look at managers & not take into consideration how impactful the difference of even 'just' one, two, or three games can be? I would be overjoyed to hear that, out of the three candidates, Melvin selected Macha. And not because I think Macha is the A++++ manager -- but because I literally fear Randolph or Brenly managing this team. And to post some (what I think are) relevant points in the Haudricourt blog update that markedman5 linked...: "A former manager who was thinking about asking for an interview for the job told me that he did some probing and got the feeling that Macha had the inside track, so he pulled back. ... Melvin was ready to hire Macha in 2002 before Oakland stole him away by promoting him from bench coach to manager. If Melvin liked Macha enough then, why not now? ... So, just from things I hear at the Series, I'd handicap the race this way: 1. Macha 2. Brenly 3. Randolph And it looks like Macha is a very strong No. 1." I sure hope what Tom is hearing at the WS turns out to be true.

*OBI*-Wan Kenobi... Obi-Wan... ... He's not dead -- not yet ... Well of course I know him -- he's me! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

*OBI*-Wan Kenobi... Obi-Wan... ... He's not dead -- not yet ... Well of course I know him -- he's me! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I don't think W-L is anywhere near being a good stat to analyze managers, since it's a team stat. When you add in using minor-league W-L records, I think it's really inaccurate. That's not to say that I inherently believe Macha is a good/bad manager. I just think W-L for a manager is like using it for a P.

Yes, but most managers would just place another reliever in Percival's role. You mean, like David Price? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif I don't like -- at all -- hearing even a slight rumor that Melvin has picked Brenly. I hate the 3 choices leaked to the press. Gun to my head: Macha>Randolph>>>>>>>>>>Brenly I won't go as far as "hate", but I certainly agree that the trio is very underwhelming, though I admittedly don't know a whole lot about Macha.

I truley don't understand why people keep giving Cameron a pass in the NLDS. The play was routine...plain and simple.......he dropped it. He is a solid defender but please take off your Camgogs. That was not a routine play at all. It wasn't the hardest play in the world, but calling it "routine" doesn't pass the eye test. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif