TooLiveBrew

It just seems like there is no match for today's future Hall of Famers against their counterparts of yesteryear. This is always the case, I think. It's easy to take guys for granted while they are still playing. Once they retire, the necessary perspective on their impact tends to be easier to see. Besides, the coverage we now have of ballplayers is really unprecedented. The warts of players used to be hidden, only serving to glorify their 'idol' status even further. I think one just has to accept that PEDs were the level playing field in the 80's, 90's, & even today. What a guy did relative to his era will always be how I try to measure players, and I just don't feel PEDs changed it all that much (since I think nearly everyone was using them).

Just to be clear, Cameron has a baseline $10M club option for 2009 ($750k buyout). So if he's retained, it'll be for more, not less. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

So the argument is 'Give up now, because the metrics we have now are poor'? I like the way people are working through different measurments -- trial & error. I have little doubt that roughly 5 years from now we will have the beginnings of accurate individual defensive metrics, and it will be thanks to the people who were able to learn from the flawed metrics we have now.

I think it's a little early to write off Cameron. Nuh uh -- he sucks! Did you see that play in CF? He's not even a good defender anymore now! I'm with zzzman. I can't believe some of the reactions after losses here. The difference between the forum after a win v. after a loss is striking. Like a library contrasted with Times Square.

Weeks needs to produce some results and to be honest since his wrist is "healed" he has looked pretty bad this year. So if we're going to just point to two recent months with a healthy wrist, why not Aug. & Sept. of 2007? Is it because he was incredible, and that makes the 'Weeks is unproductive' chant seem strange? I just don't get how short people's memories can be. I know you're probably not just out to witch-hunt Weeks, JJHardy7, but if two months is all we need to 'know' what a player is, then imho it's only fair to include the two months he was healthy last season, too.

I'd think a Neo-Western has to be at least mid-20th century to count. Whoops -- I just now noticed that your OP had Unforgiven... sorry. How about the Sergio Leone trilogy -- The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly-->A Fistful of Dollars-->For a Few Dollars More? Not saying all three should be in there, but I think they should be mentioned.

Why didn't getting Frank work? I thought he's been good with Oakland

No love for Granderson? Not saying I don't think Rasmus is a good pick.

The thing I love about Weeks are the excuses side vs. the performance side. It makes for very interesting debate, but I'd like to try and point out Weeks isn't a spring chicken. In my opinion regardless of the excuses or his lack of production there comes a point and time where a replacement needs to be groomed. This is what I'm talking about -- the argument that Weeks is just some wussy for being injured, or that injury isn't a 'real' explanation to frustrated fans. I don't think Rickie is viewed as anything but Rickie to the Brewers. Each individual player is a unique case. But instead of being objective, people seem to take comfort in just mocking the objectivity that (imho) should be inherent in any player analysis. How long do we wait for Weeks to develop? That's an honest question. At least until the end of 2008. What I really wanted to see was this be a full, healthy season for Rickie. Too bad he sucks at not getting slid into dirtily!

Can you think of any other neo-westerns? Does Unforgiven count? Or does it not fit the "neo" criteria -- it's a tad more 'traditional'. As an aside, where would Road to Perdition fall in the gangster genre? I've always felt that it gets overlooked, but I can admit that it's probably not quite 'top-10' caliber.

Hey, thanks for dropping by -- the cards are great.

I'd love to see BTTM's scenario (Branyan/Dillon @ 3B, Hall/Counsell @ 2B -- not meaning a strict platoon at second). Aside from just trying to play to a guy's strengths, 2B is one of the (if not the) weakest positions offensively. That could help offset whatever WOAHs Hall is dealing with right now. Also to be fair, I didn't say I'd replace Rickie today, I said I'm willing to ride him out until a better option presents itself or he plays to his potential... either the way the position as it stands today is upgradable, which I believe to be a reasonable opinion. No, you didn't say you'd replace him... but you said, "The bottom line to me is that he doesn't produce consistently, and he's expendable." Very definitive & concrete, as opposed to the 'let's ride him out' that you mentioned later. It's not that I have any qualms with how you 'feel' about Rickie, it's the logic that leads one there that I find faulty. Your opinion that, 'bottom line -- he doesn't produce consistently' is based upon accepting that an injured Rickie Weeks is all we're ever going to see, in terms of offense. You glossed over the fact that injuries have indeed affected his production (& people's opinion of him), and chose to ignore the two healthy months he's had prior to 2008 (which happened to be stellar, but a small sample). How can an opinion be irresponsible? When it intentionally ignores relevant factors. I don't think we're 'curing cancer' here, but objectivity is important imo. There is no right answer... there is a segment that will believe his wrist injury has held him back because of his potential, and there is another segment that will look at performance and be skeptical of the effect of the wrist injury. There is a segment of the team's payroll -- the doctors -- that correctly diagnosed & timetabled Weeks's injuries. This is where I'm talking about being irresponsible. If you find that word offensive or inaccurate, I apologize. This 'other segment' appears to be choosing to avoid accepting medical facts about Weeks because he's had 2 slow months to start 2008. I'm not trying to say Weeks hasn't been bad to start the season. What I am saying is that if we're going to discuss what he is as a player, we should consider all the relevant facts. Many people will ride out talent indefinately, I simply will not, due to personal experience. I believe that talent get the first opportunity to succeed and then you take the best results and let the chips fall where they may. I agree. However, if you're not factoring in very real injuries, then I don't think you're getting an accurate view of either talent or results/performance.

[The Red Sox] did hire a manager who had a worse record after 4 years than Yost did his first 4 here didn't they? So are you saying that teams look at more factors than W-L record, Buc? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif For the record since Francona got fired the Phillies only had one losing season and that was by one game Clearly his player-aquiring-for-the-Phillies skills stunk when he was there, but improved after he left.

Weeks has obvious tools as well, but I've never been a huge fan of his either. It's much the same for him around here, he's never been healthy, yada yada yada... The bottom line to me is that he doesn't produce consistently, and he's expendable. I'm a results guy, and I firmly believe that you take results over talent.... It's just all too convenient if you get to 'yadda yadda' over relevant factors that have affected results. If you want to just speak in broad strokes like this, then you're certainly going to be able to say whatever you want, since certain impacts can arbitrarily be ignored. How can you track the career of Rickie Weeks, and not discuss the wrist injuries that have plagued him for all but a small portion of his MLB time? It's just irresponsible imho. It'd be like saying, yeah, well, that Gallardo kid is good & all, but he went down with a knee injury -- he's just not good enough since he can't be out there pitching right now. I know Weeks hasn't had the success of a Yovani yet, but let's be fair -- Gallardo is a young, high-tier prospect SP that had success early in his career so far (not uncommon), and Weeks is a high-power ceiling hitter that's still growing into his power (not uncommon). The notion that we should discount Rickie's injuries & evaluate him based on 1/3 of this season is absurd to me. Ok, talk about trading him -- sure, I can understand that. But this talk about 'I'm a results guy' to me just says you're not willing to acknowledge that (frustrating as it may be), there's more at play than simply, 'Well, looks like Rickie Weeks just can't match his talent with results.' EDIT: I should clarify & say that any time one strong month from a player would totally reverse public opinion on the player, the preceding stats/data set should be taken with a large grain of salt. It's astonishing to me how short some people's memories are. I wonder how much closer to 'today' Weeks would need to have displayed his talent than August & September of 2007 for people to actually... freaking... remember it.

The Dutch sure are fun to watch. No defense whatsoever, but man can they score. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c7/Goldmember3.jpg "There are only two things I can't stand in this world: Those who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch"

How did I dump on Weeks? I'm just saying that I think believing in Rickie Weeks is nearing the point of believing in Santa Claus. I guess we have differing views on what's dumping on a guy -- to me, what you just said there is that. I get that you're frustrated & think he's 'unfixable', but calling him a child's fairytale is a bit harsh. Just mho, so take from it what you will. I admit I'm very much a Weeks backer.

Leichte Kavallerie - to rely on it http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2561539868_68c9dfefb4_m.jpg

The chart seems to indicate that Suppan could be working in the low 90s to begin with if he so desired, but he appears to choose to work at a slower velocity & remain more consistent. Then again, like JB points out, this is just a snapshot of 1/3 of this season.

Does anyone have recall on what Francona's tenure was like in Philly? I can go get the team's record while he was there, but I don't think that tells a whole lot.

I've always wondered why this event is titled "For Women". Why isn't it just "Brewers Baseball Basics"? You can still market it towards women, but why is the assumption that the men don't need to be taught anything, and the women need a class? From the baseball games I've attended in my life, the men could use a class just as much as the women. I get the marketing angle of the event, but aren't there other/better ways to draw in the female audience? Take J.J. Hardy, for instance. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

"I have left out Sheets as he is an integral part of the THT article so you will just have to wait until tomorrow to see how he fatigues."

Time and time again, Ned doesn't put his players in the best position to succeed. This is the constant hangup I have with him. It's not that Yost is the worst manager in the league and any moron could do a better job. To me, it's that I think we can improve at manager. Perhaps only marginally, but imo that's nearly the worst-case scenario. At this point what Yost has over another candidate is the experience being around the players -- he knows them, they know him. Whether we as fans like it or not is a different animal; the players (at least outwardly) appear happy and/or content that he's the skipper.

Interesting -- Villy, Parra, & Bush all have a similar sort of decline through their upper-limit of pitches. Parra's is kind of wacky; I wonder if that has to do with him being less experienced, or if it's just random. Here's a quote on Suppan, which I think is interesting to apply (as a question) to the other graphs, too: "Notice that he dips in the 30's 60's and 90's and then rebounds in the 40's 70's and maybe 100's. I wonder if those pitches tend to be thrown to the bottom part of the order and he is conserving his energy for later in the game?" Dave Bush's plot certainly could make the case that he's best be used in the bullpen.

Sheets already took a discount once, one that was much bigger than 10%, so I don't think it's a reach to think he might do it again. I happen to think getting him for less than $16 mil per year is doable. Good point(s). I have felt for a while that if there ever were a guy that'd sign here for less than market value, it's Ben... and that he's such a talent that we shouldn't pass up that chance if it's there. He's said in the past that he felt a contract was every bit a reflection on what you had done as much as it was an estimate on what you would do (in terms of production).

It'd be kinda funny if Maybin ended up getting picked by Fla.