thebruce44

I saw us as an 84ish win team. Things break right, you make a move at the deadline, and you can at the very least contend with that talent level. I seem to remember most people agreed with that line of thinking.

Maybe I exagerated a little bit with the term ridiculous, but his season would have been the 2nd or 3rd best for a second baseman each of the last 5 years. Take out Utley, (I know you can't do that) who in my opinion should be MVP almost every year, and he would be the best quite a few of those years.

I would say Weeks by a landslide. His season was just ridiculous. #2 for me would be Yo. If he had gotten to 200 IP, he may have been the MVP. While one would hope his ERA would have been lower, his peripheral numbers (K/9 especially) are pretty great.

I don't mean to insult you, I just don't think its wise to completely discount UZR or judge people who use it. Look at it like you are doing a hypothetical paper on something. Say there are 3 sources on the topic by 3 authors who all have their own take but for the most part are in line with each other. Is it smart to just completely ignore one of the books? Or would you learn more and would your paper benefit the most from reading all 3 books and using them all to form your own personal opinion? I am simply saying that defense is a complicated beast. Nobody can watch every defensive play in every game every year. Nobody can remain completely objective when judging individual player's defense. UZR is a flawed attempt to objectively rate player's defense. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it better than other available defensive stats. I think so. So to completely discount it all of the time is foolish in my opinion. I like to look at it as another source in addition to my own observations and those I read from scouts and other fans. I acknowledge it's weaknesses and try to specifically identify them for individual players when necessary (where things like defensive positioning come into account). I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Since September 1, he's hit .382/.400/.441 How is that not a change? I doubt he ever becomes a guy who takes a lot of walks. But he's getting some bunt hits, legging out some squib hits and occasionally squaring one up and as usual causing some havoc on the bases. If he just matched his .289/.337/.361 since the All Star game for a full season, he'd be valuable. Since September 1st, he has 36 PA with a BABIP of .464. Since the All-Star Break he has 90 PAs with a BABIP of .421. Rather than saying he has made a change, it is much more likely he has simply had more balls fall in or hit gaps than over the course of his career BABIP of .310. Thats why people don't like to quote such small samples.

No reason to be sorry. I hope I didn't sound frustrated at you, more at BaseballReference. In my opinion, if you are going to come up with a new way to compile an established stat, you shouldn't be able to call it the name of the existing stat. It would be like the guy who came up with OPS+ just calling it OPS because its close enough. In the end its a new stat and to not label it as such is just going to cause massive confusion.

I see it more as if you are trying to measure the value of a pitcher and the defense behind him he has no control over, BRef is going to be closer. If you want WAR to measure the things a pitcher can individually control and the amount of time he is on the field accomplishing them, Fangraphs is going to do a better job.

What fielding metrics do you prefer? I think most people are aware of the shortcomings of UZR, but as far as I'm aware it's the best that's out there for free. Or I guess we could revert back to Fielding Percentage and the good old fashioned eye test. Hey I saw Corey Hart make a diving catch one time on the TV and he is generally regarded as being fast so he's a great RF! I prefer UZR, and the eye test of myself and as many opinions as I can read from around the league. It sucks to go off of reputation and a stat with known shortcomings, but thats about the best you can do at this point. When someone discounts one or the other completely, I immediately discount their baseball and life knowledge. You should be seeking all the tools and resources you can get baseball or otherwise. Not making blanket decisions to follow in every situation.

Aren't you the poster who once saw a bum near 6th street so you now think the walk from the Bradley Center to the train station after a night game is dangerous? Most people make cause and effect assumptions based on their own personal experiences, whether or not they are backed up by statistics or the experiences of the majority of the public is another story. In this instance, I think his opinion tends to be fairly in line with the majority of the public.

I would also prefer a GB pitcher over a FB pitcher, but at the same time I would target guys with a high K/9 as opposed to guys that rely more on their defense. I agree that our defense doesn't help any pitchers, but that deficiency is minimized by a guy like Yo. Webb used to have a good K/9, but I worry that with his decreasing velocity he will be much more reliant on his IF defense to get hitters out. At that point, he may not be a very good fit for the Brewers. But if I had to pick between him and Young or some FB pitchers, then yes, I would target Webb.

Agreed, there are a variety of other factors. I was responding to other posters who were claiming they were sick of the argument that our defense makes our pitching worse. For a GB pitcher, having a subpar defensive If is going to hurt them. Its pretty simple. Thats all I was pointing out.

BR's WAR is crap, well some people think all WAR is crap, but BR's is especially bad for hitting and pitching. Its annoying that there are two sources now.

So? It's not exactly helping him get groundballs. He gives up two flyballs for every groundball in his career while Bush is basically 1 for 1. Speculation on my part, but if anything his height at this point could be making it harder for him to repeat his delivery, perhaps contributing to his walk rate increase.

If a deal ca be reached with Weeks (call it 8 years, $70 million - a $10 milion bonus and $7.5 million a year), then perhaps Fielder can be convinced to take a lower figure (say 8 years, $100 million - $10 million bonus and $11.25 million a year). OK, the Brewers might have to find a new position for Lawrie (if Escobar does NOT improve on a .600 OPS, I think Lawrie's new position will be blindingly obvious), but I'd rather have Rickie and Prince slugging FOR the Brewers instead of some other team.There are some questions about Lawrie handling 2B, so his moving to SS is probably more than out of the question. And I see zero chance as well that Prince would sign an 8 year deal that will pay him less per year than he would make next year in a cost controlled year (and only $0.25 more than he made this year). $7.5 mil a year for Weeks seems reasonable though. That is what Cano makes.

I suspect that Mat hurt his toe on purpose due to a lack of effort. I assume the team will take the appropriate disciplinary measures and bury him on the depth chart for the next 6 years.

I like Webb, but I wonder how successful he would be with the Brewers defense behind him. He was 1-2 in the Cy Young voting from 06 to 08, and Arizona was in the bottom half in fielding all 3 years. The Brewer defense isn't as bad as you make it out to be. McGehee is just a -5 in runs saved vs. average and has a fielding pct. better than league average. Escobar was just a -3. Weeks is still shaky with a -10 and Fielder was a -6. Cain has been tremendous. His runs saved over a full season would be 27 over average. Braun's actually shot into positive territory too at a +5 and so has Hart with a +4. How bad did I make the defense out to be? Regardless, our entire infield defense is then below average from the stats you have provided. This coresponds with the eye test to me so I will go with this, even though I think they are worse than you are making them out to be (and since you actually provided something measureable I can say that to you). Since Webb is a ground ball pitcher, the infield defense is mostly what I care about in terms of his number being effected. Now, a little off topic, but Braun and Hart are above average defensive outfielders? And you want me to take that seriously? Where are you even getting this from, URZ has Braun at -11 and Hart at -7.7. Thats terrible. Back on topic, URZ has our starting infield defense at Prince (-9.2), Weeks (-0.2), McGehee (-5.7), and Escobar (+1.3). I'm sorry, but thats not going to do a GB pitcher any favors and I don't think you need defensive statistics to realize that. I agree that for the most part our pitching just hasn't been very good, and I do think our defense is rapidly improving. However to just discount that aspect doesn't make sense, especially when bringing in the most extream GB pitcher in the game whose velocity has been decreasing.

I like Webb, but I wonder how successful he would be with the Brewers defense behind him.

Yea, his average Fastball speed is 95.5 right now according to pitchfx. And on the 24th, when throwing 57 pitches, his 47 fastballs had an avg velocity of 95.2 mph.

Agreed. I have been very impressed by Mark in the small amount I have seen of him. I think he will get the chance to put it all togeather at AAA to start next year and he will have the confidence of knowing that his stuff can get MLB hitters out. Now when he takes that final step it will be huge. There are no other prospects in the system, in my opinion, who could make a similar impact at the MLB level, especially as soon as he may be up.

Then you really haven't been paying attention for the last 2 years.

I just shuttered at the thought of McGehee playing 2B.

People have asked questions to BA (and others) during the year about whether Mark Rogers is a top 100 prospect. The answer was always no, and you think he's a top 30 prospect? Yesterday Jim Callis came out and said he thinks Rogers is more likely to be a bullpen arm; Keith Law has said the same thing. Callis admitted that maybe he could be a #3 (perfect world, a #2), but this "top prospect in baseball" praise. Heck, BA redid their top 50 during the middle of the season, and Rogers wasn't on that. Neither was Odorizzi, who, as everyone here would admit, is a significantly better prospect than Rogers. Callis has come out and said (right after Odorizzi's no hitter) that Odorizzi is a borderline top 100 prospect - he might make the list, he might not. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that Rogers is now a top 30 prospect. And a guy like Rivas, a cheap, #4 type starter, has virtually no value to the Royals. They have a system so loaded in pitching between Montgomery, Lamb, Duffy, Crow, Melville, and probably a few I'm forgetting (the first 2 are top 20 prospects, the 3rd might sneak into the top 50 and the others have upside) that a guy who can eat innings means nothing. They are going to be looking for another ace, especially since they are trading an ace away. That means the guy they get in return better have upside and a good chance of reaching it, Rivas has limited upside (maybe a 4, more likely a 5/LR), Rogers is viewed as a longshot to be a #2. Sorry, but that's the industry consensus. Heck, that's how Callis and Co. at BA come up with the rankings - they talk to scouts and GM's and ask what they think. The only time I referenced top 100 lists in my post was comparing the White Sox's deal for Peavy to the proposed Brewers' deal for Greinke. I know that their preseason list doesn't mean much, but the value gap here is so large that it's ridiculous.Sorry if you find my opinion on Rogers so rediculous, but if you put so much stock in BA (which I personally don't think is the end all be all, because as others have said TH provides the Brewers rankings for them) it should be noted that Rogers was the #44 prospect in 2006 while struggling in high A based soley off his tools. Now that he has regained those tools and has success in AA, AAA, and hopefully by the end of the year we can say MLB, I don't see how he could possibly not be a top 100 propsect in baseball on BA's list or on anyone else's list. Top 30 may be a little optimistic (though I personally think thats where he is) but I will be disapointed if he isn't top 50. I am about as pessimistic as it comes when talking about Brewers pitching prospects, but I really think you are discounting some of these players based on somewhat questionable sources that shouldn't be considered law.

McGehee will then need to hit the magical 105 RBI benchmark.

People don't mention it because you also usually get salary relief when you trade a nearly FA eligible player for prospects. Additionally, you get more effective salary relief because the cheap prospects you get back are MLB ready or nearly MLB ready and you know what to expect from them vs giving a salary bonus to a 1st or 2nd round supplemental pick who has a very high chance of flaming out. So its really not an advantage for letting players depart.

The Royals would laugh and hang up. That's not even close. Greinke is a 6 WAR/year pitcher making not even close to his market value. Manny Parra's only distinction is that he has the highest career BABIP among pitchers with 350 IP since some guys from the 1870's. He's not a top 100 prospect, he's getting old, and, quite frankly, his command hasn't improved. Add in the fact that it's rather obvious he's fallen out of favor with the organization, and there is no way he would headline a trade for a top 5 pitcher in baseball. Rogers they might be interested in, if only because of his velocity, but Rogers isn't a top 100 prospect either. His command isn't good enough. Rivas is a back of the rotation starter is everything breaks right, more likely a 6th starter/long reliever type. Green and Gindle are throw-ins, and the Royals have better in house options. Gamel is also worthless to the Royals considering they already have Billy Butler, Mike Moustakas and Eric Hosmer to man the corners and the DH spot. No way the Brewers could get Greinke without including one (and maybe both of) Lawrie and Odorizzi. Dayton Moore doesn't need fringe prospects - he has the best farm system in baseball. He would want more premium, elite talent, and there isn't any in that offer.I agree that a Greinke trade would include one of Lawrie and Odorizzi, but the proposed offer isn't nearly as bad as you make it seem. Last years Top 100 list means relatively little at this point in time. Rogers is a top 100 prospect at this point, maybe a top 30. Rivas will be up there as well, not because he has the massive upside of Rogers/Odorizzi, but because he is nearly ready to be a cheap, controlled middle of the rotation pitcher. That is extremely valuable, especially to a team like KC (and of course for the Brewers). So while I agree with your main point, I can't agree with you (and many others) pointing to last years prospect rankings as a reason to be down on certain pitchers in the organization who have taken big steps forward (in Mark's case giant leaps).