Jump to content
Game four! Is this it? Join our game thread! ×
Brewer Fanatic

thebruce44

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,685

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

News

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by thebruce44

  1. thebruce44
    I hope the Brewers can take advantage of this and take on some payroll to get pitching from them. I know we don't want to trade prospects away, but maybe we can give them someone crappy, take on a bad contract, and have them throw in a pitcher to make it worth our while.
  2. thebruce44
    I would add that he is of a handful of pitchers who were given the chance to accumulate over 2000 IPs despite not being very good. No, he isn't the worst pitcher in the league (Soup and Marquis are worse guys who continue to get chances). Still though, for me wins doesn't even enter into the discussion.
  3. thebruce44
    This: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/earned_run_avg_plus_active.shtml or this: http://www.fangraphs.com/careerleaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&type=1&min=1500 (sort by FIP) would have been more effective and would also show that tons of bad players get tons of innings, often masked by their park or defense behind them.
  4. thebruce44
    Besides, their offense isn't that bad. They are in first place with it. Posey is a stud. Had Sandoval hit anywhere near like he did in 09, they would have been better than average offensively. He figures to bounce back off this year. Because they are in first despite their offense doesn't mean it isn't bad. I don't think its terrible, but most metrics would have them near the bottom 1/3 of baseball offensively. No matter how you look at it, they are certainly below average which doesn't bode well year in year out for playoff appearances no matter how great your pitching is.
  5. thebruce44
    Some of the 'worst pitchers in baseball' can and do make 30 starts in a season when their manager manipulates things around to allow them to do so- even when they have not earned those 30 starts. Just saying... Getting 18 wins when you have a 4.5+ era certainly helps skew the numbers. Or routinely getting 12 wins when you are posting FIPs of 4.5-5.25. During those same years, Sheets was lucky to get double digit wins with FIPs in the 3s and 2s (yes, I know towards the end he didn't pitch as many innings). The fact remains, wins is a horrible, horrible way to evaluate a pitcher.
  6. thebruce44
    For being "one of the worst pitchers in baseball", he's sure had a productive career with 131 wins and at least 191 IP for 9 straight seasons assuming he pitches 4 more this year. Amazing a guy that bad will likely go over 200 wins by the time he hangs it up. Even you have to know bringing up wins is just going to be met with eye rolls on this board.
  7. thebruce44
    By your definition Jeffress/Rogers are still rookies.
  8. thebruce44
    I know I am a couple months or so behind, but Uncharted 2 is pretty awesome. I would like to grab Civ 5 and play until my eyes bleed, but I also like talking to girls and the two don't seem to go together well for me. I wish I had more free time for videogames these days.
  9. thebruce44
    Taken in a vacuum, Davis has 0.0 WAR for the year while Garland has 0.6 WAR. So he would have provided less than a single win. (FWIW, BRef.com has his WAR at 1.5. I hate having two conflicting sources).
  10. thebruce44
    Are any managers ever hired on 1 year deals? That seems like it would almost be a slap in the face. Even Macha's 2 year deal struck me as odd.
  11. thebruce44
    John Heyman said the exact same thing on his blog this morning:
  12. thebruce44
    http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Freudian typo on my part?
  13. thebruce44
    Peterson's job is not in jeopardy in any way, shape, or form. Has a Brewers pitcher starting pitcher under-achieved? Attanosio has already put the blame of our pitching woes squarely on the shoulders of the man who deserves it, Doug Melvin. Peterson is one of the strengths of this organization. I'd love to see a link where Attanasio says, or even implies, that our pitching problems rest squarely on Doug. Or are you just projecting your feelings onto someone you know little about?
  14. thebruce44
    Can you tell me who we traded Ben Sheets or Mike Cameron for? Surly you can see a difference between Cam's 2 year deal, Sheets unique injury situation, and a player coming to the end of his team controlled 6 year run.
  15. thebruce44
    False. There are a couple differences. Post 2002 calcs use UZR, pre use Total Zone and positional adjustments are based by decade and from Sean Smith’s positional adjustments instead of Tangotiger. What does that matter, it was already stated that the major difference in value here is coming from their offense anyway. Agreed. Thats why I suggested just using VORP. I really didn't want to get into a debate since Yount's 82 was one of the greatest seasons of all time in my opinion. Kramnoj just seemed to keep responding to me about technicalities that I disagree with.
  16. thebruce44
    False. Current B-ref stats use Total Zone, which does not use UZR, although it correlates well to it. Nobody uses B-ref's value charts.
  17. thebruce44
    False. There are a couple differences. Post 2002 calcs use UZR, pre use Total Zone and positional adjustments are based by decade and from Sean Smith’s positional adjustments instead of Tangotiger.
  18. thebruce44
    I am really not sure what you are getting at. I was simply saying that WAR was calculated differently back then vs today, which it was. I would prefer to look at their VORPs if you wanted to compare Braun and Yount, at least offensively.
  19. thebruce44
    As other posters have pointed out, no, it doesn't apply to the past and present.
  20. thebruce44
    He would be an improvement no doubt, but a 4.55 xFIP the last two years isn't a #2.
  21. thebruce44
    It was disappointing, but they have had episodes like that before. In terms of it not being edgy, I am not sure I agree with that. I mean, the plot centered around a post op tranny. Charlie asked her if they mailed her junk off to China for crying out loud. Hilarious. And the part with him and Frank cracking eachothers backs was a great physical bit. In the end it was a below average episode with a lot of expectations being the premiere.
  22. thebruce44
    It was okay. Felt a little forced, like they had a list of jokes to run through in the allotted time, especially the rap at the end. Its Always Sunny was pretty bad, but I am sure they will hit their stride and it for sure had its moments (none of which can really be posted on a family board).
  23. thebruce44
    I don't have time to type out a more complete post, but this article might point you in the right direction: WAR: It Works http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/war-it-works/
  24. thebruce44
    He still has kinks to work out. Let him work on his change up and location in AAA instead of MKE. At this point, I don't think he is better than a marginal FA, but down the line if given proper time to develop, he will be.
  25. thebruce44
    I really don't remember the year WAR started being calculated in its current form. I was just pointing out the hole in bringing up Yount's WAR compared to Braun's.
×
×
  • Create New...